Thursday, February 16th, 2006...7:31 pm
I Guess Name Tags Are in Order?
My brother found out yesterday that an AFSCME organizer has been calling him “anti-labor” because the organizer thinks that he has been writing critical things on a blog about them. The trouble is, my brother doesn’t have a blog. Hmm. What blog could they be talking about?
He wouldn’t be the first person called “anti-labor” by some of the people that AFSCME has parachuted in recently in their fight against SEIU. Elected officials that have chosen to support the effort of county employees to get “Meet and Confer” status have also been classified as “anti-labor.”
The irony is that AFSCME is calling these folks “anti-labor” for supporting the right of county employees to organize. I suppose this makes agreeing with county management’s rather broad application of the “right to work” law a “pro-labor” stance. This battle has now moved beyond the spitting contest between AFSCME and SEIU. The rights of employees to organize in this state is at stake.
SEIU has been asking for the Board of Supervisors to allow for employees to get a vote on “Meet and Confer” status, essentially, so that they can have some sort of union agreement that is binding. The call for a vote doesn’t name a particular union, employees could choose SEIU, AFSCME or the Wobblies if they prefer. This, of course, has been resisted by county administration. The County Attorney’s office is also claiming that such an agreement is illegal (despite that it exists in other places), but refuses to actually issue a public written opinion saying so.
AFSCME deserves to be tweaked over SEIU moving into their turf, but they need to realize that if this call for a vote can’t pass a Democratic Board of Supervisors in a liberal county, it will only embolden those in both government and the private sector who would love to see nobody organize. This fight isn’t on behalf of SEIU, it’s on behalf of the entire labor movement.
13 Comments
February 16th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
What do the CD 8 candidates think of this situation?
February 16th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Does any other state or county agency in Arizona have a binding agreement? No? Why not? Perhaps it’s against state law/legal opinons?
February 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
I believe other governmental agencies have agreements (TUcson Police Officers Association), the TUcson Fire Fighters, and within school districts, you got TEA, AFT and CWA; so there is a way for unions to coexist within governmental entities …
February 16th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
If they fail to get this vote through, the real losers won’t be either of the unions, it will be the workers themselves.
Besides, union organizing is like anything else– if you dawdle and don’t push forward with the duties of your job, then somebody else will step in and do it their way.
February 17th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Anonymous-
No county agency has “meet and confer,” but other Government agencies do, such as TUSD and the City of Tucson. Mostly because it has never been tried.
There was an opinion issued in the seventies that supported meet and confer status in Pima County, but unfortunately, no union acted on it. Near as I can tell, there haven’t been sufficient changes in the statute to think that there really could be a total reversal like what the County Attorney is claiming.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
There was a legal opinion issued by the attorney general in 1987 making the 70’s opinion null and void.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Also, the County is an extension of the State, whereas Cities and School Districts are not, so justifying the County’s ability to have a Union because City’s and District’s do is not a valid argument.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
I can’t believe someone like Tedski who is so knowledgeable and has a brother for a State Rep. isn’t aware of the regulations from the state level.
February 17th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
This battle has now moved beyond the spitting contest between AFSCME and SEIU. The rights of employees to organize in this state is at stake.
Perhaps this is SEIU’s fault for pushing this agenda? They reap what the sow? Opened up a can of worms? In all reality nothing is going to change. This has been the practice by State and County Agencies for eons here in Arizona, not by choice but merely by law.
Let’s review: Voters elect State Senators and House Members as well as attorney generals. This can only be changed by an ARS change (state house/senate) or a new attorney general ruling overturning yet another previous AG opinion. (how silly would that look, multiple opinions by various AG’s over a period of 30 years.)
Perhaps SEIU should be pushing for a State Statue change in Phoenix.
February 18th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
a lot of disinformatinal crap on here.
There has never been a “ruling” on this.
In 1979 the Attorney General issued an OPINION, which was something that did NOT happen in 1987. In 1987 the AG specifically DECLINED to opine on the issue. This seems to be the crux of LaWall’s non-opinion; that because one AG issued an opinion and another declined to do so, this represents some kind of legal contradition.
That’s what regular folks call “lawyerly obfuscation” and is known in the vernacular as “a steaming pile of crap”.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I’ll put money that SEIU flops on their face with this issue.
Union Workers don’t need radical extremist in a Union. They need rational Unions that know how to work to get things done.
We all know how effective radical extremism is in the end don’t we?
February 18th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Go away SEIU! The Pima County Democratic Party made use of your “Barney Bus” not Pima County Government. The taxpayers of Pima County don’t need to have their government scratching your back as a payback for the bus.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Ha.
You say you’d “put money” on it but you post anonymously.
Tell you what - the host of this site knows me, and I’ll hpaapily take your money. How much? $100?
SEIU is the fastest growing union in the US. They grew by over 200,000 members in 2005, their best year ever. So I’m not sure what you mean by “get things done”.
Nor am I sure what you mean by “radical extremeists”. SEIU’s politics are very, very simple: Providing and protecting high-quality services, and raising standards and improving working conditions for the people who provide them. That’s it. And they support politicians who support them.
Leave a Reply