|
|
|
|
UPDATED DAILY M-F by 9 a.m. Pacific -- Links to commercial press stories are functional at the date of posting. In some cases, links "expire" when the source would like to begin charging you for old news. FRIDAY,
March 23 -- With bill dead, UW and GSEAC set new
deadline THURSDAY,
March 22 -- State GOP does more damage than
Boeing WEDNESDAY,
March 21 -- Mark your calendars for spring
events TUESDAY,
March 20 -- Despite good Social Security news,
Bush "fix" is in News from previous weeks: March 12-16 -- March 5-9 -- Feb. 26-Mar. 2
FRIDAY,
MARCH 23 The University of Washington and the Graduate Student Employee Action Coalition/UAW have agreed to extend their original agreement to meet and confer with respect to wages, hours, benefits, terms and conditions of employment. This extension will expire on May 28, 2001. UW administration and the union intend to meet and confer during multiple sessions scheduled during April and May with the intention of reaching an agreement on these issues. If no agreement is reached by May 15, the extension agreement provides that the parties will request assistance from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The new deadline comes as "enabling" legislation supported by both parties was inexplicably killed by the State Legislature. That legislation promised to avert a strike should the university not agree to recognize GSEAC/UAW as the academic student employees' (ASEs) sole bargaining representative. The May 28 deadline is the week before final exams for the spring term, which again raises the specter that ASEs could elect to strike at a critical time, possibly delaying the issuance of grades and degrees. GSEAC/UAW is the union for the 1,600 UW teaching assistants, readers/graders and tutors. With responsibility for approximately half of UW's undergraduate education, these workers play a crucial role in UW's educational mission. An overwhelming and growing majority of these UW ASEs have chosen GSEAC/UAW to represent them in collective bargaining with the UW administration. More than 80% of ASEs employed during Winter Quarter 2000 signed GSEAC/UAW authorization cards, while 84% employed in the Spring did so. In the Spring, 92% of card signers took the additional step of signing onto a public statement insisting that UW respect their choice for collective bargaining and recognize the union. Again in Winter Quarter 2001, 80% of ASEs employed signed GSEAC/UAW authorization cards. Despite the mandate for collective bargaining among ASEs on campus, the UW administration has refused to work under the existing legal framework that enables them to voluntarily recognize GSEAC/UAW as the exclusive bargaining agent and acknowledge full collective bargaining rights for ASEs. Under current Washington state law, the UW administration remains free to voluntarily recognize the union as the exclusive bargaining agent for ASEs. In a vote held last fall, members of GSEAC/UAW voted 984 to 164, an 86% majority, to authorize a strike if the UW administration did not recognize and bargain with the union. The strike was to begin on Dec. 5, 2000. In 11th-hour negotiations Dec. 4, the university and the union reached an agreement that recessed the strike planned for the next day. The university agreed to begin negotiating with GSEAC/UAW over wages, benefits, and working conditions of ASEs. The union agreed to work with the university to write and lobby legislation that would confirm that bargaining relationship. In choosing collective bargaining through GSEAC/UAW, ASEs at UW join a growing national movement. Public universities in many other states (California, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, etc.) have recognized ASEs' collective bargaining rights. ASEs on 28 public university campuses in the U.S. -- as well as 20 in Canada -- are organized in unions and bargain collectively with their employers. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board recently extended collective bargaining rights to ASEs at New York University, a ruling that will establish precedent for hundreds of thousands of academic student employees at private institutions across the country. The NLRB decision reads in part "... we will not deprive workers who are compensated by, and under the control of, a statutory employer of their fundamental statutory rights to organize and bargain with their employer, simply because they are also students." For more information about GSEAC/UAW, contact Kristen Intemann, an ASE for the UW Department of Philosophy, at (206) 633-6080.
THURSDAY,
MARCH 22 As the State of Washington and the City of Seattle struggle to come to terms with the unexpected announcement by The Boeing Co. that it plans to move its corporate headquarters, Republican politicians have cynically seized the opportunity to decry the state's "anti-business climate." In seeking to spin the news for political gain, Republicans are not only ignoring Boeing's own assertions to the contrary, but are painting a negative picture of the state's business environment that today is being broadcast across the nation and worldwide. WHAT REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING -- In comments appearing not only in today's state newspapers but in wire reports in the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune and other major national and international newspapers, Republican House Co-Speaker Rep. Clyde Ballard said: "I must say, anyone who is shocked by this decision has not been paying attention. This is a manifestation of a growing anti-business regulatory environment that is strangling our efforts to protect jobs and keep our economy strong." GOP Senate Minority Leader Jim West said, "We've been saying for years that this isn't a pro-business state. ...This should be a major wake-up call to the governor and the Legislature." "We are taxing businesses out of this state,'' said Republican State Sen. Dino Rossi. Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance called Boeing's decision "the direct result of 16 years of Democratic governors making life miserable for businesses." WHAT BOEING IS SAYING -- At Wednesday's news conference announcing the move, Boeing CEO Phil Condit said he was not fleeing anything in Seattle. "This is purely strategic," he said, insisting that separating headquarters from the main operating units will make it easier for each segment to grow. "This is about nimbleness and flexibility." Bob Watt, president of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, appeared to be one of the first people to get the bad news, getting a call from Boeing a full 18 hours before Governor Gary Locke. Watt told the Seattle P-I, "This was not about Seattle or Washington state. It really wasn't about the business climate (here) ... They're making a decision that will allow them to grow in the super long-term future, and I can't really argue with that. I want them to be successful -- everyone does." Boeing spokesman John Dern said there was nothing the state could have done to prevent the move. "This is a much bigger issue than any political concerns," Dern said. Governor Locke: "I talked with (Boeing) Senior Vice President John Warner and he ensured me that (the move) wasn't because of taxes or business climate," Locke said. "It is a fundamental restructuring of the company." WHAT OTHER CORPORATE CEOs ARE SAYING -- "As a company that has been headquartered here for more than 100 years, Weyerhaeuser continues to believe this is a great place to operate a global leader and look forward to our continued presence in the Pacific Northwest," said Steven R. Rogel, chairman and CEO of the Federal Way-based Weyerhaeuser Co. "Seattle continues to attract an unusually large number of corporate headquarters," Washington Mutual Chief Executive Kerry Killinger said, citing the quality of life and a climate of innovation that have spawned or attracted "world-class companies." Jim Sinegal, CEO of Costco (which will now be the state's largest Fortune 500 company based on sales), said he would never dream of moving his corporate Issaquah headquarters. WHAT STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS MUST BE SAYING THIS MORNING THANKS TO SHORT-SIGHTED G.O.P. POLITICAL POSTURING -- "$%!&@$%!"
WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 21
Make sure you bookmark our Upcoming Events page (www.wslc.org/upcoming.htm) and check it regularly for information on what's happening. If your organization is sponsoring an event you would like to have added, please email dgroves@wslc.org with all the information.
TUESDAY,
MARCH 20 The good news is that the latest revised estimate for when Medicare will not be able to pay full benefits is 2029, adding four years to last year's estimate and now projecting the longest period of solvency in the history of the program. The life of the Social Security Trust Fund was extended one year to 2038. In the last four years, the government has added nine years to the life of this trust fund. The bad news is that the Bush Administration is dead set on "fixing" the two programs through privatization, whether they need it or not. "We have only so many years to get the systems back on track," Bush said. He purposefully ignores the fact that the solvency of both programs is extended every year because of the extremely conservative economic assumptions used for the projections. Every year our economy performs at even an average level, the "lives" of Social Security and Medicare are extended. Why is Bush doing this? To perpetuate the alarming myth that something radical must be done to "save" Social Security and Medicare before they go bankrupt. He wants to divert billions from Social Security into "private savings accounts for younger workers," a move that would generate billions in revenue for brokers and investment firms. He also wants to access surplus Medicare funds to help pay for his massive tax cut, a move that could indeed precipitate the "crisis" he keeps telling us about. "The trustees' report makes clear that Republican claims about Medicare's so-called financing crisis are simply an excuse to raid the Medicare surplus to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy," said Representative Pete Stark of California, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. Independent government watchdog groups agree that putting tax cuts ahead of investment in the two programs will jeopardize their futures. "If most or all of the surpluses projected outside Social Security and Medicare are used for a large tax cut — or a combination of big tax cuts and smaller program increases — that will preclude devoting significant surplus funds to strengthen Social Security and Medicare," said Robert Greenstein, Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "That in turn, could render it difficult, if not impossible, for the foreseeable future to enact legislation that restores long-term Social Security or Medicare solvency. The trustees' report shows the folly of enacting a tax cut this large." AFL-CIO President John Sweeney weighed in on the issue with the following statement Monday:
If you have news items regarding unions or workplace issues in Washington state that you would like to see posted here, please submit them via e-mail to David Groves or via fax to 206-285-5805. Copyright © 2001 Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
|