Keeping employers from using their leverage over the lives of employees to lock unions out of most work places is a key benefit of "neutrality agreements." Whether unions win and workers join union is a vital question in a number of ways.

I’ve written here and here about the attempts of union to organize unorganized workers using “neutrality agreements” in which employers agree to not campaign against unionization.

As Ed Ott, NYC Central Labor Council Director, said at Demos while ago, unions are the engine for helping lower income people to financial security. This was shown to be true recently in an interesting study by the Center for Economic & Policy Research . The study by John Schmitt compared the wages of unionized with non-unionized workers. Union workers make more (yawn?) But a surprising finding – low-wage union workers make much more – 20% more than non-union workers. (Hat tip to Jonathan Tasini for finding this first, by the way).

In addition strong unions help further the progressive agenda in other ways: unions campaign for affordable housing, for education funding and fair tax. The last 7 & ½ years of Mr. Bush’s class war on low and moderate income people harmed all of us: less money for affordable housing, education, higher gas & food prices and stagnating wages and of course, no start on sustainable energy policy. No matter who’s elected president, the struggle to reverse the impacts of the years of Bush looting will require serious struggle. Strong unions would be helpful in that effort and yet –as Andy McDonald of the Service Workers International Union (SEIU) pointed out -- 7 ½ % of private-sector workers are represented by unions; 92 ½ % are not. .

A great terror faced by employees every day is getting fired. In these tough times, employees are being cleared away like fallen leaves. Those of us who work without the protection of a union (almost all of us) are subject to a (in my opinion, pernicious) legal doctrine: employment-at-will which says —more or less – that the boss can fire any of us for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. (In theory, there are limits: age for discrimination, for example, is forbidden; but boy is it hard to prove!)

In my experience, the boss’s freedom to fire workers at whim is the most cherished of prerogatives (But see Ellen Dannin’s post arguing that bosses would be better off without it ). Although the ACLU is against it, the employment at will doctrine is alive and well especially here in New York.

I wrote previously about labor-management neutrality agreements which have been the subject of intense debate among union activists and labor scholars. Under these confidential agreements, union leaders and employers make deals which facilitate union organizing.

“Neutrality Agreements”-- more or less secret deals -- between a union and management involve give and take on both sides. The unions agree to limit their organizing efforts to specific locales, to not campaign against management, and to not strike (under most circumstances). At some sites, Management agrees not to oppose the union’s organizing efforts and to recognize the union where a majority of workers have signed cards asking for union representation. Management gets some stability, some immunity from workplace disruption. Unions get the freedom to organize. Some have charged that such agreements lock out other unions, allow parent unions to dominate locals, and erode workers rights. It’s a difficult balance. At what point does an agreement go too far and align the union with the boss?

To be fair, for a change, I called up SEIU, Unite-Here and a few observer-activists to get their views:

Andy McDonald, an SEIU voice, pointed out that – of the private-sector work-force, 92½% are without union representation. “SEIU is obsessed with addressing the needs of the 921/2 %.” Psychologically obsessed?” Obsessed, he affirmed.

The union song , above, by Florence Reese, underscores the complete divide many of us grew up with between workers and their labor unions and the bosses. Like many things I learned on my parents’ knees, this model of class struggle may be subject to revision. Some of you may know that, as total labor union membership and share of the workforce has dropped dramatically over the last many years, unions have developed competing labor federations: the AFL-CIO rooted in a long complex history and a newer federation Change to Win (CTW) .

Initially the differences between the AFL-CIO and CTW seemed to be about how to organize new workers. CTW unions, like the Teamsters, the Service Employees and Unite-Here wanted to devote more money and resources to organizing new members than the AFL was prepared to. As time has gone by however, it appears that Change to Win has changed in another way. They’ve abandoned the old paradigm of workers vs. bosses and changed. Will they win?

The Service Employees International Union (Andy Stern Pres.) and Unite-Here (Bruce Raynor & John Wilhelm, Co-Presidents) have embarked on a new era of labor-management relations. While their reasons for doing so are clear and understandable (to me at least) not everyone is clapping and there appear to be some very unpalatable outcomes.

In brief, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, (subscription required, sorry)

Two of the nation's largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize.
The agreements are raising questions about union transparency and workers' rights. A summary document put together by the unions says it is critical to the success of the partnership "that we honor the confidentiality and not publicly disclose the existence of these agreements." That includes not disclosing them to union members. [emphasis added by me]

AfterDowningStreet.org has an amazing historical overview on why tomorrow there will be massive demonstrations and labor union strikes all across the country : 122 years of the 8 hour week and end of child labor, 5 years of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, 3 years since the discovery of the Downing Street Minutes, 2 years since the nation-wide immigration rallies of 2006, almost 2 years ago when Nanci Pelosi and Democrats in Congress and the Senate took the impeachment of George Bush for misleading the country to war, "off the table". Yet in one of the most mindboggling examples of the Bush Administration's information war against Americans, May 1st has been declared Loyalty Day.

And here's the thing : You and I know that when it comes down to it, the war against immigrants is a war against labor which is part of a larger attack from the only people who benefit from the other kind of corporate-led violence like the occupation of Iraq.

As my friend Roberto Lovato said earlier, paraphrasing ActUP, "Silence = Death". If you are like me, you hate marches but you go to them because you know that as a symbol of solidarity in dissent you need to go.

So dust off your walking shoes and get your arse to the streets and square tomorrow at 2 or 3pm.

Tuesday’s paean in praise of Jacob Riis’ photography (google images of his work here , wiki article here)and 1880’s discovery of How The Other Half Lives, was given contemporary life by the report of NYS’s Labor Department which has discovered that employers are unlawfully exploiting their workers by not paying them, by paying less than minimum wage, by not paying disability and unemployment compensation etc. Ms.M. Patricia Smith, the Labor Commissioner, who set a bold course as chief of the AG’s Labor Bureau, continues to light fires. “I wouldn’t doubt that 10 percent of the state’s workers are either misclassified as independent contractors or work off the books,” Ms. Smith said. (Jonathon Tasini’s take here )

I see illegal employment everywhere: construction workers, off-the-books domestic workers, delivery people and supermarket baggers. They are working without fair pay in every neighborhood. Have you ever seen any? Will it come as a shock to you that many of those victimized are men and women of color?

Cross posted from DailyKos.

The U.S. has a long history of using its forces and laws to put down Labor. In the late 1800s Pinkerton agents, paid by the DOJ, became famous for infiltrating the Molly Maguires. In the early 1900s, state militias and local police were used to break strikes by breaking heads.

Today, the criminal immigrant isn't an Irish miner; it's a Mexican warehouse worker, meatpacker or hotel maid. And today's Pinkertons are ICE agents working outside their own rules and the rule of law to coddle exploiters and criminalize the exploited.

The latest incident is occurring in Long Island City, Queens, where the Teamsters of Local 805 are working to organize nearly 900 warehouse workers at a FreshDirect warehouse.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Fresh Direct to stop threatening its workers.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president:

Acting on behalf of its more than 1.4 million members, the AFT executive council on Wednesday endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, citing her proven ability to advance our nation's key priorities, and her bold plans for a stronger America.

"Our members have told us that they want a leader they can trust to strengthen public education, increase access to health care, promote commonsense economic priorities and secure America's place in the world," said AFT president Edward J. McElroy. "Hillary Clinton is that leader."

Chris Bowers at Open Left calls it, "the biggest endorsement of the campaign for me so far." Here's a longer quote:

[I hope this post about the changes to No Child Left Behind proposed by Congress proves interesting. It was originally posted on Edwize and written by Edwize blogger Maisie.]

Lest you think that the debate over reauthorizing No Child Left Behind is hard-to-follow/wonkish/a tempest-in-a-teapot or anything like that, note that Jonathan Kozol today entered his 76th day of a partial hunger strike over NCLB.

In protest over that law, Kozol, the widely-published, passionate advocate of educational equality, has taken himself into the realm of serious danger.

He's sick of NCLB. Mandating math and reading tests and punishing schools and students who do not meet their targets is "turning thousands of inner-city schools into Dickensian test-preparation factories," Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page quoted Kozol as saying. It has "dumbed down" school for poor, urban kids and created "a parallel curriculum that would be rejected out-of-hand" in the suburbs.

[I hope this post about the changes to No Child Left Behind proposed by Congress proves interesting. It was originally posted on Edwize and written by Edwize blogger Jackie Bennett in response to a New York Times editorial.]

Every corner of the educational community has protested the consequences of No Child Left Behind, including that the law has narrowed the curriculum and unfairly penalized schools already making progress.

In spite of that, an editorial in the NY Times defends the status quo. Referring to proposed NCLB revisions, the Times complains that the changes will "allow schools to mask failure in teaching crucial subjects like reading and math by giving them credit for student performance in other subjects."

Yet, just one paragraph earlier the Times has this to say: "Faced with poorly educated workers at home — especially in science — American companies are increasingly looking abroad."