Sure I'll support the right to organize, but not when it's in my house

[janradder]

So Lori Swanson, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota and avowed union backer, is also a union buster.  Last week, her office suspended Amy Lawler, an attorney in the AG's office.  The problem is, Lawler is also a union organizer who is attempting to organize her office.  Of course, Swanson's mouthpiece has stated that the suspension has nothing to do with organizing efforts but does anyone really believe that?

The story of Lawler started in February when  she along with two others representing an organizing committee delivered a letter to Swanson asking that she recognize the employees will to be represented by a union  [the letter can be found in the sidebar of the linked article, along with Swanson's response].  Almost a year before the letter, a majority of attorneys had signed union cards which state that they wish to be represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 (following that initial drive, last spring, a lawyer from the office was fired by Swanson in retaliation for union activity).  Lawler joined organizers quickly after only four months on the job in the AG's office in response to strong-arm tactics from management in the form of a coffee meeting with the head of the office social committee:

"He started talking to me about why we didn't need a union," Lawler said, "how people only need unions if they are lazy and don't want to do work, and if they're not very good at their jobs and they need protection."

Lawler said the attorney claimed union organizers within the office were backed by an outside political faction intent on bringing down Lori Swanson.

Lawler said the same attorney later approached her and other employees, asking them to sign what she described as a loyalty petition.

"The second paragraph is all about how great Lori Swanson is, how she's the first attorney general to graduate at the top of her class, how she's the first attorney general with such extensive public and private experience, how she never brings politics into the office, how she's all around a great leader," Lawler said. "And then the last paragraph is about how we decry the union's tactics, we don't want them representing us and they don't speak for us." [emphasis added]

Following the letter from the organizers Swanson began conducting her own polls of staff regarding their desire to organize, polls which included captive audience meetings (typical union busting strategy, by the way) and neglecting to invite pro-union lawyers to the voting sessions.  After announcing her results, Swanson decried the letter from the OC as an attempt to embarrass the AG and her office.  She also continued to state that the lawyers who work in her office, legally, have no right to organize.

Just days after Lawler went public with this matter, surprise!  She was removed from her job!  No, not anything as garish as being fired, instead, she was placed on "administrative leave."  The reason given was that Lawler did not go through the proper channels in voicing concerns over ethical issues in her job.  Of course it had  absolutely nothing to do with her union activities. Wink-wink.  Deputy Attorney General Karen Olson, who explained to the press why Lawler was removed from her position also told reporters that she has "asked that she [Lawler]  provide to me, by the end of the week, any information she has regarding ethical concerns. And in fact, if she has any ethical concerns, she should report any violation to the Minnesota Board of Professional Responsibility,"

Yesterday, Lawler delivered a 20 page letter in repsonse listing those concerns which she says she previously raised with supervisors. 

In addition, Lawler highlighted eight specific incidents when other attorneys in the office faced their own ethical challenges. . . .

Lawler described an incident when an attorney in the AG's office refused orders to add inaccurate statements to a consumer's affidavit.

In another case, she says an assistant attorney general was criticized for removing false statements that a supervisor had inserted in affidavits.

Current and former staff attorneys who asked that their names not be used, confirmed both incidents to MPR News.

Lawler says another attorney was ordered to invite consumers to a meeting with the attorney general, but the attorney was not allowed to tell those consumers that the event was also a press conference. That incident was also confirmed by a former attorney.

Other allegations include a supervisor asking an attorney to make blog post lauding the Swanson administration, and employees being hired with the explicit instruction that the position required loyalty to Attorney General Swanson, and that those advocating for the union were not being loyal.

Swanson responded to the letter by again stating that it was an attempt to embarrass her office and repeating that state law prohibits attorneys in her office from forming a union.  Today, to show what a great supporter of unions she is, Lori Swanson spoke at a picket line of members of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 who were protesting a change in insurance plans for retired members.

Following the Local 49 event, Swanson was asked if she'd been getting a bum rap on unions.

"I think I've got a great relationship with the labor unions in Minnesota" she said. "I work incredibly hard in the office for the working people of Minnesota and and for all ordinary Minnesotans. And I'm going to keep doing that, keep fighting for the people of Minnesota and keep fighting for ordinary people."

She was also asked about the recent allegations of unethical conduct in her office.  Swanson responded by saying:

"An employer can't respond to anonymous allegations from anonymous former employees or disgruntled employees," she said. "That puts the employer in an untenable situation. If you want to give me names of people and specifics, I'd be happy to talk to you."

I really shouldn't be shocked at any of this but I can't help it.  I am.  People who claim to represent workers shouldn't then go out and trample those workers' rights to organize.  People who claim to support labor, who walk around flaunting their union credentials shouldn't then go and piss on their own employees when they try to form a union. 

This is an issue which is deeply personal to me.  Eleven years ago, I worked at PICA (Parents in Community Action) Head Start in Minneapolis and after two years of seeing how the staff was treated and tired of not getting raises while the director saw her salary double, I and a group of co-workers decided to organize.  For my troubles, I was fired (along with another employee who was seen signing a union card).  Eleven years later and admitting to nearly a dozen unfair labor practices (which included my firing), PICA Head Start in Minneapolis still has no union.  And they never will have a union because most the politicians on the left, when it really comes down to it, couldn't give a crap about labor except for the money they get in campaign contributions.

When I was fired from Head Start, the labor endorsed DFL mayor, Sharon Sayles-Belton, sat on the PICA board.  When I met with her about my situation she did not look at me once.  Her main question was whether or not Head Start could function if the employees formed a union and was shocked that other Head Starts (like the one in St. Paul) were already organized.  Paul Wellstone, union supporter, man of the people and savior of the left, would not support us.  After months of negotiating he finally sent a letter to the president of the labor union (not to us, the workers, but the head of the union) saying that, in theory, Head Start employees had the right to organize and that he supported that theoretical right.  Martin Olav Sabo, another labor endorsed candidate, would not even agree that we had the right to organize.  The only Minneapolis or Minnesota politician who did anything was Mike Freeman who was Hennepin County Attorney at the time.  The minute he heard about our situation, he sent a letter to the director of Head Start informing her that violating federal law (by firing a labor organizer) was not an offense his office would take lightly and was a violation of Head Start's contract with the county  which could result in the loss of said contract.  He also sent a letter to the employees informing them of their right to organize.

It really depresses me to hear about cases like Amy Lawler's.  It takes incredible courage to join an organizing committee and it's such a huge risk to put your own neck out on the line.  Her act of courage lost her her job.  DFLers should be counted on to support organizers.  They shouldn't have to be asked and begged and pleaded with to recognize their employees' right to organize.  If they really are pro-labor, they should  show it.  But they don't because when it comes down to it, they aren't.  But next election cycle, you can be sure  Lori Swanson will get that labor endorsement, and she'll go out and talk about how much she fights for the working Minnesotan and how  much she supports labor and all their causes, how she feels for them and how much she helps them in their struggles.  Just as long they don't come into her house.

Comments

[arkuat]

I suppose the idea that attorneys who practice law on behalf of the state ought to be represented in contract negotiations by a working-class union isn't any weirder than, say, public schoolteachers...

waitaminnit. It *is* weirder than that.

When you look at a situation like this, don't you ever worry about corporate executives organizing a union to negotiate for their stock-option plans, bonuses, and golden parachutes? Or do you think that would be just fine and dandy. I know the Bar Association doesn't negotiate contracts for its members anymore than the AMA does, but still.

I guess when the lawyers that work for the state consider themselves working-class, that's just progress toward the classless society? or?

[janradder.livejournal.com]

One of the problems with the labor movement today is that, for the most part, it refuses to branch out from the idea that only blue collar workers need to organize. When it began, the vast majority of American workers were blue collar. That's not the case today. Although I don't have the numbers to back me up, I think that it's safe to say that most (or at least many more than in the first half of the 20th Century) Americans work in white collar jobs now. Labor has not adapted to that change (or at least not quickly -- some unions are beginning to see white collar employees as an untapped resource, but not many). In the meantime, union membership has steadily dwindled and diminished. Labor needs to start adding back to those rolls from somewhere.

You're analogy of corporate executives to state lawyers is kind of off. This is still an issue of management versus employees, not executives looking to stick it to the people.

My main point is that Democrats can be just as anti-labor as the right. It's just that no one calls them on it (the AG's strategy, so far, has been straight out of the union busters handbook).

[arkuat]

You're right, my analogy was off. Your analysis of the problems of the contemporary labor movement was spot on.

But gosh, still I worry about the labor movement expanding (as it rightly ought to do, having shrunk so much in recent decades) in the WRONG direction. At least those law-school grads chose the right union to represent them, the AFSCME. I honor that union and the labors of their members, but at the same time I'm glad that people who work at the job I've been working at (substitute teacher in Oakland, California) are with the UAW and the AFL-CIO.

There are actual impoverished workers in this country who are left outside of union-organizing efforts. Many of them because they are undocumented immigrants. I understand that the labor movement needs money too, and not just people. But still this doesn't leave me wondering whether or not the AFSCME (I haven't checked recently) is supporting a liberalized immigration policy while at the same time pursuing high-dues-paying locals and leaving those immigrant workers out of their organizing efforts.

I know it's complex. A bunch of Minnesota state lawyers in the union could help with lots of problems the AFSCME needs to deal with in California, Texas, New York, Illinois, etc.

But this brave new world of union organization just isn't the world that I grew up in, and I need to think about the things that you've pointed out to me.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, another deep problem the labor movement has and another reason for their dwindling rank and file numbers is that they do not direct enough resources or effort into organizing. Starting pretty much in the early 80's after Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers unions shifted their focus from growth to holding onto what they already had (and at the same time capitulating to management whenever asked). Because of that change in philosophy, locals, for the most part, have not been expanding their numbers but have been seeing losses. Of course, organizing itself is an incredibly daunting task. Labor law has not changed since the 40's when it was actually weakened by Republican lawmakers. While it is technically illegal to fire employees for organizing, ban organizing from the work place, grant raises or hold meetings timed to discourage union interest among a myriad of other tactics typically used by union busters, the only consequence levied against an employer who engages in unfair labor practices is that, several years after the fact, they are forced to admit what they did with a "promise" not to do it again and offer any fired employees their job back (with back pay for the time that they missed). At that point, the employer has lost the battle in court but won the organizing war -- there is still no union in place. Because of how unfairly things are stacked against unions, very few locals are willing to devote the time, energy, money, and manpower needed to run successful organizing drives. Two unions which are exceptions to this in that they both devote large portions of their budget and are very successful at organizing are SEIU (the Service Employees International) and UNITE HERE (the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees and Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union who merged in 2004). Both unions actually do a lot in organizing undocumented immigrants. Unfortunately, not many other unions do. Sadly, I do not hold out much hope for the labor movement. There are way too many problems in the leadership and labor laws in our country are too weak. I do like what has happened in the past few years with several unions (SEIU, UNITE HERE, the Teamsters, the United Farm Workers, among others) breaking off from the AFL-CIO to form the Change to Win Federation. Their break really may be the shot in the arm that labor desperately needs.

Sorry for the long rant -- organizing is one of my hot button issues and I tend to ramble on when the topic comes up. I was also a substitute teacher both here in Minneapolis and in Connecticut. It's a hard job that doesn't get a whole lot of respect.