Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 103

Thread: Misc Labor News

  1. #1

    Default Misc Labor News

    Featured Sponsor

    Facts and Frequently Asked Questions about Unionbusting

    What is Unionbusting? The term unionbusting describes the planned course of action to stop workers from organizing a union or to destroy a union already in the workplace.

    Who are Unionbusters? Unionbusters are professional consultants or lawyers, who may represent a legal consortium or consulting firm. These individuals or firms advertise their ability to manipulate the labor law system and specialize in advising employers on how to thwart union organizing drives or how to decertify unions. Unionbusters usually self-identify as ‘union avoidance firms,’ ‘management consultants,’ or ‘labor consultants.’

    What do Unionbusters Do? Unionbusters offer legal services, advice and consultation, training seminars, workshops and materials for management and supervisors, and a variety of targeted anti-union propaganda for distribution to employees, including videos, posters, leaflets, flyers and giveaways. Unionbusters’ sophisticated advice, training and materials help an employer create a sense of dissension and division among employees during an organizing campaign and spread misinformation about the union before workers vote in a union representation election. Additionally, “consultants advise management on how to stall or prolong the bargaining process, almost indefinitely—bargaining to the point of boredom…”1

    Why Haven’t I Heard of These Firms? Unionbusters operate under the radar intentionally. Unionbusters often provide material and instructions behind the scenes while the employer’s management and middle-management/supervisory staff carry out the actual communications with workers. In this way, the unionbuster does not deal directly with employees and, as a result, may avoid having to disclose financial reports about such activity to the U.S. Department of Labor. The unionbuster’s name or firm is not used or referenced in the anti-union materials distributed to employees, further masking the unionbuster’s involvement in orchestrating the anti-organizing campaign. More importantly, the anti-union company is rarely called on to divulge that it hired a unionbuster or reveal the specifics of such expenditures. Therefore, without a paper trail, unionbusters are hard to detect, underreported, and not in the public eye.

    Who Uses Unionbusting Firms? 75 percent of employers facing a union organizing drive hire anti-union consultants.2

    How Successful are Unionbusters? It is no coincidence that as the unionbusting industry has grown, the rate of union membership has declined. A unionbuster recently profiled in FORTUNE magazine had ‘won’ 32 of 35 organizing drives in 2003 for his clients.3 Unionbusters even go so far as advertising their rates of success. One firm, Labor Relations Institute, now boasts a money-back guarantee on its website: “If your organization purchases an LRI Guaranteed Winner Package and the union becomes certified, the Labor Relations Institute will refund the full cost of the package.”4

    Seven Sophisticated Unionbuster Techniques: Read below for descriptions of common tactics and materials designed by anti-union consultants to get rid of unions.




    • Supervisors as Frontline Soldiers: Supervisors, who themselves have no legally protected right to be represented by a union, are manipulated into delivering anti-union letters, speeches, and informal chats prepared by unionbusters, essentially doing the dirty work of the unionbusters and management.

    • One-on-One Meetings: During organizing drives, 78 percent of workers are forced to attend closed-door or isolated meetings with supervisors.5 These aren’t friendly impromptu chats, but well-planned meetings to decipher employees’ feelings about the union and persuade them against the union.

    • Captive Audience Meetings: So-called ‘captive audience’ meetings are held for employees during work hours to disseminate propaganda against union representation and to attempt to discredit the union. Employees are almost always required to attend, but union organizers may be intentionally disinvited. Often, the meetings are rigged so that workers who are already against the union are assigned to ask questions to sow misinformation.

    • Delay: Unionbusters often attempt to delay union representation elections by legal maneuvers so they have more time to implement other tactics needed to increase tension, dissension and the employer’s chance of winning the election.

    • Divide & Conquer: The unionbuster creates opportunities and crafts persuasive messages to make employees feel that there is a tense division among staff concerning the union election. They may go so far as to pit one group of employees against each other, based on race or ethnicity.

    • Letters, letters, letters: A unionbuster’s specialty is hammering out materials—be it cartoons, leaflets or management correspondence—to make the case against the union. 92 percent of companies involved in organizing drives mail anti-union materials to employees’ homes.6

    • Love offerings: In order to convince employees that they don't need a union, unionbusters may advise clients to provide indirect bribes, like unexpected increases in wages or benefits or ‘feel good’ measures like free food and lottery tickets.

    Additional Resources on Unionbusting:

    Read news articles
    View reports and studies

  2. #2
    Lizzy Borden Guest

    Default Rule Book

    First Energy actually issued books to our managers in short on how to bust unions.

    What cracks me up is they replace the management people with the Ohio bosses and try to bust us down. They are meeting resistance big time.

    They violate the union contract intentionally because they know it will cost the union lots of money to fight the issues they know they are dead wrong on. We have so many arbitration cases pending now which are all contract violations. The company has lawyers working for them. They know we pay dearly for ours. They have already held out on Met-Ed on the overtime case and filed an appeal the last day even though they knew they would have to pay in the end.

    The only reason they do this is to cost the union more money. We raised our union dues. $5.00 a week just for arbitration cases. I will pay more if I have too because it all comes out in the wash at the end.

  3. #3

    Default Defeating Corporate Nazi's One At A Time

    Well The First Thing That I Have Done Is To Become More Familiar With Union Busting Tactics, Then I Have Tried To Influence Others To Wake Up By Explaining The Anti Union Tactics, But I Also Believe Our Leadership Needs Some Education.
    Maybe Not All The Way Up Top But Starting At The Local Level And Getting Our Stewards Trained On How To Be Better At Fighting Our Greivences And Standing Up For Our Contract.holding Our Ba's Accountable.
    We Need To Clean Up Alot Of Vague Portions Of Our Contract So They Are Not Open To Personal Enterpretation.
    And Fight Every Contract Violation As If The Corporate Nazi's Were Trying To Steal Your Kids.
    Cut These People No Slack Every Safety Rule Needs To Be Followed And I Mean Every One, From No Peeing In The Side Box To Asking For Written Procedures On Doing Jobs We've Been Doing Without Thinking For Our Whole Careers.
    Whie In Meetings With Management Dont Give Them A Clue As To How To Better Manage The Job. Your The Boss How Do You Want Me To Do It?
    I See Our Fight As Nothing Less Than An All Out War.
    Will We Wake Up In Time Or Will We Vote In More Two Tier Work Groups And Give More Work Away To Non Union Contractors?
    Will We Continue To Say Boy I Sure Am Glad That They Are On Strike And Not Me, Or Will We Realize That There Fight Is Our Fight?

  4. #4

    Default Back Pay For Lunches

    HEY JOE YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG IT TOOK ME TO FIND THIS AGAIN!!!

    I SAVED IT SO IF YOU NEED A COPY LET ME KNOW, I
    FOUND IT ON A COOL WEB SIGHT
    WWW.LABORLAWTALK.COM



    $14.5 Million FLSA Verdict: Could It Happen To You?
    A case involving basic Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") violations, such as not paying for meal breaks worked and inadequate recordkeeping, typically doesn’t generate too much attention. However, when the case involves a $14.5 million dollar verdict and requires back pay to some 1500 employees, employers need to pay attention. The decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Reich v. Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation, Nos. 95-6207(L), 95-6239(CON), 7/31/97, clearly demonstrates the severe consequences that can result from an employer’s misapplication of the basic principles of the FLSA. The following discussion of the case presents the problems employers can have in applying the FLSA and gives practical suggestions for protecting your organization from a similar verdict.

    The Facts

    Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation ("SNET") had a policy of not paying for meal periods taken by its approximately 1500 "outside craft workers" who were required to remain at open work sites during their lunch breaks. These employees work primarily on-site, out-of-doors performing such duties as installing and replacing telephone poles and cables and cable splicing and repair. SNET required these employees to spend their lunch break at their work sites to secure the area and its equipment and to prevent possible harm to the public. These unpaid lunch periods generally lasted 30 minutes. Employees who left the work site during the shift without specific permission could be disciplined. The Department of Labor ("DOL") filed a suit against SNET on behalf of the 1500 employees, alleging FLSA violations of overtime and recordkeeping requirements.

    Remaining On-Site Does Not Trigger Pay; Work Does

    The key question in the case against SNET was whether the meal periods should have been paid time because the employees were required to remain on-site and had to perform certain duties during these breaks. To evaluate the claims, the Second Circuit relied on the DOL’s regulations interpreting what time must be paid as working time under the FLSA. In particular, 29 C.F.R. §785.19 does not require employers to pay for "bona fide meal periods," defined as meal periods when the employee is completely relieved from all work duties while eating. The meal period still may be unpaid if the employee is required to remain on the work site, as long as the employee does not have to work during the period. Accordingly, the fact that the SNET employees were required to remain on-site during their lunch breaks by itself did not impose an obligation on SNET to pay for the breaks. Rather, the determining factor for the court was whether the employees were required to "work" as defined under the FLSA.

    The court applied the "predominant benefit standard" in its determination that the SNET employees were required to work during their meal breaks. According to this standard, if the employee performs activities that are predominantly for the benefit of the employer during a meal break, the break must be paid. The court rejected SNET’s argument that the employees’ safety and security roles were "wholly passive" so that the breaks were predominantly for the benefit of the employees. The court noted that SNET would have to pay others to perform the same services and, therefore, was "effectively receiving free labor." As a result, the time spent during these meal breaks should have been paid.

    Recordkeeping Violations Muddy Payout Calculations

    The determination of back pay and overtime for the 1500 workers was complicated by the fact that SNET could not present evidence of either the precise amount of work performed by the employees or evidence to refute the DOL’s calculations of what was owed to the employees. The Second Circuit pointed out that under the FLSA, "when an employer fails to keep adequate records of its employees’ compensable work periods ... employees seeking recovery for overdue wages will not be penalized due to their employer’s recordkeeping default." The burden is on the employer to present evidence of the time worked. Since SNET could not meet its burden, the court affirmed the lower court’s reliance on the DOL’s calculations, which included $88,893.33 in overdue wages, $4,823,884.60 in back pay, and $9,647,769.20 in liquidated damages.

    Good Faith Defense Not Established

    SNET challenged the almost $10 million awarded in liquidated damages claiming that it had acted in "good faith" and, therefore, should have the damages reduced. The "good faith" defense may apply when an employer acts, or fails to act, in good faith and if it had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of the FLSA. The Second Circuit pointed out that to establish good faith, the employer must produce "plain and substantial evidence of at least an honest intention to ascertain what the Act requires and to comply with it." The court emphasized that good faith "requires more than ignorance of the prevailing law or uncertainty about its development." Based on this definition, the court determined that it was not sufficient for SNET to claim good faith because it did not purposefully violate the FLSA, employees did not complain about the practice, or SNET complied with industry-wide practice.

    Lessons for the Rest of Us

    This case provides several basic lessons about FLSA compliance that all employers can follow to limit exposure to wage and hour claims:

    If you require employees to work during lunch, you must pay for the break. However, you can require employees to remain on-site during lunch periods without having to pay them.

    To determine whether a meal break should be paid, consider who receives the "predominant benefit" of the break period. If employees can use the time for their benefit and do not perform work, then employees generally do not have to be paid. It may be prudent to pay for any meal break that requires even the appearance of performing work for the employer.

    Sloppiness in recordkeeping will only hurt the employer. This case makes it very clear that courts will err in favor of employees and rely on the workers’ recollections or the DOL’s calculations regarding what should be paid time if the employer does not keep adequate records. It also underscores the importance of appropriately categorizing what time should be considered paid working time to prevent these types of violations.

    Misunderstanding the FLSA or doing what "everyone else does" is not a defense against violations. Employers have an affirmative duty to attempt to understand the FLSA’s requirements and to comply with them, even if no employee has ever complained. As SNET found out, the complaint can be initiated from outside the organization.

    For further information on the FLSA and pay, meal break, and recordkeeping requirements, see Chapter 207, Hours of Work.

  5. #5

    Default

    Court halts threat of rail strike
    Restraining order prevents engineers from job action in dispute with LIRR over non-union workers



    January 27, 2005


    A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against Long Island Rail Road engineers yesterday, preventing them from going out on a threatened strike.

    Railroad officials sought the court order yesterday to avert a strike by engineers who threatened to walk if the railroad used non-union labor to move trains in a maintenance yard.

    "We will respect the judge's order," said Vincent O'Hara, the engineers' attorney. "But this is not over until they decide the merits of the case."

    Another hearing is set for Feb. 18, but the railroad can start using non-union labor to move the trains in the meantime. The judge's action halted the strike before it happened.

    Robert Evers, general chairman of the engineers union, said, "We respect the law, we continue to respect the law, and we'll be guided by the judge's decision."

    LIRR spokesman Brian Dolan said the railroad also will pursue its position in court. "We're pleased our customers are not subject to any strike threats and that normal operations on the Long Island Rail Road" will continue, he said. Dolan wouldn't say exactly when Bombardier employees would start moving the equipment, except that it would be "very soon."

    Attorneys for the railroad and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen argued in chambers for hours in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn before Judge Allyne R. Ross.

    The union contends the railroad violated its contract by agreeing to allow employees of Bombardier, the Canadian M-7 train manufacturer, to move trains for warranty work at a maintenance yard in Long Island City. However, the railroad argued that it has the right to use Bombardier employees to move trains in the Arch Street Yard under a warranty. The railroad leased the yard to Bombardier for the warranty work.

    Yesterday the union also sought court action to stop the railroad from using the outside labor. Evers said it qualified as a major dispute under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, which permits strikes only after extensive mediation. Union attorneys said yesterday the judge did not make a determination yet about whether the dispute was major or minor and that the issue would be heard on Feb. 18.

    The railroad has requested that the issue go to arbitration, but Evers said the railroad also refused to meet with the union.

    "Look at all the time that's wasted when they could have met with us and worked this out," Evers said at the courthouse yesterday as the union's attorneys continued to talk with the judge behind closed doors for more than four hours.

    An illegal, one-day wildcat strike by engineers in May 1995 stranded thousands of commuters before engineers were ordered back to work by a judge.

    Commuters and politicians at the time blasted the union's tactics, accusing the engineers of using commuters as pawns.

  6. #6

    Default God Bless The Working Man.

    PBGC to Protect Pensions at Murray Inc.


    WASHINGTON—The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation today announced it will assume responsibility for the pensions of about 4,500 workers and retirees of Murray Inc., a maker of outdoor power equipment based in Brentwood, Tenn.

    “The PBGC is stepping in because Murray’s two pension plans face abandonment after the company liquidates,” said PBGC Executive Director Bradley Belt. “The PBGC will pay retirees’ monthly benefit checks without interruption, up to legal limits, and will ensure other employees receive benefits when they are eligible to retire.”

    Murray Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection on November 8, 2004. The bankruptcy court will hear a motion to approve the sale of Murray’s assets on Jan. 20. In the event that an asset purchaser assumes the company’s pension plans and makes up the missed contributions, PBGC would withdraw its notice of intent to terminate the plans.

    The Murray Inc. Pension Plan for Hourly Paid Employees and The Murray Inc. Employees’ Retirement Fund Plan are 53 percent funded, with $131 million in assets to cover $246 million in promised benefits. The PBGC estimates it will be liable for about $103 million of the $115 million shortfall. The pension plans ended as of January 19, 2005.

    Under federal pension law, the maximum guaranteed pension at age 65 for participants in plans that terminate in 2005 is $45,613.86 per year. The maximum guaranteed amount is lower for those who retire earlier or elect survivor benefits. In addition, certain early retirement subsidies and benefit increases made within the past five years may not be fully guaranteed.

    After the PBGC becomes trustee of the Murray Inc. pension plans, expected within several weeks, the agency will send trusteeship notification letters to all plan participants. Until then, participants with questions about benefits or who wish to retire should contact the company’s pension plan administrator. Those with questions about the pension insurance program may consult the PBGC Web site, www.pbgc.gov or call toll-free at 1-800-400-7242. For TTY/TDD users, call the federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask for 800-400-7242.

    The PBGC is a federal corporation created under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It currently guarantees payment of basic pension benefits earned by 44 million American workers and retirees participating in over 31,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans. The agency receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed largely by insurance premiums paid by companies that sponsor pension plans and by investment returns.

  7. #7

    Default Declaring War On Wal-Mart

    Declaring War On Wal-Mart

    Critics have had a field day with Wal-Mart stores Inc. (WMT ) in recent years, coining the term Wal-Martization to slam it for everything from alleged sex discrimination to poverty-level wages. The world's largest retailer finally got so fed up that it launched a 100-newspaper ad blitz in January to get out the message that "Wal-Mart is working for everyone." Advertisement

    Far from calming the critics, however, Wal-Mart's move has been more like blood in the water -- particularly to organized labor, which is gearing up to launch what's likely to be its most ambitious effort ever against any company. The centerpiece: a massive national campaign to spotlight Wal-Mart's employment practices.

    The aim isn't to unionize the retailer's 1.6 million workers, although that's still a long-term goal. Instead, the AFL-CIO intends to exploit Wal-Mart's image problems to drive away some business -- enough, it hopes, to get the Bentonville (Ark.) company to alter its policies. "This will be an effort by the entire labor movement," vows AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard L. Trumka. Wal-Mart spokesperson Sarah Clark denies that the company's low prices depend on low wages. "Evidently [labor leaders] feel they gain an advantage by making us look bad with a new publicity campaign," she says.

    Labor's plans come as Wal-Mart is vulnerable on several fronts. The company's stock price has remained virtually flat for five years, due in part to Wall Street's disappointment at the retailer's single-digit same-store sales growth. And all the negative publicity has hurt Wal-Mart employees' morale. As a result, some shoppers now find them less friendly and courteous than they were in the late '90s, says Chris Ohlinger, CEO of Service Industry Research Systems Inc., a market research firm that conducted a study on Wal-Mart customer attitudes. Says Wal-Mart Director of Investor Relations Pauline Tureman: "There are probably people who've made the decision not to shop at Wal-Mart because of the public criticism, but we can't quantify it."

    Given this backdrop, unions could inflict real pain. The AFL-CIO is planning an effort modeled on its powerful get-out-the-vote political machine. Headed by a veteran labor and Democratic politico, Ellen Moran, it aims to engage hundreds or even thousands of union members to do mailings, phone banks, and work-site visits to convince labor households and, later, the public, that Wal-Mart undercuts living standards. The campaign won't call for a boycott, but labor leaders say focus group studies they've done show that some people may shop elsewhere if told of Wal-Mart's actions.

    The campaign will be bolstered by a nonprofit umbrella group, the Center for Community & Corporate Ethics, founded late last year by the Service Employees International Union with $1 million in seed money. Its goal: to coordinate Wal-Mart's disparate critics, from women's groups to environmentalists. "Wal-Mart hurts small merchants, destroys habitats, and increases profits at the expense of local communities," says Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope,a center board member.

    Wal-Mart's low prices remain irresistible, especially to the working poor who labor aims to help. Even so, if all its critics gang up, the company could have its hands full protecting its image.

  8. #8

    Cool Know The Law

    Fact Sheet #22: Hours Worked Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)


    This fact sheet provides general information concerning what constitutes compensable time under the FLSA. The Act requires that employees must receive at least the minimum wage and may not be employed for more than 40 hours in a week without receiving at least one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the overtime hours. The amount employees should receive cannot be determined without knowing the number of hours worked.

    Definition of "Employ"
    By statutory definition the term "employ" includes "to suffer or permit to work." The workweek ordinarily includes all time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed work place. "Workday", in general, means the period between the time on any particular day when such employee commences his/her "principal activity" and the time on that day at which he/she ceases such principal activity or activities. The workday may therefore be longer than the employee's scheduled shift, hours, tour of duty, or production line time.

    Application of Principles
    Employees "Suffered or Permitted" to work: Work not requested but suffered or permitted to be performed is work time that must be paid for by the employer. For example, an employee may voluntarily continue to work at the end of the shift to finish an assigned task or to correct errors. The reason is immaterial. The hours are work time and are compensable.

    Waiting Time: Whether waiting time is time worked under the Act depends upon the particular circumstances. Generally, the facts may show that the employee was engaged to wait (which is work time) or the facts may show that the employee was waiting to be engaged (which is not work time). For example, a secretary who reads a book while waiting for dictation or a fireman who plays checkers while waiting for an alarm is working during such periods of inactivity. These employee have been "engaged to wait."

    On-Call Time: An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer's premises is working while "on call." An employee who is required to remain on call at home, or who is allowed to leave a message where he/she can be reached, is not working (in most cases) while on call. Additional constraints on the employee's freedom could require this time to be compensated.

    Rest and Meal Periods: Rest periods of short duration, usually 20 minutes or less, are common in industry (and promote the efficiency of the employee) and are customarily paid for as working time. These short periods must be counted as hours worked. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and any extension of the break will be punished. Bona fide meal periods (typically 30 minutes or more) generally need not be compensated as work time. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purpose of eating regular meals. The employee is not relieved if he/she is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating.

    Sleeping Time and Certain Other Activities: An employee who is required to be on duty for less than 24 hours is working even though he/she is permitted to sleep or engage in other personal activities when not busy. An employee required to be on duty for 24 hours or more may agree with the employer to exclude from hours worked bona fide regularly scheduled sleeping periods of not more than 8 hours, provided adequate sleeping facilities are furnished by the employer and the employee can usually enjoy an uninterrupted night's sleep. No reduction is permitted unless at least 5 hours of sleep is taken.

    Lectures, Meetings and Training Programs: Attendance at lectures, meetings, training programs and similar activities need not be counted as working time only if four criteria are met, namely: it is outside normal hours, it is voluntary, not job related, and no other work is concurrently performed.

    Travel Time: The principles which apply in determining whether time spent in travel is compensable time depends upon the kind of travel involved.

    Home To Work Travel: An employee who travels from home before the regular workday and returns to his/her home at the end of the workday is engaged in ordinary home to work travel, which is not work time.

    Home to Work on a Special One Day Assignment in Another City: An employee who regularly works at a fixed location in one city is given a special one day assignment in another city and returns home the same day. The time spent in traveling to and returning from the other city is work time, except that the employer may deduct/not count that time the employee would normally spend commuting to the regular work site.

    Travel That is All in the Day's Work: Time spent by an employee in travel as part of his/her principal activity, such as travel from job site to job site during the workday, is work time and must be counted as hours worked.

    Travel Away from Home Community: Travel that keeps an employee away from home overnight is travel away from home. Travel away from home is clearly work time when it cuts across the employee's workday. The time is not only hours worked on regular working days during normal working hours but also during corresponding hours on nonworking days. As an enforcement policy the Division will not consider as work time that time spent in travel away from home outside of regular working hours as a passenger on an airplane, train, boat, bus, or automobile.

    Typical Problems
    Problems arise when employers fail to recognize and count certain hours worked as compensable hours. For example, an employee who remains at his/her desk while eating lunch and regularly answers the telephone and refers callers is working. This time must be counted and paid as compensable hours worked because the employee has not been completely relieved from duty.

    Where To Obtain Additional Information
    This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of position contained in the regulations.

    For additional information, visit our Wage-Hour website: http://www.wagehour.dol.gov and/or call our Wage-Hour toll-free information and helpline, available 8am to 5pm in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243).

    This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion.



    U.S. Department of Labor
    Frances Perkins Building
    200 Constitution Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20210 1-866-4-USWAGE, TTY: 1-877-889-5627
    Contact Us

  9. #9

    Wink Coal Miner's

    The Union Miners' Cemetery: Mount Olive, Illinois

    As Moslems go to Mecca, there is a Shrine in Illinois that deserves a pilgrimmage by all labor-minded persons. It is the Union Miners' Cemetery in Mount Olive, Illinois.

    It offers no miraculous visions or cures; but each one who visits will be touched, for this is the resting place of that "grandmother of agitators," Mary "Mother" Jones; and this is a place filled with the spirit of good union men. They are the coal miners she called "her boys," among whom she asked to be buried at the time of her death in 1930, at the age of 100.*

    Beyond the wrought iron gate to the little burial ground rises a granite obelisk on which is a great medallion bearing the likeness of Mother Jones. She is guarded on either side by a larger-than-life bronze statue of a coal miner with his sledge. At the base is a simple stone nestled in the grass, Mother Mary Jones.

    Among the tombstones in the Union Miners Cemetery is that of "General" Alexander Bradley, surely the most flamboyant figure in all of labor history. Bradley got his military nickname as a reference to his service in Coxey's Army, that fabulous cross-country march of the unemployed which culminated in a march down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. on May 1, 1894.

    Home again in Mt. Olive, Bradley became a self-appointed organizer for the United Mine Workers of America, which had scarcely 400 members in Illinois at that time. Yet, Bradley and a handful of area miners resolved at a secret meeting in the woods to join in a nation wide strike called by the UMWA for July 4, 1897.

    With Bradley at their head, the miners marched to coal camps in Belleville, Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, Collinsville exhorting the men to "pour the oil from their lamps" and join the strike, which they did.

    Wearing his favorite outfit, a top hat and Prince Albert coat, an umbrella in hand, "General" Bradley took the train, alone, to DuQuoin, 75 miles away. Again, his eloquence (and perhaps his appearance) was rewarded. DuQuoin's miners agreed to join the strike.

    The Union Miners' Cemetery is linked to an episode in the strike known as "The Virden Riot," in which four Mt. Olive men (and still others from nearby towns) were killed in a shoot out with mine guards on October 10, 1898, as a train carrying 180 black strike-breakers recruited from the south, attempted to pass through a band of armed strikers, and reach safety within a fortified stockade at Virden.

    The mine guards, imported from St. Louis, were better armed and had the advantage of the stockade. The firing was intense, lasting about ten minutes. The train's engineer was wounded and he returned to Springfield, with his cargo still aboard. Dead were seven miners and five guards. Forty other miners and four guards were wounded.

    The National Guard arrived several hours later. Interestingly, the next day they turned back a second train carrying strike-breakers, a sensible action for which Governor Tanner was denounced in newspapers all over the state.

    The men from Mt. Olive were buried originally in the town cemetery, but the owner of the land objected to the ceremonies and other activities which the miners held there. The Lutheran cemetery was barred to them because that minister denounced the miners as "murderers."

    The local union, thereupon, purchased a one-acre site, and the bodies were moved to the new Union Miners Cemetery in 1899. Additional land was acquired in 1902, and again in 1918 and 1931, in order to accommodate the monument which was dedicated on October 11, 1936.

    After several years of fund raising and legalistic maneuverings as a result of schisms in the UMWA, the title to the cemetery was lodged in the Progressive Mine Workers The cash raised for the monument was $16,393.25. All of the labor involved was donated. It stands 22 ft. high on a 20 x 18 ft. base. It is built of 80 tons of pink Minnesota granite. The name of the sculptor is lost from the record.

    The dedication was, itself, a monumental event. Five special trains and 25 Greyhound busses brought celebrants to Mt. Olive. Others came in private cars or hitch-hiked to the town. The crowd was estimated at 50,000. There were 32,000 in the line of march.

    Senator Rush D. Holt of West Virginia, the state in which Mother Jones had been court-martialed and imprisoned during the 1912 Cabin Creek Strike, was a speaker. North Dakota Congressman William Lemke spoke. The socialist leader from Springfield, Duncan McDonald was a speaker, too. The dedication was recorded for the newsreels by Pathe' News. There was a broadcast by radio station KMOX, St Louis.

    For many years, Miners Day, October 12 (Columbus Day), was the occasion for a big gathering in Mt. Olive and a visit to the Monument. With the years, however, interest began to flag. A renewed concern for the Cemetery and the traditions connected to it has been revived in recent times. A Springfield-based organization, the Friends of Mother Jones, holds an annual Saturday night event, with a Sunday motorcade to Mt. Olive. For information write to Jack Dyer, Mother Jones Foundation, Box 20412, Springfield, IL 62708.

    In Mt. Olive, itself, there is an on-going effort by the Mother Jones Jubilee Committee to raise funds for monument maintenence and a museum. They hold an annual craft and food fair, and sell collector's items, a cup for $5.00, and a tee-shirt for $13.00. Also available is a cancellation commemorative stamped envelope for $3.00. Write to the Jubilee Committee at PO Box 185. Mt. Olive, IL 62069. These folks have the dedication, but they need help.

    The present owner of the Cemetery is the Union Miners Cemetery Association, the Progressive Miners of America having turned over the deed to the Association, said to be composed largely of elderly ladies.

    The Union Miners Cemetery appears in the National Register of Historic Places, a list maintained by the United States Department of Interior.

    *Chicago, November 12, 1923

    A Special Request to the Miners of Mt. Olive, Illinois:

    "When the last call comes for me to take my final rest, will the miners see that I get a resting place in the same clay that shelters the miners who gave up their lives of the hills of Virden, Illinois on the morning of October 12, 1897 [sic], for their heroic sacrifice of [sic] their fellow men. They are responsible for Illinois being the best organized labor state in America. I hope it will be my consolation when I pass away to feel I sleep under the clay with those brave boys." - Mother Jones

    {The above document was filed for the record in the Macoupin County seat in Carlinville, Ill. on January 9, 1924 at 2:56 P.M.]

    [Much of this article is based on information found in a piece by Dr. John Keiser, which appeared under the title: The Union Miners Cemetery: A Spirit-Thread of Labor History in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Autumn, 1969. The complete text of the Keiser article was published as a pamphlet by the Illinois Labor History Society in 1980 in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the death of Mother Jones, November 30, 1930. That pamphlet is out of print.]

  10. #10

    Default

    Featured Sponsorr

    Democrats should look for the union label

    BLUMNER
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    E-mail:
    Click here
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Archive
    By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, Times Perspective Columnist
    Published February 6, 2005

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sen. John Kerry may think that having an Osama bin Laden videotape air on the weekend before the election lost him the presidency, but it was something else entirely. The Democratic Party's anemic showing can be summed up in two words: union members. Or, to be more precise, the lack of them.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of working Americans who belong to a labor union declined again last year. It stands at 12.5 percent, and if you remove public sector employees the percentage falls to 7.9. These numbers represent the lowest level of unionization in 60 years - far below the highs in the 1950s when 35 percent of the workforce was unionized.

    Had just a small additional percentage of Americans been union members, Kerry would have been the one throwing the $40-million inaugural party.

    Of course, not every member of a union is also supportive of Democratic candidates. The Teamsters broke ranks with the rest of labor in 1980 and endorsed Ronald Reagan for president. But union members are generally more educated on worker-related issues, and that strongly favors Democrats. If, in the last election, bread-and-butter issues such as jobs, the minimum wage, overtime pay, tax fairness, Social Security protection and health care were eclipsed by the war on terrorism, Iraq and "values" concerns such as gay marriage, then it was union members who uniquely kept their eye on the prize.

    A postelection survey conducted for the AFL-CIO by Peter D. Hart Research Associates found that 65 percent of union members voted for Kerry, while only 33 percent supported Bush. But the analysis gets more intriguing as it is broken down. For example, gun owners nationally voted for Bush over Kerry by 20 percentage points. But if those gun owners were also union members, they voted for Kerry by a 12-point margin. White men were for Bush over Kerry by 18 percentage points, but white, male union members preferred Kerry by 21 points. And Americans who go to church weekly voted for Bush over Kerry by 21 percentage points. Add in the union factor and they were for Kerry by 12 points.

    So there it is. Create a union member, and there's a good chance you've grown a Democrat as well.

    This has not been lost on Republicans. According to Karen Ackerman, political director of the AFL-CIO, the Bush administration has been "extremely hostile to the rights of workers and their unions."

    One of Bush's priorities has been to strip federal employees of workplace and organizing rights. Employees in U.S. attorneys' offices, federal airport screeners and employees at the National Imagery and Mapping Agency have had their rights to unionize unilaterally terminated in the name of national security. And at the Department of Homeland Security, newly completed rules will sharply curtail the rights of the 180,000 employees to bargain collectively.

    In the meantime, the manufacturing sector, labor's lifeblood, has been decimated over the last 4 1/2 years with the loss of 3-million factory jobs.

    A corollary to the decline in labor's fortunes has been the rise in obscene corporate executive compensation. In 2003, the pay gap between CEOs of large companies and average workers topped 300-to-1. In 1982, it was just 42-to-1.

    Unions used to be the countervailing force, demanding that management share the wealth of a company with its workers. Today, with the threat of unionization remote and with employers such as Wal-Mart union-busting without apparent consequence, employers are free to compensate workers poorly while spreading the company's profits among its executives and Wall Street.

    Even workers in corporate jobs are watching helplessly as their once-generous health insurance and defined-benefit pension plans are slashed or eliminated without their input. In 1980, 35 percent of American workers were enrolled in a pension. That number stands at 20 percent today.

    It is time for the labor movement to reassert itself in a big way and with Democratic help. That includes promoting the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give employees trying to organize significant new legal protections from retaliation. It would also allow for the certification of a union based on the collection of employee authorization cards without the need for an election that may be delayed by an employer for months or years.

    Workers who are unionized are far better educated on issues affecting their lives and how politics affects those issues. That's why they vote Democratic in great majorities. Kerry lost, primarily, because union membership keeps declining. This should be the organizing principle for Democrats going forward.

    [Last modified February 6, 2005, 00:22:15]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •