|  Union Blogs Monday, 06 February 2012 12:18 I don't normally copy things from Newspapers. Newspapers have it hard enough these days just surviving, but this was just too good to not share. It appears to be a letter to the editor or some kind of "guest" column in the Anchorage Daily News Millions of mothers are uninsured, even though a majority of them work, sometimes more than one job. It's wrong when many of the mothers who raise America's children are uninsured and struggle to provide for their families. I am lucky; I belong to a union.
I became a single mother of an 8 year-old son while I was serving in the United States Army. This was a very frightening experience for me. My son's dad was not around to help raise him. After I left the Army, I found a job working for a company where women had no opportunity to advance. I was fortunate to then land a union job. I started work with a 90-day probation period, and on my 89th day I had an accident for which I was fired.
Even though I didn't have grievance rights, my union fought for me. The accident wasn't my fault, but my employer argued I was responsible. Because of my union steward, however, the mediator decided to reinstate me. To begin with, the accident wasn't my fault, and the mediator also pointed out that there were four men who were involved in accidents in their first 90 days and weren't fired. Would I have gotten my job back if I didn't have a union fighting for me? Was this worth every penny of my dues? You're darn right it was. I love my job and I raised my son with no worries. I earn a fair day's pay, decent benefits and have job security. Shouldn't everybody have this?
My son, who is now 24, has few benefits and no job security. I want more for him, but good, secure jobs are scarce. Is there anything wrong with a mother wanting a good life for her child?
All workers should have the opportunity to join a union like I did. The Employee Free Choice Act, a bill currently before Congress, will enable workers to form and join unions. It will penalize employers who break the law, and level the playing field for workers to win a contract. This legislation will put the choice in the hands of the workers and take away the veto power employers have over workers.
The Employee Free Choice Act will make it easier for more moms to join a union and get health insurance for their families. When moms have it better, so does everyone else. Senator Murkowski, please do something for the women who do so much for everybody. Please support the Employee Free Choice Act.
Carol Salandra lives in Anchorage
As a single mother myself, I can empathize. I can empathize even more today than in years past. I've belonged to two unions in the past, and although the Teamsters tried to help out in one job, the SEIU was not exactly helpful in another. I don't think it was the union itself in either case, it was the strength of the shop steward that I had. Some are really amazing and some, leave a lot to be desired. The experiences that Carol had with her union and more specifically, the shop steward, goes to something folks who don't have unions or have terrible shop stewards never know or feel, advocacy. Recently, I found myself in some hot water due to a couple of issues that stem from my supervisor. I contacted the union. Although they do not yet represent me (we're working on that)the shop steward has taken vacation time to assist me. He's provided me background on rules, laws and given me forms to use for all sorts of things. None of which did I have access to in the past. He's said one very powerful thing that has stuck with me since the hot water started to boil, "Management is not your friend." He's right. I know, it probably doesn't sound all that revolutionary, but it was to me. Carol, thank you for your letter or guest column. You have given me something to share and have provided a personal story that shows the power of union advocacy. Carol, thank you. For single moms like me everywhere, thank you. Monday, 06 February 2012 12:18 I went to the Doctor the other day. After the $30 copay, 3 new prescriptions and a Dr's request that I head to Radiology and for blood work for two new tests, I decided that maybe I needed to re-think health care. I have good health insurance. I pay way too much every two weeks, but there is just no choice for me and my family. I have to have insurance, even as inadequate as it is. Today, as I sit typing, I'm thinking about the two phone calls from CVS for me to come by and pick up the new medications and I know I can't. It feels a little odd saying this out loud, or in writing. No matter how I say it or in what venue, it makes me feel like a failure. You see, I can't afford the medication. Can't afford it. The 5 medications I am currently on costs more than $200 a month. I see a Dr. for a chronic condition, monthly. That's another $30. Each time I do see her, she gives me samples to help me make it through the month, but it doesn't. The two new medications I have not picked up were based on the older medicines not working any longer. One new one is $76 for 20 pills. I need 2 a day. This new med, replaces a $20 medication. The other new one, I haven't even had the guts to look at yet. I dropped the prescription and just haven't gone back. I can't pick up the $76 one, what makes me think that the special order inhaler will be the same as the $30 copay for the old one. Clearly, I think it's going to look the same as those 20 pills, out of my price range. I have insurance. I even have "good" insurance, but that sure seems relative from my current position. I still have to make the choice between paying the electric bill or getting the new medication. Kind of sucks, doesn't it? With all the success I've had in my life, nothing really makes much difference at the end of the day when I can't breathe. And, I'm not alone according to CNN, I've got lots of company: By one estimate, 25 million Americans can't afford to cover the gap between what their insurance covers and their medical bills demand. 25 million of us is an awful lot of Americans who have insurance coverage but still can't afford health care. When I was a kid, my dad, a member of the United Steelworkers of America, had fabulous coverage. My chronic condition was treated by a family doctor. There weren't lots of kinds of available treatments, but he was there to at least help make me more comfortable. He updated my immunizations. I went to a dentist regularly. My brother went to specialists for knee care and surgery. I was even able to go to Cleveland Clinic for hand surgery at 18. My parents had excellent coverage which provided excellent . As my child has grown, we've forgone dental care. She's been to the dentist 4 times in her life and she will soon turn 16. We no longer have a family practitioner for regular check ups, not with a $30 copay. My $75 emergency room visits are more cost effective for acute symptoms than consistent care for 6 months. Did I mention, I have excellent coverage? That I pay more than $100 every two weeks for this coverage? And again, CNN notes, I'm not alone: Many people without adequate insurance are also delaying or forgoing medical care until it becomes an absolute emergency, said Dr. David Chin, managing partner of consulting firm Pricewaterhouse Cooper's Global Healthcare Research Institute. I HATE having to forgo care for my child. It makes me feel like a failure. I think, that at my age, I should be able to provide some minimum care. My standards for that minimum were set by my parents, but that kind of care, is just not even possible for me to provide, it's way out of reach. Again, from CNNMore importantly, Collins pointed out that the number of underinsured increased 60% from 2003 to 2007. That compares with a 5.1% increase in the number of uninsured Americans - to about 46 million - over the same period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
"The 25 million [number] can still be an underestimate," Collins said.
What's also troubling, she said, is that the ranks of the underinsured are spreading across income levels and have seen the most rapid increases lately in middle-income households earning between $40,000 to $60,000. Yep, it's troubling. As I think about the new tests and if I can afford to fill the new prescriptions, it's cold comfort to read the Commonwealth fund's report on women and health care: The study found:
* 52 percent of women had any one of four problems getting needed health care because of cost compared to 39 percent of men: did not fill a prescription; did not see a specialist when needed; skipped a recommended medical test, treatment, or follow-up; or had a medical problem but did not visit a doctor or clinic. * 45 percent of women accrued medical debt or reported problems with medical bills in 2007, compared to 36 percent of men. * Women were also more likely to skip tests and screenings: almost half of women (45%) delayed or did not receive a cancer screening or dental care because of costs, compared to 36 percent of men. I don't know what the answer is on Health Care. I know it's not working for me and my family. And from the data, it doesn't seem as if it's working for most women and their families. I do know that I want things to change, because I'm freaking tired of being miserable, worrying and having to choose between breathing and paying for food, phone, electric or just about everything else in life. For me, SINGLE PAYER is the best possible answer for women and the families they support; women like me. But at this point, I'd like to just see a real public option. Maybe, I could even opt out of my employer sponsored health insurance, potentially meaning yearly dental care, an annual pap smear (yeah, I said it, pap) and perhaps, even the ability for me to pick up the phone and decide to go to the radiologist or head to CVS and pick up that new prescription. But, can this Congress grow up and get it done? Maybe, if they listen to West Virginia Senator Rockefeller:
On Thursday, Rockefeller admitted he expects little bipartisan support.
"There is a very small chance any Republicans will vote for this health-care plan. They were against Medicare and Medicaid [created in the 1960s]. They voted against children's health insurance.
"We have a moral choice. This is a classic case of the good guys versus the bad guys. I know it is not political for me to say that," Rockefeller added.
"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice." Bi-partisanship isn't worth the cost to women and families like mine and those worse off. I believe this Congress does have a moral obligation to all of us, but especially the 100 million Americans who make the choice between paying the phone bill, or paying for a prescription. Right now, I'd really like the public option so that I can stop, put down the electric bill, close my eyes, and finally, just breathe. Monday, 06 February 2012 12:18 I'm a single mom. And I've got lots on my mind, yeah, like many of you. I seem to always be worrying about the future. You know like: How do I make the mortgage this month? Do I have to by generic or can I go for the brand name cereal? Oh, no, not the Electric bill? But now, I got this other thing on my mind, college. My kid is looking at graduating. She attends a very small private school in DC on a scholarship (rock on my most amazing kid for getting a scholarship) and can graduate as early as this winter. As proud as I am of this amazing kid, I'm like a lot of parents, I'm worried. I'm worried about how to put her through her top choices, and it appears, students are worried about the same thing according to MSNBC: For many transfers, the financial burden dawned on them after several years. The poor economy and high tuition has already filtered down to high school seniors. A recent survey showed that many don't want to make the same mistake as their old counterparts — they're forgoing costly schools now. I'd love for my daughter to go to her top choices, Stanford or Middlebury, but I can't see how I'll be able to afford more than Ohio State, if I can even do that. And this seems to be the real trend, rising costs for college, across the board. As the economy worsened, less has been given to endowment funds, less to state run schools, even to the county schools. Take Winona State University in Minnesota: Tuition at WSU has increased 85 percent since 2001, from $3,110 to $5,768 per year. An 85% increase in 8 years? How is that even possible? According to the Freakonomics blog,there's a lot of factors, but they boil it down to staffing. Support staff! SNIP
This explanation seems satisfying (intellectually, at least, if not emotionally). But it’s probably also important to consider how much money colleges have been putting into student amenities as well. When I visited my undergrad alma mater a few years ago, the chancellor pointed out that three buildings had gone up in the past decade or so that were each larger than any existing building on campus. There was a library, a convocation center (a multipurpose arena), and a huge student gym. The gym, he said, was a top priority because parents and prospective students increasingly think of themselves as customers, shopping for the most amenities for the best price, and the colleges that didn’t come to grips with this would soon see their customers going elsewhere. I get the support staff increases. With new technologies, you do need new types of staff. When I went to college, we had 3 computer labs on campus and my Apple at each of them always seemed to freeze up everytime I tried to type a freakin' paper, I hear Macs are much better than my old computer lab days, but, I digress. Today, how many kids still rely on the computer lab? How many professors are reading e-mailed papers or papers saved on google docs? As we have moved into the age of technology, strains have been placed on our schools from the elementary level to the highest levels of graduate education. But what do we get from all of this? From the technology to the cost to the education? What do we really get? Indigestion seems to be the answer for me. Indigestion caused by worry. As a single working mom, I don't think I can afford either. Could somebody pass the Tums(r)? Monday, 06 February 2012 12:18 I work. I know, big surprise. You probably thought this was all I did. I have a job and it pays the bills, case closed. Well, not really. I'm going through the process now of being represented by a union, other than my current membership in the Freelancers Union (Hey All You Freelancers!! Love ya!!). I'm looking to be represented because I changed positions in my agency and it looks as if now, I may be eligible to be in the bargaining unit. And I am THRILLED! This past summer, I tried to find out the same information, but didn't know who to contact within my agency to determine if I was in the bargaining unit or not. So, I went the route a lot of folks do, I asked management. I've viewed management as a resource, not necessarily as management. I've believed that they wear many hats and one of the main hats is that of serving as a resource to employees, including being a resource to find information out about union representation. Unfortunately, I was wrong. I have since requested union assistance in being represented. In a matter of weeks, they have pushed for me and others like me to be represented in my agency. They've provided me information on legal rulings and have included me in information they send out to members, and I'm still not a member yet. They are doing all of this work, in hopes that I might be able to be represented by them, to the tune of $299 a year. That's it. $299. That's the membership fee. That's $11.50 per pay. I can't think of anything I pay for that's so small and which I can receive so much for, by just being a member. And now, this brings me to the Employee Free Choice Act. The Hill Blog had a number of quotes from around the US in reference to Employee Free Choice. The number one thing I hear from conservatives when unions are brought up is about Dues. Here's the quote from Grover Norquist (Mr. I-want-to-drown-Government-in-a-Bathtub) The percentage of American workers paying union dues out of their paychecks has fallen from 33% in the 1950s to below 13% today. Fewer than eight percent of non-government workers are in unions.
The union bosses have made it clear that their number one goal is to force more Americans to pay union dues–average about $500 per worker. So, I decided to find out where this number is coming from. I searched Google for Average Cost of Union Dues. Top three results are anti-union screeds. After that, it's a mix of unions and anti-union forces. What's a girl to do? I tried a new search. what are the median US union dues more anti-union crap mixed with union stuff. What happens when you want an authoritative source of information and not anything biased? I'd normally turn to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But this is where it became really interesting. Instead of finding what I really wanted, I found something entirely new and even more interesting than what I originally looked for, I found statistics on race, age and gender for unionized workers. And, I found median income values for those groups and subsets. The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of about 60,000 households that obtains information on employment and unemployment among the nation's civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and over.
Some highlights from the 2008 data are:
--Government workers were nearly five times more likely to belong to a union than were private sector employees.
--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 38.7 percent.
--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian, or Hispanic workers.
--Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.9 percent) and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.5 percent).
Wait, I'm not done: Union Representation of Nonmembers
About 1.7 million wage and salary workers were represented by a union on their main job in 2008, while not being union members them- selves. (See table 1.) About half of these workers were employed in government. (See table 3.)
One of the things that Republicans say when bashing unions is first, DUES, DUES DUES (um, dudes I want to pay MEMBERSHIP DUES for a union the way you, Mr Norquist, want to pay membership dues for your country club. I just get more out of my union, I get advocacy. Do you get that from the country club? Sorry, I digress). As if the concept of paying for a service is scary. I suppose to a Mr. Norquist or Mr. Newt Gingrich or Mr. Dick Cheney (oh, wait, he was a dues paying member of the IBEW, so his word probably doesn't count) that paying for services render is scary because some of the services rendered are things like negotiating, or arbitration, or shop steward advocacy or web sites or... darn scary stuff. Recently, I joined AFGE. No, I'm still not in the bargaining unit, AFGE is now filing suit on my behalf (and apparently, a number of other folks like me who have asked), but I decided I'd at least pay my dues to my local for the services I've already used, like the advocacy of my shop steward. I might not be the kind of person who can or would pay to join a country club, but I am the kind of person who can manage to pay $11.50 per pay to help my local build itself into a stronger union with better and more fabulous services. Most importantly, when I pay my dues, I am one of many, speaking in one voice, the union. What could be more American that that? E Pluribus UnumMonday, 06 February 2012 12:18 Alternative title: Dicke E Dauch, More Evil Day by DayWelcome to the world that has become the United States Labor market. It's filled with companies that pay CEO's hundreds of thousands of dollars and into the multimillions of dollars. From the American Red Cross' Multi-Billion dollar Blood Business to Wal-Mart's sticking it to folks like Debbie Shank (and yes, they were well within their legal right to do so), but what Dick E Dauch did and continues to do, well, it just kind of makes me ill, to the nth degree. Why you might ask, well, I think the Detroit News kind of figured that one out: Since American Axle was spun off from General Motors and reconstituted in 1994, the union negotiates with American Axle, not GM, and does not get the sweetheart deal other UAW workers will get. In fact, Local 235 went on strike for three months last year and lost. It was a cold, bitter dispute, complete with fires in the oil drums. The unionized workers, numbering nearly 2,000 at the time, gave in to deep wage cuts, in some cases from $28 an hour to $14, in exchange for keeping their jobs. Apparently it was not enough. Fewer than 300 union members were working in the plant Monday.
In the meantime, Dick Dauch, the CEO and chairman of American Axle, was given an $8.5 million bonus by his board of directors after the strike and gave assurances to the workers and the city of Hamtramck that he would keep production here. Yes, emphasis is mine. I followed the strike. I was a bit obsessive about it. I posted pictures like that of a 60 year old woman in an officer's chokehold. Or how Republican staffers who were meeting with UAW members about the bridge loans to the auto industry had NEVER heard of American Axle or their 11 week strike. I followed one of my favorite workers Jerd0708, and cross referenced worker pay and executive pay, an issue that resinates with workers from Wal-Mart to the American Red Cross to the guys and gals on the docks. It's the Entitlement Mentality of the highest levels of executives that seals the fate of so many of us who simply want to work. Folks who just want to put in an honest day of work for an honest day of pay. More than ever, I believe in the power of unions, but we need stronger labor laws to make it possible for union workers to rebuild the middle class. We need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act to make it possible for more workers to sign a union card and join a union. Together maybe we can start holding boards of directors, CEOs and other executives accountable for their actions when they give an $8.5 million bonus to Dick E Dauch (I said BONUS here) just for the hell of it. One other thing:We as a nation need to do a better job of ensuring that companies can't just flee one jurisdiction to go to another because somewhere, down the road, doing so might be cheaper (think of what American Axle is doing in moving jobs to Mexico or Kongsberg Automotive moving production into Poland) in terms of labor costs and environmental costs. Again, from the Detroit News: Chris Son, the director of communications at American Axle, called late Wednesday to say that the layoffs are "fallout from the GM and Chrysler shutdowns." He also confirmed that the Mexicans will continue to work as the Americans are out on the street.
"For logistical reasons, a level of production will continue in Mexico," said Son. "At the same time, there will be lower production requirements in Detroit. Other than that, I have no further comment on that matter." Logistical reasons, right. Chris and Dick, if American workers can't buy cars produced with your parts, what's the point in moving to Brazil, Poland or continuing operations in Mexico? If we can't buy these cars, who will? Oh wait, I know the answer, guys like you, right? | |