Labor
Union
Resources
Make Work Pay Video
Labor Union Resources is designed to provide help to U.S. Workers in their efforts at organizing themselves and their co-workers into labor unions. It is also a resource for Union Leaders to assist in their operations, organizing, and bargaining efforts.
Labor Union Resources has put everything a worker needs to know about labor unions. From Grievance handling, benefits, collective bargaining, organizing, union busting, Section 7 rights, filing a union petition and/or filing a unfair labor charge it can all be found here.
Labor Union Resources has hundreds of links which can help you find what you are looking for and one of the most extensive online shop steward training programs used by both labor unions and shop stewards all across the country.
Employees nationwide are struggling with economic and workload issues: whether a Janitor, Home Care Worker, a Nurse, a Security Professional, a Police Officer, a Fire Fighter, a Construction Worker, an Office Worker, or any worker who is mistreated in the workplace each day; each are turning to labor unions for organizing.
Only through joining or forming labor unions can there be any guarantee for Dignity, Rights, and Respect in the workplace.
We deserve it and our families' futures deserve it.
Spanish Newspapers on the Web
The following is a list of links to Spanish newspapers. More will be added as the newspapers provide us their URL's.
GENERAL INFORMATION DAILIES
(Diarios de Información General)
____________________
About Labor Union Resources
Labor unions have benefited greatly from the communications capabilities provided by the Internet: thousands of sites overflow with a wealth of information regarding news, issues and policies of labor unions both regional and global. I've collected some of these resources here, to serve as a starting point for those doing research on labor unions, looking for a specific group, or simply wanting to learn more about the state of unions today.
International Union
* Security * Police * Fire Professionals of America SPFPA
LABOR UNION RESOURCES
1869 One of the earliest and most influential labor organizations, the Knights of Labor is founded by Philadelphia tailors.
1877 The first nationwide strike stops trains across the country. About 100,000 railroad workers are involved. Federal troops are called out to break the strike.
1886 During a labor demonstration in Chicago, a bomb explodes and rioting ensues. Anarchists are singled out and convicted of inciting violence during the Haymarket Square riot.
1892 Violence ends the Homestead steel strike in Homestead, Pennsylvania.
1894 The Pullman strike, involving 50,000 rail workers, ends in rioting and violence.
1905 The International Workers of the World (IWW), a radical union, is formed with the aim of overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with a socialist system.
1913 The U.S. government establishes the Department of Labor to protect the rights of workers.
1914 The Clayton Antitrust Act legalizes nonviolent strikes and boycotts.
1919 Over the course of the year, a record 4 million workers strike.
1935 The Wagner Act (also called the National Labor Relations Act) affirms the right of workers to unionize and requires employers to participate in collective bargaining.
1935 John L. Lewis breaks with the AFL and forms the Committee of Industrial Organization (CIO), later changing its name to the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
1937 United Auto Workers (UAW) sign a contract with General Motors after a successful sit-down strike in Flint, Michigan.
1938 The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes the minimum wage.
1947 The Taft-Hartley Labor Act limits some of the powers of unions and the circumstances under which they can strike.
1949 An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 outlaws child labor.
1955 The largest U.S. labor organization, the AFL, merges with the CIO, forming the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
1959 The Landrum-Griffin Act is passed to help eliminate union corruption.
1960 One third of all workers in the United States belong to a union.
1965 Mexican American labor leader Cesar Chavez garners national attention for the plight of farm workers by spearheading what becomes a five-year California grape pickers strike. Chavez's union, the NFWA, primarily made up of Mexican Americans, joined forces with the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), primarily made up of Filipino Americans, in undertaking the successful strike.
1970 The postal worker strike, involving 180,000 strikers, becomes the United States' largest public employee walkout.
1981 President Ronald Reagan orders the replacement of striking air traffic controllers with nonunion workers.
1997 Over the last several decades, union membership has dropped considerably. Only 14 percent belong to unions.
2005 The Teamsters and Service Employees unions announced their withdrawal from the AFL-CIO. The split is considered organized labor's worst crisis since 1935, when the CIO split from the AFL.
A few days later, another one of the country's largest unions, the United Food and Commercial Workers, also withdraws.
Labor Union, AFL-CIO, Organizing, NLRB, SEIU, Teamsters, SPFPA, NOITU, Service Employees, CWA, Machinists , Food and Commercial Workers , Operating Engineers, Steelworkers , Construction , Trade , Carpenters , Nurses, Labor Jobs, Labor News, LabourStart, Collective Bargaining, Grievance Handling, Shop Steward Training , Workers Rights, Union Resources
Labor Union, AFL-CIO, Organizing, NLRB, SEIU, Teamsters, SPFPA, NOITU, Service Employees, CWA, Machinists , Food and Commercial Workers , Operating Engineers, Steelworkers , Construction , Trade , Carpenters , Nurses, Labor Jobs, Labor News, LabourStart, Collective Bargaining, Grievance Handling, Shop Steward Training , Workers Rights, Union Resources
The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, would enable working people to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions by restoring workers’ freedom to choose for themselves whether to join a union. It would:
Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.
Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes (PDF).
Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.
"Hired Gun" Polling and Card Check (EFCA)
By Mark Blumenthal
A week or so ago, my colleague Marc Ambinder (anchor of the new Atlantic Politics Channel), did a series of blog posts on some privately commissioned polling on the subject of the so-called "card check" bill, or more formally, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). It is a great example of two big lessons we ought to remember when considering this sort of "hired gun" polling data.
Ambinder started with a post that contrasts questions from two pollsters working for opposite sides of the Card Check debate. First up was the a question asked by Peter D. Hart Research Associates on behalf of the AFL-CIO:
[Do you favor or oppose legislation that] Allows employees to have a union once a majority of employees in a workplace sign authorization cards indicating they want to form a union. 75% favor.
Next, Ambinder presented a different question asked by pollster John McLaughlin on behalf of the anti-EFCA organization Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW):
There is a bill in Congress called the Employee Free Choice Act which would effectively replace a federally supervised secret ballot election with a process that requires a majority of workers to simply sign a card to authorize organizing a union and the workers' signatures would be made public to their employer, the union organizers and their
co-workers.
(NOTICE THE WORDING ) Do you support or oppose Congress passing this legislation? 15% favor, 74% oppose.
THE ABOVE IS A LOADED TRICK QUESTION
Signatures would be made public to their employer, the union organizers and their co-workers.
(If this was really True I WOULD ALSO OPPOSE THE EFCA) and I Am a Strong Supporter of The Employee Free Choice act as you can see.
Ambinder followed up with a three-part exchange between anti-EFCA consultant Mike Murphy and pro-EFCA pollster Guy Molyneux. The short version: Our poll was "more accurate," no your poll was "outrageously biased," no wait, let's let Mikey try it ** let's test Ambinder's language.
Who was right? Which question is best (or more "accurate" or less "biased")? My answer: Neither. Or both.
The big challenge with this sort of issue, as Ambinder puts it in his first post, is that most Americans "don't know what EFCA is, or what 'card check' would mean." So any question that begins by describing the provisions in the bill does not test pre-existing opinions for the vast majority of Americans. Instead, such questions test the way Americans react to new information. In that sense, they provide a gauge of "public opinion" only in a very hypothetical way. They tell us what public opinion might be if all Americans knew was "[fill in the blank]."
These questions can be useful because attitudes about public issues can change as they get a high profile debate in Congress. Assuming that EFCA comes to a vote in the coming months, more Americans will learn about it and form new impressions. It can be helpful to try to preview how they might react and how different "framings" of the debate can shape reactions. Pollsters like McLaughlin and Molyneux get hired by clients who want to do just that, frame the debate and help sway public opinion to their point of view (and full disclosure to those just tuning in: I earned my living for many years as just such a pollster).
The warning label that ought to go on results is that they can be, as Molyneux argues, "very sensitive to question wording" without a single "'correct' way to ask the question." The inevitable arguments about which question is most "right" usually mirror the larger substantive debate. So, if you are a partisan on EFCA and you have little trouble choosing the "correct" version of the questions above, you should also know this: Your ability to see "the truth" on this issue does not lead to the conclusion that "public opinion" is on your side. It might be someday, but only if your "framing" wins the day and shapes the way most Americans (and not just policy-makers and very well informed Americans) learn about the issue.
In this case, the side-by-side comparison tells us -- indirectly -- that most Americans are unfamiliar with EFCA and that very few have real, pre-existing opinions about it. Also, we learn that both sides have arguments that are potentially very persuasive. So they are useful, even if testing something hypothetical.
Two big lessons: First, we need to be especially cautious about interpreting interest group sponsored results when we only have only one side's poll and cannot do a side-by-side examination of surveys sponsored by opposing interests.
Second and even more important, we need to better distinguish between questions that measure pre-existing opinions and those that measure reactions.
