This Year's Labor Day Parade in Pittsburgh is a 'March For Jobs'

Via Pennsylvania AFL-CIO spokesman Marty Marks:

UNEMPLOYED AND UNDEREMPLOYED WORKERS WILL LAUNCH LABOR DAY PARADE MARCH FOR JOBS WITH PRESS CONFERENCE

Before joining 70,000 union members and their families in this year’s Labor Day Parade March for Jobs, union and non-union unemployed and underemployed workers will speak for working families about critical need for action to create jobs Pittsburgh, Penn. (September 2, 2011) – Coming on the heels of the release of a report from the Keystone Research Center citing Pennsylvania’s unemployment and underemployment rate at more than 13% and a disastrous monthly jobs report showing virtually no growth in the private or public sectors, Jack Shea, President of the Allegheny County Labor Council is calling a press conference before the step-off of the Labor Day Parade to let jobless and underemployed workers speak for working families about the need for Congress and the Pennsylvania legislature to take action immediately to put America and Pennsylvania back to work.

"This year we are going to use the special attention the labor movement gets once a year to give voice to the workers hurt most by the failure of political leaders to take action on creating jobs," Mr. Shea said. "It is time for our elected leaders to stop listening to Wall Street bankers and corporate CEO’s and pay attention to workers who want and need jobs that pay family sustaining wages and spur the kind of economic growth that fuels the American dream," according to Mr. Shea.

Labor Day activities begin at 8 a.m. with a traditional Labor Day mass conducted by Bishop David Zubik at St. Benedict the Moor Church. Unemployed and underemployed workers who want to join the march for jobs are instructed to go to the intersection of Crawford and Bedford Streets prior to the 10 a.m. parade step-off at Center Avenue and Washington Place. The reviewing stand is on the Boulevard of the Allies at Stanwix Street. [Emphasis added]

The Huffington Post picked up on the story and adds the following:

About six Republican politicians were invited to march this year, along with a larger number of Democratic officials. Invited guests include U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (R), U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D) and state Sen. John Pippe (R-Allegheny).

Two prominent GOP politicians who were not invited to march were U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey and Gov. Tom Corbett. When asked what the labor council would do if they said they wished to participate, Marks replied, "We would politely decline their participation."

In fact, the Allegheny County Labor Council has already turned down Joshua Wander, the sole GOP candidate for Pittsburgh City Council. Shea told Wander that the parade was invitation-only and the council had already endorsed his opponent, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Wander is running for Council in District 5 -- currently Doug Shields' seat. He's running against Corey O'Connor. Which of course means he has even less than a snowball's chance in hell of winning versus your average Republican running for a seat in Council.

Who: Union and non-union unemployed and underemployed workers; Frank Snyder, Secretary-Treasurer of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO; Jack Shea, President of the Allegheny County Labor Council; 70,000 working men and women and their families.
What: Labor Day Parade Press Conference
Where: Freedom Corner, Crawford St. and Center Ave. in Pittsburgh
When: Monday, September 5, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

Pittsburgh City Council to proclaim respect for public workers today

Via the AFLCIO:

IN THE FACE OF ANTI-PUBLIC WORKER LEGISLATIVE FIGHTS IN WISCONSIN AND OHIO, PITTSBURGH CITY COUNCIL TAKES A STAND

Council members and Pittsburgh public workers to hold preview of proclamation honoring public workers before Council vote

Pittsburgh, Penn. – On Tuesday, February 22, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Councilmember Natalia Rudiak will preview a proclamation co-sponsored by all nine City Councilmembers expressing support and respect for public workers prior to the Pittsburgh City Council’s regular weekly meeting where it will be on the agenda. Council Member Rudiak and other Councilmembers will be joined by a variety of public workers including firefighters, bus drivers, snow plow drivers, school crossing guards and others for the preview.

The proclamation comes at a time when public workers are under attack in state legislatures across the county, targeted by right-wing and corporate political committees funded by nearly unlimited and undisclosed corporate cash, seeking to roll back collective bargaining rights and half-a-century of labor reforms.

“The right-wing assault on public workers grossly misrepresents facts and tries to lay blame for budget deficits and pension problems at the feet of dedicated public servants who come to work everyday and do their jobs delivering the services that keep us safer, healthier and contribute to the vital functions of government that serve the public good”, said Jack Shea, President of the Allegheny County Labor Council.

“On Tuesday, we will stand in solidarity, not just with the public workers in Pittsburgh, but with all public workers in America, especially our brothers and sisters under attack this week in Wisconsin and Ohio,” Shea added.

What: Preview of Respect our Public Workers Proclamation

Who: Councilmember Natalia Rudiak and colleagues, public workers from a variety of departments and trades, Jack Shea, President of the Allegheny County Labor Council.

Where: 5th Floor, City-County Building, outside of City Council Chambers

When: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 9:30 AM

More On Almire: An Update on Jack Shea

Remember this?

Irate at Rep. Jason Altmire’s vote against the health care legislation, Jack Shea, the president of the Allegheny County Labor Council, said he is considering a challenge the McCandless Democrat in either the primary or general elections.

Well that's not going to be the case. From Politico.com:

Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire is the latest Democrat to dodge a challenge from the left after casting a vote against health care reform legislation last month.

Labor leader Jack Shea, who had been publicly mulling a third-party or write-in campaign against Altmire, told the website pa2010.com that he's decided not to challenge the second-term congressman.

“I’ve tried to be a little bit loose on this race to see what developed, but I am not planning to make a serious push,” Shea told the publication. “One thing is for certain, we can’t let [Republican Mary Beth] Buchanan win the seat. We need a candidate who will be truthful and support the middle class.”

Pennsylvania's filing deadline had already passed, and it would have been difficult for Shea to challenge Altmire as a write-in primary candidate. But he could have done serious damage to the congressman's reelection chances by siphoning votes from Democrats as Altmire competes against Buchanan, a former U.S. attorney.

From pa2010.com:

Shea said he had been in contact with a host of potential supporters since rumors of a campaign surfaced weeks ago—many expressing anger with Altmire’s vote against health care reform and Republican candidate Mary Beth Buchanan’s stance on the issue.

Despite the encouragement, Shea saw the task of getting on the ballot as an independent or launching a successful write-in campaign as too steep a hill to climb.

“I was flattered that so many hard-working people would support me, but I have too many obligations between now and November to mount an effective campaign,” Shea said. “The last thing we need is to do is build another mountain for labor to climb, and that’s exactly what my campaign would be.”

Updated.

Jason's Got A Problem (Part II)

From the newly refurbished Early Returns 2.0:

Irate at Rep. Jason Altmire’s vote against the health care legislation, Jack Shea, the president of the Allegheny County Labor Council, said he is considering a challenge the McCandless Democrat in either the primary or general elections.

Seems that Jason the Dino had a few conversations with Shea that seem to conflict with his vote.

First, there's Jason's weaselly:

Describing Mr. Shea as “a friend,’’ Mr. Altmire said, “The conversation that he is referring to took place in November,'' after Mr. Altmire’s initial vote against the House version of the health care legislation.

“At that time I said, ‘look I’m going to keep at this. I have every expectation that we’re going get to something that I can vote for’ … we didn’t get to a place were I could do that.’’

What conversation? Here's Jack:

[Shea] said that his consideration of a challenge was a response not just to the Mr. Altmire’s health care vote itself but also to his belief that Mr. Altmire had misled him and other labor leaders on his plans on the legislation.

“He didn’t keep his word,’’ Mr. Shea said. “I’m not the only one that he committed to. He told [Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President] Bill George the same thing. He told [USW President] Leo Gerard. … What he said very plainly was, at the end, the final bill, he would be there.

Referring to the failed health care push during the Clinton administration, when Mr. Altmire, as a congressional staffer worked with the administration’s health care task force, Mr. Shea claimed that the congressman had assured him that, “He said he was around [when] they walked away empty handed he wasn’t going to do that again.’’

We know Jason's lost the P-G but has he lost labor, too?

Jason the Dino's got a problem.

More on Joe "The Plumber"

Word has it that my good friend Fred will be talking about Joe Wurzelbacher (erroneously known as "Joe The Plumber") today on KDKA.

Seems that Monsieur Le plombier was in the area yesterday.

Here's KDKA's coverage.

A couple of things to emphasize about Jon Delano's reporting. First off, some local unionized plumbers don't like the fact that Mr Wurzelbacher isn't licensed to be a plumber. Good enough for me. If the licensed practitioners reject the label due to a lack of a license on Joe's part, then he's not a plumber. Hey I helped my father-in-law replace the faucet in the kitchen this weekend. Does that make me a plumber? Of course not. It belittles all the training necessary to get a plumbing license.

So simply put Joe the plumber isn't.

But this is somewhat beside the point. As Jon reports (2:00 in):

The big issue is whether the Employee Free Choice Act takes away the workers' secret ballot in unionizing.

Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity is quoted as saying:

It takes the right of the secret ballot away from American workers when they're deciding whether or not to join a union. It's almost unamerican in many ways.

Jack Shea, president of the Allegheny County Labor Council says otherwise:

It's a lie. They're lying.

Unfortunately, Delano doesn't delve into which one is telling the truth (though in fairness, he does state early in the piece that the bill "would make it easier to unionize companies").

You can thank me next time you see me, Jon. Here's the facts:

The text of HR 1409 is here. The bill would amend National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) with the following:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

Here's the National Labor Relations Act. You can hunt down 29 U.S.C. 159(c) on your own, if you like.

But what does all that mean above? Christopher Beam of Slate writes:

Here's how it works currently: Say you work at a factory and you want to form a union. First, you approach your favorite union and request a bunch of blank cards. (Here's what they look like.) Then you go around to your colleagues and ask them whether they want to sign up. If they do, they sign their name to the cards. Once you get 30 percent of the total work force to sign cards, you're eligible to hold an election on whether to form a union. (Workers usually wait till they get at least 50 percent or 60 percent, just to make sure they will win the election.) You then present the cards to the National Labor Relations Board and the employer. The employer can then either recognize the union right away or request a secret-ballot election, which must happen within 60 days. If more than 50 percent of employees vote for a union, they've got a union. If not, they don't.

And what would things look like if the EFCA passes? Beam:

The essential change of the EFCA would be to allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election. If at least half of the work force signed cards saying it wanted a union, there would be a union—without the rigmarole of a full-blown election.

Workers still have the option of holding a secret ballot election, of course. But, again, as a practical matter, it's hard to imagine why a group of workers, having just won a union, would then also decide to hold an election. Sure, a smaller group of workers—it'd have to be at least 30 percent—could still petition for a secret ballot. But the legislation clearly states that "[i]f the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations … the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative." [emphasis in original]

It's simple: the choice of a "secret ballot" would be up to the employees not the employers. Something you don't hear too much from the media, huh?

Now go back and look at what Phillips said. And now look at what Shea said. Who's right? Since the workers would now have the option for a secret ballot (after collecting the necessary signed cards), it's hard to see how that "right" is taken away from them by the EFCA.

It is taken away from the employers. And maybe that's what got the Americans for Prosperity all in a tizzy.