Hicks released a statement praising the City Council’s decision on May 19:

“We are one step closer to making history in Los Angeles by adopting a comprehensive minimum wage policy that will change the lives of hundreds of thousands of hard-working Angelenos. The City Council’s action today creates a path for workers to succeed and gives our economy the boost it needs to grow.”

But early last week, Hicks released another statement following his request for union exemption:

“With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them. This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing.”

The L.A. Times came out in full swing against the request, calling the request “stunning” and “hypocrisy at its worst”:

“No, employers with a unionized workforce should not be allowed to pay less than Los Angeles’ proposed minimum wage. It’s stunning that after leading the fight for a $15 citywide minimum wage and vehemently opposing efforts to exempt restaurant workers, nonprofits and small businesses from the full wage hike, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is now lobbying for an exemption for employers with union contracts. That’s right — labor leaders are advocating that an employer should have the right to pay union members less than the minimum wage.

 

“This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it plays into the cynical view that the federation is more interested in unionizing companies and boosting its rolls of dues-paying members than in helping poor workers.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the director Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, provided insight on why union would campaign aggressively for a minimum wage hike and then request to be exempted:

“Although the union-funded Raise the Wage campaigned so vociferously in favor of a $15.25 minimum wage, unions are seeking exemptions from the higher wages for their members. The exemption, or escape clause, would allow them greater strength in organizing workplaces. Unions can tell fast food chains, hotels, and hospitals that if they agree to union representation, their wage bill will be substantially lower. That will persuade employers to allow the unions to move in. …

 

“Once the higher minimum wage bill is signed into law, with the exemption for unions, then organizing becomes a win-win for employers and unions. Unions get initiation fees of about $50 per worker and a stream of dues totaling 2 percent to 4 percent of the workers’ paychecks. Employers get a lower wage bill.

 

“The losers in this scheme are employees, who have to pay union dues out of their paychecks. Jobs become more scarce as wage levels rise and some less-skilled workers become unemployed.”

The labor contract between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association expired in June, but the union saw trouble coming.  And one of the first moves for labor was to rally the lobbyists.

After spending the last couple of years lobbying against taxes on Obamacare health care benefits and a proposal to expand U.S. exports, the union turned its efforts to coast contract negotiations in the second quarter of 2014, according to federal records.

Few people were aware that a protracted battle was imminent that would stack up ships in the harbor and hamstring major companies including Wal-Mart and Honda.

The contract lobbying accounted for part of the $230,000 the union spent on lobbying in Washington in 2014, records show.  

Overall, the ILWU has spent $3.85 million on lobbying since 1999, employing both its own in-house lobbyist and sometimes using an outside firm for extra help.

Until it quit in 2013, the ILWU was part of the AFL-CIO. In 2014, other longshoremen’s unions still affiliated with the AFL-CIO were helped by it spending an additional $380,000 on their behalf. The AFL-CIO also lobbied elected officials on a broader spectrum of issues that benefited the West Coast laborers, although not directly.

The ILWU long relied on the larger union’s PAC, the International Longshoremen’s Association AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education, with a $10 million balance, to carry its donations. As such, it has spent a paltry $15,600 of its own money on donations since 1990, with 92 percent going to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Pacific Martime Association

ILWU’s lobbying influence and spending far outstrips its foe, the Pacific Martime Association. PMA’s membership is composed of carriers and terminal operators, who use the group to negotiate labor agreements with the ILWU.

PMA hasn’t spent a penny on disclosable lobbying since 2008, when it shelled out $110,000 to lobby a failed bill regarding an adjustment of pension plans.

Between 1999 and 2008, the PMA spent $530,000 on lobbying, making it a small player in Washington politics.

Rather than lobbying, the PMA has focused its spending on $141,000 in campaign donations to individuals and PACs since 1990, over 90 percent of it on Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Change of arena

During the recent dispute, U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez threatened both sides with a change of arena: The parties would have to head to Washington for further debate.

That trip was circumvented by an 11th-hour agreement that still needs to be ratified by both sides. The membership could vote on the changes as soon as April, although nothing has been set. The accord for now allows a backlog of ships to begin unloading and circumvents a work stoppage.

The ILWU, though, faces a tough future. Not only are unions facing diminishing support nationwide, but the ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, which today unload 70 percent of cargo on the West Coast, most coming from Asia, face competition from the expansion of the Panama Canal.

The project is expected to be completed in early 2016. It will allow the canal to pass through larger ships with what is in many cases a more direct – and possibly cheaper – route to the East Coast for Asian cargo.

The volatility of labor relations on the West Coast has always made shippers queasy. But the high volume of the ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach gives them the ability to keep costs lower than their competition in the Gulf ports.

“In the short term, they have so much clout at Long Beach and L.A. they can lower rates in short term to get business,” said Anthony Ross, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Lubar School of Business. He is the author of a report that examines the impact of the Panama Canal’s expansion.

He projects the work climate on the West Coast, combined with increased manufacturing in South America, means that “if someone wants to do business in the U.S., they will want to use the Panama Canal. And they will be drawing trade from Asia. And if they are exporting to Asia, they will also use the Panama Canal.”

Ross said union leadership for the U.S. ports on the West Coast has been “playing a game for so many years without thinking how to be efficient, but rather how to be the fat hog in the race. And thinking they can do whatever they want to do is shortsighted.”

Shipment diversions

Even during the recent snafu, importers diverted some of their shipments to East Coast ports.

Pundits are already wondering about the extent of the damage the most recent trouble may have caused.  An opinion piece in the Journal of Commerce on Sunday noted:

“What we will now see is a significant reaction from importer and exporter companies. Not all cargo can avoid the West Coast — not by a long shot — but unlike 2002 when many C-Suites were blindsided by the 10-day lockout, this time there is complete understanding of the risks and a full realization that, though it may be five years in the future, they will be going through this all over again unless long-term changes in their supply chains are made starting now.”

The ILWU represents 59,000 workers, including 20,000 employees at 29 ports running up the West Coast, from San Diego to Bellingham, Washington. Its territory includes the two busiest ports in the United States, Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The PMA says laborers make an average of $147,000 a year. The ILWU  contends that limited hours make that figure around $83,000.

Silvia Lopez is a quiet, thoughtful 15-year Gerawan Farming employee, and the de facto leader of thousands of Central Valley farm workers who have been protesting for nearly a year to oust the United Farm Workers union from the farming company.

Seven hundred Gerawan farm workers took a day off without pay and descended on Sacramento Wednesday to attend a meeting at the Agricultural Labor Relations Board.  Then they walked to the State Capitol to meet Gov. Jerry Brown.

Six of the farm workers tried to ask Brown to intervene with the ALRB to allow them to vote on whether to keep or oust the UFW from Gerawan Farming.

“Jerry Brown, we want an election at Gerawan Farming,” Lopez said, as she approached the governor’s office.

While waiting in the Capitol hallway outside, one of Brown’s employees poked her head out and asked, “Are you guys with the UFW?”

“No, we are against the UFW,” Lopez said. “We are farm workers with Gerawan Farming. And I am Silvia Lopez.”

But the governor didn’t respond. Instead, to talk with the workers, he sent Martha Guzman-Aceves, the Deputy Legislative Secretary for agriculture, environment and natural resources.

From Guzman-Aceves, Brown's negative message was loud and clear. She is a former Legislative Coordinator for the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO. She was co-founder of three non-profit organizations under the name, the Communities for a New California. It describes itself as “committed to empowering underrepresented communities in California’s Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley and South East Desert. CNC works to promote economic prosperity, community health, and accessible and accountable government with election and policy campaigns. CNC organizes communities around the issues that matter most to them through localized direct education activities, earned media, and training.”

Meeting

The meeting with Guzman-Aceves lasted 45 minutes, during which Lopez told the story reiterating that the workers don’t want and don’t need the UFW at Gerawan Farming. She told Guzman-Aceves how she personally collected 90 percent of the workers’ signatures, but they were rejected by the ALRB.

The workers recounted the UFW harassment, and showed Guzman-Aceves Lopez’s swollen wrist.

Guzman-Aceves said she would call the ALRB area representative in Visalia. But Lopez said that would do nothing, as ALRB’s Visalia regional director, Silas M. Shawver, is the official who rejected the signatures, and has fought them every step of the way.

“Would you not like me to call him?” Guzman-Aceves asked.

Lopez explained again that they were there seeking intervention from the governor. “There’s no recourse for us. That’s why we are here,” she said. “We just want an election.”

But as Guzman-Aceves stood up to indicate the end of the meeting, Silvia Lopez shook her head and said, “Jerry Brown is not coming.”

UFW response

“The ALRB issued a 12-page report which dismissed the workers' petition,” said UFW communications director, Maria Machuca, when I called her. “It was just a small group, the petition, and included forgeries and company involvement, which is illegal.”

“The ALRB invalidated the Gerawan decertification petition based on illegal employer involvement,” Machuca added in an email following my call. “In its review of the petitions signed by employees, the ALRB found a substantial number of forged signatures.  Nothing demonstrates more disrespect for employees than forging their signatures on a legal document.”

The ALRB decision Machuca referred to was issued Sept. 25. “This Petition is invalid because is has not been accompanied by an adequate showing of interest,” the decision said. “In addition, the Petition is being dismissed because there is no reasonable cause to find the Petition presents a genuine question of representation.”

Ironically, because the workers were not represented by a union, they could not petition to get rid of the union.

Coming to Sacramento

Earler in the day, Lopez led 700 polite workers holding signs that said, “No UFW,” “Our Jobs, Our Choice,” and “Let us Vote.”

Despite the calm crowd, Lopez pointed out UFW infiltrators. Lopez told me she had an encounter with a couple of UFW representatives as the group’s seven buses arrived and parked on 10th Street in front of the Capitol. One of the UFW men grabbed and twisted her wrist and demanded to know who paid for the buses.

Lopez said the UFW men then tried to get the bus drivers to tell them who paid for the buses. Getting nowhere, they called some of the workers — excuse the word, but it's important to quote it directly — “wetbacks,” and threatened to call immigration law enforcement.

Despite the aggression, Lopez welcomed the men to join her should they change their minds about the UFW.

As to the buses, Lopez told me that they were paid for by a generous donor after he heard her interview on the Ray Appleton radio talk show Tuesday. The buses carried the 700 protesters from the Fresno area to Sacramento.

Agricultural Labor Relations Board

The hundreds of farm workers assembled in front of the Sacramento Convention Center on J Street while Lopez and others met with a representative from the ALRB, located across the street. Lopez said they would not let her into the ALRB board meeting in progress, and instead had her communicate through an ALRB employee.

“The UFW is not offering anything,” Lopez said. “The ALRB is the same — they are just up there,” she said, gesturing 20-story building across the street (pictured nearby).

Lopez was only asking for the opportunity to vote on whether the Gerawan employees would allow the UFW to represent them, or not. The ALRB has denied this request, despite the 3,000 signatures Lopez collected for a petition to decertify the union and allow them to continue working as non-union employees.

UFW and ALRB

In order to breathe new life into the moribund union, many in the farming community claim the ALRB and UFW have joined forces to boost the union by targeting one of the biggest non-union farming operations in the state. Should they succeed in unionizing Gerawan Farming employees, adding the 5,000 farmworkers would double union membership, and certainly boost the ALRB’s status.

The UFW is a shadow of what it once was. With approximately only 3,300 union members, the UFW needs money and members to survive. Earlier in the year, I wrote about Senate Bill 25, a bill by Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, targeting six of the largest non-union farming operations in the state.

Gerawan Farming’s story depicts a state government seeking to encroach on private sector business. Owner Dan Gerawan told me in August, if SB25 was signed into law, he could lose his business and thousands of his workers could lose their jobs.

He said the real motive behind SB25 was to target his 5,000 workers, as well as other large farming companies’ workers, to force them into the UFW in order to immediately double the union’s size. SB25 was not passed this year, but will be taken up next year.

Gerawan Farming

The UFW won an election to represent Gerawan Farming's workers 23 years ago. But after only one bargaining session, the union disappeared and wasn’t heard from for more than 20 years.

Last October, the union reappeared to impose a contract on Gerawan Farming and its employees — without a new vote of the workers.

Every Gerawan worker said the company offers the highest paying employment package in the industry; the workers don’t need or want the union.

Belen Lopez, Silvia’s daughter, said she goes to college and was working as a cashier for $8.00 per hour. But she quit that job and went to work in quality control at Gerawan Farming, starting at $10.00. Belen said Gerawan pays bonuses and allows her a flexibility to meet her school schedule. She and the other workers said Gerawan Farming allows all the time off they need, and allows the workers to decide among themselves who works, as long as the production needs are met.

The right to vote

“Government, we are here of our own free will,” yelled one farm worker as he stood in front of the ALRB building, looking up to the 19th floor. “We are here and we want the right to vote!”

“We don’t want the union — we want the right to vote. We want to be heard!” Silvia Lopez yelled into the microphone.

Lopez said she personally gathered more than 1,100 workers’ signatures in only three days. And it’s not an easy task. Signature gatherers must wait until workers are on break to even approach them, and use the time to explain the petition and get signatures. She eventually gathered more than 2,800 signatures, but the ALRB denied most of them, claiming the signatures were forged, as I wrote in “Farm workers fight UFW unionization.”

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — California legislators are routinely approached by special interest groups to carry legislation—this is not news. The news is what that legislation is, and who it benefits.

An Assembly Concurrent Resolution was in the Labor Committee Wednesday. Normally, resolutions seem meaningless, or feel-good, but the “Justice for Janitors in California” is no meaningless piece of legislation. This is advocacy and even smacks of campaign fodder.

ACR 155, by Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Pacoima,  is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union — United Service Workers West.

The SEIU explained in the bill:

“In California, SEIU United Services Workers West (SEIU-USWW) represents 18,000 janitors in Sacramento, the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. The majority of these workers are recent immigrants. Through past contract fights janitors have lifted wages out of poverty, achieved full employer-paid family health insurance, job security, full-time work opportunities, training programs and worker retention.”

But don’t think they are being altruistic. The bill continues:

“SEIU-USWW has joined with the cleaning contractors and their clients to create programs to work towards improving the industry as a whole. The Building Skills Partnership (BSP) helps immigrant workers obtain language and computers skills through worksite-based classes. The Maintenance Contractors Trust Fund (MCTF) works with the state to help enforce labor laws,” 

Before the Assembly Labor Committee Wednesday, Fuentes, the same legislator who recently pushed through a legislative resolution for National Coupon Month, said that his resolution was “to recognize the importance of janitors’ struggle in California.”

“Janitors deserve decent wages,” Fuentes said. “We need to fight for justice and equality for all working families.”

The committee room was filled with people wearing SEIU-USWW T-shirts, and several witnesses spoke in Spanish in support of Fuentes’s bill, with the help of a translator.

A succession of labor union representatives spoke in support of ACR 155, including the SEIU, California Labor Federation, the Peace and Freedom Party and Bill Camp, a notorious Sacramento AFL-CIO representative.

Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, told of how his grandfather worked in the fields for many years, then later as a janitor, a story he often repeats in committee hearings.

But as Alejo told about the injustices of working as a janitor, he never acknowledged that it was his grandfather, an immigrant, who made it possible for Alejo to grow up in California, attend California public schools and graduate college and law school. He never did explain what the injustice is by working as a janitor.

Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada, D-Davis, spoke in Spanish to the union workers without the translator, and then complimented Camp. “You are a labor warrior for us all,” Yamada told Camp. “I saw you on the front page of the Sacramento Bee with zip ties on your hands,” Yamada added, smiling.

“For over two decades, SEIU’s Justice for Janitors movement has helped poverty-wage workers achieve a better life. Using market-wide master contracts, SEIU has organized 225,000 janitors in more than 30 cities throughout North America.”

Within the bill, the SEIU described the history of “Justice for Janitors Day”:

“The original Justice for Janitors Day was established after janitors in Los Angeles organizing for dignified wages and affordable health care were beaten by police during a peaceful demonstration on June 15, 1990. The incident generated intense public outrage and resulted in the cleaning contractor recognizing the L.A. janitors in a union. In remembrance of that monumental day, SEIU janitors and supporters take action every June 15 in cities nationwide.”

Watch for additional legislation, or contract disputes about beefing up pay, benefits or pensions for SEIU janitors.

By Katy Grimes

The Legislature appears to have killed one more attempt to reel in the out-of-control high-speed rail checkbook. But despite facts, numbers and alternatives to the nearly $100 billion project, Democratic lawmakers appeared to be useful tools in the high-stakes game of rail bucks.

After spending more than $500 million on nothing, the plan no longer represents what the voters approved in 2008.

AB 1455, by Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, was on the agenda Monday in the Assembly Transportation committee. And once again, open disdain for any accountability of rail spending was obvious, despite her urging fiscal responsibility for the health of everyone in the state.

“This is deja vu–I was here one year ago with a similar bill,” Harkey said. Calling the rail plan “Cocaine for the train,” and “crack for the track,” Harkey once again explained that there is no funding source for the train system and it is just a nifty idea.

“The original $43 billion price tag has more than doubled, there is no private money, and the feds are not coming through,” Harkey said. “All that remains is a restricted bond, of which $950 million is allocated to regional rail, and $9 billion for high-speed rail.”

“The federal government and Democratically controlled Senate are not sending us high-speed rail money,” Harkey said. “Cap and trade revenues don’t exist, which is supposed to be about emission reductions anyway.”

“There is no ridership model,” Harkey continued, “no cost analysis, and the High-Speed Rail Authority claims that it will cost 10 cents a mile, when in Europe the cost is 40 cents per mile.”

Harkey added that there are no right-of-way agreements, a crucial step in the building process. For land owners in the way of the track, purchase agreements must be made to buy the land. But Harkey has repeatedly said that no such agreements exist yet.

Agreements with existing rail companies also need to be worked out.

“The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the State Auditor, and U.S. Government Accounting office warn against it,” Harkey added. “And, it needs a subsidy. All trains have subsidies.” But the legislation and bond initiative promised “no state operating subsidies.”

Harkey reminded the committee that Californians can get high-speed travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles on Southwest Airlines.

“What we need is water, power, roads and dependable rail from county to county. It won’t pay for itself,” Harkey said. “This will create more unemployment in the Central Valley–there is no reason to cut through prime farm land. Send the bill back and ask voters if they want to spend the money for regular rail instead.”

AB 1455 would “reduce the amount of the indebtedness authorized by the act to an amount not less than the amount contracted at the time of the reduction or to repeal the act if no debt has been contracted. This bill would reduce the amount of general obligation debt  authorized for high-speed rail purposes.”

According to Harkey, the bill makes use of a little known section of the California Constitution, Article XVI, which allows the Legislature to repeal uncontracted bond debt.  AB 1455 would repeal the remaining $9 billion in available state debt funding for the project, but allow $950 million to be used for local and regional rail projects.

 The voters were sold a lemon

“The voters were deceived,” Harkey said. “The project lacks sufficient private, public or debt funding to complete even a requisite operating segment, as required under Proposition 1A.”

“California is struggling with long term deficits and debt,” Harkey added. “The governor claims we need more taxes; our existing infrastructure is in dire need of extension and repair; and voters are suffering from buyer’s remorse.”

Just as happened with Republican Sen. Doug LaMalfa’s recent legislation to put high-speed rail back before voters, facts and data were not enough to pass the bill.

With the support of the City Council of San Juan Capistrano, the Kings County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the San Diego Board of Supervisors, Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall,  Burlingame City Council members and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, it was clear that the momentum is there to stop the existing high-speed rail plan, and either modify it as Harkey suggests, or take the entire plan back to voters.

Testimony for Harkey’s bill was strong. “This is a poor investment,” said Michael Bronner, a Burlingame city council member. Bronner testified that he is an investment banker as well as a council member, and has to make decisions about other people’s money. “None of the current analysis was available in 2008. This is just a more comfortable trip for the wealthy from San Francisco to Los Angeles.”

“This project screws our kids,” said William Grindley, who worked extensively on the high-speed rail financial reports.

Big-Labor Opponents

Opposition was predictable. The High-Speed Rail Authority testified that Harkey’s bill would end the high-speed rail project.

“This is one of the very few ways the Legislature can create jobs and spur the economy,” said  Ray Trujillo with the State Building and Construction Trades Council, a labor union for construction workers. “Thousands of high paying jobs,” he added. “The alternatives to High-Speed Rail–runways, highways, roads–costs twice as much.”

That comment caused a stir in the audience, and several people sitting around me said that was a lie–the cost to beef up airports, highways and roads would be much less. “Waiting to build the train would only be more expensive,” said Karen Greene Ross with the HSRA.

Other opponents included the American Council of Engineering Companies of California
and the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters.

Harkey answered opponents’ with a few more facts: “It will cost $1.96 million per job created for High-Speed Rail. This isn’t a jobs program,” Harkey said. “Instead, for $100 million, we could create 1.8 million highway maintenance jobs.”

Harkey said, “220 mph trains don’t exist. This is not a business plan, it’s an idea. We have $3.5 billion of federal stimulus dollars which must be spent before September 2017.” Harkey said that the real plan was just to build some track to get the funding. Trains aren’t even part of the picture yet.

What sounded reasonable to voters in 2008 is no longer even possible without bankrupting the state. This is a special interest project run amok.

Despite Harkey’s pleas that high-speed rail is not a partisan issue, the committee voted entirely along party lines, 3-6 against. The bill remained on call to allow the absent committee members cast votes.