|
A BUSINESS AGENT’S PERSPECTIVE
Donald L. Foley
National Business Agent
Maintenance Craft, Central Region
|
|
Win by persuasion when possible
Beat them at the table when necessary
And give 'em hell generally.
 I
am often reminded of the words of a Nazi concentration camp victim, words
that
have haunted me ever since I first heard them many years ago.
"They first came for the communists, and I did not speak up --
because I was not a communist.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up --
because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up --
because I was not a trade unionist.
"Next they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up --
because I was a Protestant.
"Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left
to speak up."
Pastor Martin Nielmoeller
And recently, upon the commemoration of a true American hero, the
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., a good friend and truly progressive
unionist sent me a copy of a little known speech by Rev. King. It seemed
to her - and seems to me - so prescient in today's rush to war. The
speech is lengthy to read, but here are a few remarks from it, made April
4, 1967, regarding America's war on the Vietnamese.
"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
"The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they
call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their
government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit
move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist
thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover
when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of
this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by
uncertainty; but we must move on.
"As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men [of
America's cities] I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles
would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest
compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most
meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked -- and rightly so
-- what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive
doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it
wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again
raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos
without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence
in the world today - my own government. For the sake of those boys, for
the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands
trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
"We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted
with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and
history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still
the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected
with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain
at the flood; it ebbs.
"We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is
deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled
residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too
late."
"There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance
or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..."
We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent
co-annihilation."
And so it is that I was deeply gratified to learn that the National
Executive Board of this great Union took the step to join with others in
the labor community to protest the impending war on Iraq. I applaud
President Burrus and the Executive Board.
But I have also heard the complaints and
the questioning, "What does the Union want to involve itself in an issue
like that for? The Union ought to stay out of those sort of things and
stick to protecting our jobs." So, why is it that this Union -- or any
Union, for that matter -- speaks on such an issue? My answer to that is
relatively simple.
The labor movement and the Unions that function within it
are not merely vehicles for the processing of collective bargaining
issues. We possess in our heritage -- we are impelled by -- principles
far more basic than, and which reach far beyond, concerns about seniority
formulas, job descriptions and the like. At the foundation of unionism
are the same principles that gave voice to the Reverends Nielmoeller and
King. We cherish the fundamental human values and rights the American
Declaration of Independence articulated. As a movement, labor has fought
for the dignity and freedom from violence that everyone wants for
themselves and for their children.
Consider what one of the founders of the
modern labor movement had to say on social issues and labor -- Samuel
Gompers:
"We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals;
more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more
leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of
the opportunities to cultivate our better natures, to make manhood more
noble, womanhood more beautiful and childhood more happy and bright.
These in brief are the primary demands made by the Trade Unions in the
name of labor. These are the demands made by labor upon modern society
and in their consideration is involved the fate of civilization." (Samuel
Gompers, Vol. 3: Address, August 28, 1893)
"The man who loves war is an enemy to the human race." (Vol. 4: American
Federationist, March 1896)
"We are proud of the country which we claim as our own; we are proud
of its history, proud of its heroes and proud of its traditions, and we
hope as we struggle for its glorious future. But we maintain that
patriotism does not mean the hatred of our neighbor. Nor do we believe
that it is a wise policy, as some would advocate, that a foreign war
might be a good cure for our domestic evils." (Vol. 4: New York World,
March 12, 1897)
"In the exercise of great powers often requisite under military control,
the right of free meeting, the right of free speech, and free press is
endangered. And when the smoke of battle is gone these rights, taken from
the masses of the people under often necessary conditions, are seldom
freely given back to the people." (Vol. 4: New York World, March 12,
1897)
"The attempt to divert the thoughts and interest of the American people
from the wrongs that need attention at home, by occupying them with
foreign complications of any kind, is criminal folly. The idea that we
shall escape the duties which we owe to the people by becoming a nation
of conquerors, is clearly in the minds of prominent advocates of
"expansion" and "imperialism." They have indicated that they hope to see
changes in our boundaries, talk of alliances and wars, and perhaps war
and conquests, all to keep the workers and the lovers of reforms and
simple justice diverted and powerless to dig out abuses and cure existing
injustice. . . . Imperialism points to large armaments and more frequent
wars. It means greater demands upon the workers in taxes, blood, and
life. It tends to the more frequent and unblushing use of force against
the weak and lowly. It subordinates right and justice to an unwise or
blind greed of gain, and the exploitation of [lands] whose millions are
to be made the tools, willing or unwilling, of the few thousand. And this
is what some men call a cure for social unrest!" (Vol. 5: American
Federationist, September 1898)
To identify with and serve the interests of the worker is to advocate for
peace. The labor movement and this Union would turn its back on those we
are sworn to represent were it to ignore this imperative. We are expected
to be activists. To assert an affirmative opposition to the impending war
against Iraq is not in addition to what we normally do as a labor Union;
it is not separate and apart from our function; it is, instead, a
fundamental necessity if we are to be true to our principles.
And I urge each of you not to be swayed by
what, today, seems to pass for patriotism -- that flag-waving,
anthem-singing emotionalism the politicians employ to divert critical
thought about what direction we are headed. It coincides with (p)resident
Bush's assertion that, "you are either with us or against us"; it
attempts to condemn the true patriot; it mirrors the saying, "my country,
right or wrong". Remember, when the world sought to examine and prosecute
the war criminals of World War II, it gave no quarter to those of the
Nazi army who attempted to defend what they had done by claiming they
were only following orders. A brand of "patriotism" that asserts "my
country, right or wrong" that claims we should not question our (p)resident
is an abandonment of every principle for which we cherish our Declaration
of Independence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our country.
Let me leave you with just a few other observations that
seem relevant --
"To be popular is easy; to be right when right is unpopular, is noble
. . . I repudiate with scorn the immoral doctrine, 'Our country, right or
wrong.'" (Andrew Carnegie)
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." (Samuel Johnson)
"No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels.
Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of
patriots." (Barbara Ehrenreich)
|
|
A BUSINESS AGENT’S PERSPECTIVE
Donald L. Foley
National Business Agent
Maintenance Craft, Central Region
To market, to market
To buy a fat pig.
Home again, home again
Jiggity-jig.
|
You
go to the market to buy that nice, fat pig – after all, it was advertised
that way. But when you get home you find that what you bought was nothing
more than skin and bones – “a pig in a poke”, as the old saying goes.
Remember, the 1998 - 2000 National Agreement ratification? Now that was
“a pig in a poke”. It was only after the voting that we found out how
much of that contract was as yet unresolved, how many empty promises
there were lurking in the details. How long did it take to come up with
some sort of resolution to the pay schedule mess – or has that ever been
actually resolved?
Now we have, for the first time in our history as a Union, a proposition
to
extend the term of our existing National Agreement. Upon first hearing
the
idea, a great many of us said, “Yes, that sounds like a good idea.” It
seems
that was what the National Presidents’ Conference responded, as it was
the
response of the vast majority of national officers who comprise the
National
Executive Council.
There have been some comments that national officers have been, somehow,
remiss in not participating in the debate about the contract extension
agreement. I do not attempt to speak for others. There are a wide variety
of reasons any officer may not post here. But, just to set the record
straight, a few
comments. Until yesterday (November 26), by way of reading some of the
comments in the debate, I was unsure that there were any actual memos
that
reflect what the parties have supposedly agreed to in a contract
extension.
And it was only yesterday that copies of this material arrived in my
office.
Judging from Bobby D's comments posted at
21cpw, it appeared even in
Washington the officers had been "read to" but had not been given the
memos. I did discover today that members of the Rank-and-File Committee
have had copies of the memos since they met in Washington. So if you are
wanting for specifics or national officer commentary, the problem seems
to be with the source. I have found it very difficult to formulate
comments on something I had not had the opportunity to review. It is
somewhat amazing that some bodies of this organization have seen fit to
"endorse" the agreement without (apparently)
having seen it. But it is also discouraging to note, once again, the lack
of
affirmative effort to inform the officers and members of this Union in a
matter
of this importance.
The arguments for rejection of the extension agreement have been (from
some
quarters) very articulate and persuasive. However, I was not among those
who
immediately rejected the idea. When the proposal to extend the contract
was
first raised, it seemed to me like a good idea. For one thing I have
always
been in favor of long-term contracts. The two-year term of the 1998
contract
was a travesty. The 2003 termination date of the 2000 contract, coming
out at
the very end of 2001, was worse yet. So the idea of seeing this contract
extended to 2005 appeared to be, on its face, beneficial. The money
proposal
was not out-of-line with what one might expect, even though we always
hope to
do better and the Postal Service's windfall cannot be ignored -- as some
have
tried. But we have been told again and again by interest arbitrators that
we
have come to economic parity with the private sector years ago --
Goldberg was particularly explicit on this point, but he was certainly
not the first. Those
who like to do as Moe always did -- revving up the troops with the call
for
huge contract wage increases -- only play to the crowd. That is always
easy.
And the additional terms involved in contract extension seemed
interesting
enough, though certainly they were not big selling points. So, in
general, the
proposal for contract extension seemed a good enough idea.
And, because of my personal opinions, I had another motivating factor to
favor
contract extension. That is simply that I do not have any reason to
believe
that this administration is capable of negotiating much of a contract, if
forced to do so in 2003, anyway. Just my personal opinion.
However, I should also note that my general inclination to favor contract
extension has been adversely effected by what has happened in the
intervening
weeks. I made the foolish assumption (I really should know better) that
Burrus
and company would negotiate full, detailed, explicit terms of agreement
prior
to agreeing to extension and prior to seeking ratification. What has
happened,
though, seems to indicate we will be asked to vote -- once again -- on
the
proverbial pig-in-a-poke. Remember the 1998 National Agreement? It was
not
until after the "ratification" of that contract that the vast areas of
unknown
terms came to light. And, for some reason, I feel the same shaft coming
at me
again. And I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable . . .
Having said that, though, attempting to put aside my resentment about how
this
extension has not been properly negotiated or articulated -- at least so
it
seems -- I still find rejection not much of an alternative. Longer term
contracts generally work to our benefit. And, as Sister LuAnn Glaser of
the
Keystone Area Local has pointed out, many of our most pressing issues
ought to be pursued right now, with or without contract extension.
Placing some of
those issues in the context of contact negotiation next year would likely
make
progress less likely, not more so. And, then, there is my overriding lack
of
confidence that this administration could negotiate a decent contract
next year
in any event. Remember it was this administration who rejected a Postal
Service offer to make Step 3 grievance settlements precedent in the
originating
office, rejected a Postal Service offer to give the APWU full control of
arbitration scheduling and asserted the changes to Articles 15 and 16 in
1998
would not have been accepted except for the fact that our chief
negotiator "expected" the Postal Service to give us more of a financial
package
than it turned out they did. And it was our chief negotiator who,
subsequently, asserted the pay package of the 1998 Agreement was the best
we had achieved since 1978.
Even now, having read all the memos and noted to myself all the details
left
unaddressed, I still have to favor this contract extension. It
contributes to
our sense of stability and allows ALL OF US time to prepare for the
future
while still pursuing our most important issues. And relieving our
national
office of the dedication of energy and financial resources to contract
negotiation next year, perhaps we will be in better position to pursue
some of
the legislative battles that loom so large on the horizon. Perhaps we
will
actually engage in a public relations campaign to tell the American
public what
is going on with their Postal Service and to recruit them to our aid.
2003 will be the time to fight, but not to fight a contract negotiation
session. I cannot endorse the notion that it is somehow good to fight
just for
the sake of fighting or just for the sake of bragging that we “fought the
good
fight”. We need to choose our battles. This contract extension may be
just
what is needed to enable us to do that. |
|
A BUSINESS AGENT'S PERSPECTIVE
Donald L. Foley
National Business Agent
Win by persuasion when possible
Beat them at the table when necessary
And give 'em hell generally. |
I have noticed on the www.21cpw.com
web site that a term has been coined to refer
to the Postal Service's implementation of its new TACS and RMD programs
Postal
Attendance Terrorism. An apt term it would seem, from reports arising
in offices all across
the country. And there is also expressed a concern that the APWU national
office has not
been doing enough to attack the Postal Service in regard to this recent form
of employee
abuse.
The thought has occurred to me, and perhaps to others, that our national
office may
be conflicted on how to address this problem. You see, the APWU has a
collective
bargaining agreement with the Office and Professional Employees International
Union
(OPEIU). This contract covers the secretaries and several other job
categories of
employees who work for the APWU. In our headquarters office in Washington, DC
we
have a good many employees under this contract, and in the various field
offices of the
National Business Agents and the Regional Coordinators there are secretaries
who are
also bargaining unit members of OPEIU, working career positions for the APWU.
One might well presume that any Union ought to make an ideal employer. In
fact,
a Union ought to be properly characterized as a model employer. After all,
given the
fundamental principles by which Unions are supposed to be guided, it simply
stands to
reason that we would insist that people who work for us should, themselves,
be Union
members and should be protected by a collective bargaining agreement. It also
stands to
reason that, as an employer, a Union would strive to avoid all of those
insidious
managerial abuses over which we wage war with the employer of our own
members.
The APWU,
theoretically, ought to be particularly mindful of those abuses the Postal
Service heaps upon our members for example, Postal Attendance Terrorism. This
latest
attack on our members is just that, the latest abuse regarding employee
attendance. The
Postal Service has expended countless hours, effort and funds over the years
to monitor,
analyze and regulate its employees' attendance and to issue and defend
disciplinary
actions based on its perception of employees' failure to comply with its
obsessive
compulsion to control employee attendance.
While some of the more enlightened businesses have actually been moving in
recent years toward greater flexibility for employees' work schedules, the
Postal Service
(forever stuck in nineteenth century management philosophy) has become
increasingly
obsessed with rigidity. We have maintained, in our National Agreement,
commitment to
continue the leave regulations of chapter five of the Employee and Labor
Relations
Manual, but that has never stopped the Postal Service from implementing
policies
designed to punish its workers for exercise of leave benefits. I have often
said that the
Postal Service wastes millions upon millions of dollars every year keeping
track of
hundredths of every hour of every day of every employee. Imagine the cost
savings that
might be achieved were the Postal Service to do away with its sophisticated
computerized
timekeeping system, allow employees some flexibility in reporting times and
simply ask its
supervisors to assure that each employee puts in his or her full work day for
a full day's
pay. But, instead, we now have Postal Attendance Terrorism.
But what, you say, about our national office being conflicted about how to
deal with
this? And what does any of this have to do with OPEIU employees of the APWU?
Does the term KRONOS have any meaning to you? I am certain that virtually
none
of our members knows that KRONOS is the APWU's version of TACS. In fact, the
APWU
just last year established a "Human Resources" department and staffed it with
a manager
and some assistants and technicians. The OPEIU has recently renewed its
collective
bargaining agreement with the APWU and now has to contend with the
implementation of
KRONOS the computer-based monitoring, analyzing and regulation of bargaining
unit
employees' hundredths of every hour of every day.
While we have had hard-working, dedicated secretaries who have worked for
years
to assist the NBA's in accomplishing the goals of the APWU without having to
account for
their every minute, this apparently is no longer good enough. In spite of the
fact that many
of these career employees have worked, at times, with and without the benefit
of overtime
compensation for long hours, this is not good enough. Even though, as a
Union, we
espouse the belief that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her
individual integrity and
to the presumption that all any of us wants is to do a good job and receive
fair pay for
doing it, this no longer applies in our relationship with our own employees.
Where
previously we had secretaries who were expected to and did complete
hand-written time
cards summarizing their weekly work hours, we now have secretaries clocking
in on
computers start, out-to-lunch, in-from-lunch, end to the proper hundredth of
each
prescribed hour.
Consider for a moment . . . As Postal employees we all become relatively
injured
to the indignity of the management presumption that without that time clock
and its
connected computer monitoring system we would steal from the employer, but
make no
mistake it is an indignity each and every time one of us has to punch that
clock. But this
was a condition of employment from day one. Not so for APWU secretaries. Some
have
worked for us for over twenty years knowing that they were respected as
individuals who
simply wanted to do a good job and be properly paid for it. In the blink of
an eye that has
disappeared. Imagine the outcry this Union would raise on behalf of its
members Postal
employees were the Postal Service to implement such timekeeping monitoring if
it had
been the previous twenty or thirty year history of our relationship that no
such system had
previously existed! And yet we have imposed it on our own employees.
So, has your national office aggressively challenged the Postal Service's
latest
abuse its TACS and RMD? Are some of our leaders conflicted over the question
of the
propriety of tracking every employee's hundredths of every hour of every day?
|
