mirroring and keeping a pulse on cool union stuff around the english-speaking (and occasionally non-english-speaking) world. run by @alyaza
Workers of the world, awaken! Break your chains, demand your rights!
As announced on their Twitter. As the name implies, NPEU is a federation of nonprofit unions and they cover workplaces from the ACLU to J Street to the National Center for Transgender Equality.
They join the UE Union (United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America), UAW, Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), and at least 120 other unions or union locals in demanding a ceasefire.
I won't steal too much of the Guardian's thunder here—this is a good article from them you should read which lays out what's going on here—but to summarize briefly the union contract at Kaiser Permanente just expired, meaning that starting tomorrow 75,000 of their workers could be on strike. Says the Guardian:
The strike will hit hundreds of facilities in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Virginia and Washington DC. The Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions noted that if they don’t see movement at the bargaining table in response to the strike, another longer strike that includes additional workers in Washington will be called.
By far the biggest issue motivating workers here is staffing—staffing shortages have particularly plagued the healthcare industry since the COVID-19 pandemic began. They've driven several strikes, near-strikes, and unionization efforts that have been profiled on this account. This is just the chickens of that matter finally coming to roost at the top. But staffing is not the only issue that workers are fighting for: they're seeking 5.75 to 6% raises; trying to protect themselves from outsourcing; and winning the right to organize a union at any medical system acquired by Kaiser Permanente among other things.
Kaiser Permanente's frontline healthcare workers union reached a tentative deal with the company on Friday, moving toward settling a payment and staffing dispute that had sparked the largest recorded strike in the U.S. medical sector.
[...]Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, but higher pay and increased hiring to address what union officials called crisis-level staffing shortages topped the list of demands. The previous four-year contract expired on Sept. 30.
I won't steal too much of the Guardian's thunder here—this is a good article from them you should read which lays out what's going on here—but to summarize briefly the union contract at Kaiser Permanente just expired, meaning that starting tomorrow 75,000 of their workers could be on strike. Says the Guardian:
The strike will hit hundreds of facilities in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Virginia and Washington DC. The Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions noted that if they don’t see movement at the bargaining table in response to the strike, another longer strike that includes additional workers in Washington will be called.
By far the biggest issue motivating workers here is staffing—staffing shortages have particularly plagued the healthcare industry since the COVID-19 pandemic began. They've driven several strikes, near-strikes, and unionization efforts that have been profiled on this account. This is just the chickens of that matter finally coming to roost at the top. But staffing is not the only issue that workers are fighting for: they're seeking 5.75 to 6% raises; trying to protect themselves from outsourcing; and winning the right to organize a union at any medical system acquired by Kaiser Permanente among other things.
Out of San Francisco the other day, the California Public Employment Relations Board delivered a resounding rebuke to a series of San Francisco laws that legally prohibited public sector employees from going on strike. The laws were challenged by IFPTE Local 21 and SEIU Local 1021. They had, according to Mission Local, been enacted in 1976 in response to repeated walkouts by city workers.
The specific ruling is PERB Decision 2867M – City and County of San Francisco. PERB summarizes the laws being challenged—which are a part of the San Francisco City Charter—as:
[...]Charter section A8.346[, which] prohibits municipal employees from engaging in strikes, sets forth the procedures for terminating employees who the City find violated the section, and limits the seniority and compensation rights of such employees whom the City later rehires. This strike prohibition is reiterated in section A8.409-4, which states that any municipal employee who engages in a strike “shall be dismissed from his or her employment pursuant to Charter section A8.346.” Additionally, a Declaration of Policy at the outset of Charter section A8.409 declares that “strikes by city employees are not in the public interest.”
In short, PERB's findings are that A8.346 and A8.409 are void and unenforceable at face due to the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). This is because striking is statutorily protected in California, and can only be restricted by established provisions under the MMBA or "other public-sector labor relations statutes and controlling precedent." A strike ban conflicts with this. In PERB's view San Francisco's restrictions are so punitive that they constitute a ban—therefore it has voided1 the city's provisions on this matter, and enjoined (legally prohibited) San Francisco from enforcing them effective immediately.
This is significant timing because next year, the city's public sector employee contracts are up for negotiation—and now, the approximately 40 unions the city bargains with all would have the right to strike. Provided the ruling is upheld—which, there's no reason to think otherwise and the city has not suggested it will appeal yet—this will certainly be a space to watch next year.
PERB, I should note, is only a "quasi-judicial" agency and hence does not have the power to unilaterally repeal (or compel the city to repeal) the struck provisions itself—only to void them. This is why it has enjoined San Francisco.