Friday, January 23, 2009

Black Enterprise, February 2009

Copyright 2009 Earl G. Graves Publishing Company, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

Black Enterprise

February 2009

HEADLINE: Breaking Barriers in the Workplace

BYLINE: LaToya M. Smith, EDITED BY ANNYA M. LOTT LOTTA@BLACKENTERPRISE.COM

HIGHLIGHT:

How professionals with disabilities are working to benefit their companies bottom line

BODY:

JAMES HARPER CONTRACTED POLIO FROM A SICK RELAtive when he was just 11 months old. The disease weakened his leg muscles causing him to spend most of his childhood undergoing reconstructive surgeries. But with therapy and the assistance of crutches and a leg brace, Harper was able to walk for the first time when he was 9 years old.

Walking was just one of the many obstacles Harper has had to conquer. But as much as he has been frustrated with some of the social challenges of his life, he was determined to not allow his physical disability to deter his professional goals. "I know what it's like to never be picked for the basketball team or the baseball team," recalls Harper of his childhood experience, "but I found my mobility in airplanes."

It was his fascination with air flight and spending time with an uncle who worked as a crop duster on the family's farm in Mississippi that influenced him to go to work for Boeing in 1974 at the age of 23.

Today, at 57, Harper is a senior financial analyst for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, the world's leading aerospace company and the largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners and military aircraft. One of 56 million Americans with a disability, Harper is also president of the Boeing Employees Ability Awareness Association.

"It was challenging getting in [corporate America] because there is a misconception there's a multiplicity of things that a person with a disability can't do," Harper laments.

According to Cornell University's Employment and Disability Institute, working, age people (ages 21-64) with disabilities were only 22% as likely to be employed as a working-age person without a disability. Furthermore, a larger percentage of African Americans are denied from vocational rehabilitation programs and are often provided less training and less money compared to white Americans, according to reports released by The Rehabilitation Act.

Nadine O. Vogel, president of Springboard Consulting L.L.C., which services clients interested in marketing to individuals with disabilities, says, "Companies often hesitate to employ talented disabled workers because of fear that it may be too costly." Vogel explains the costs can include special computer software and adjustable chairs and desks. But the Office of Disability Economic Policy research finds that not all disabled persons will need accommodations and for those who do, the average cost is about $600.

Harper enjoyed minor accommodations when he first started as an accountant with Boeing 34 years ago. He was given the closest of handicapped parking and hourly breaks to ease the discomfort in his legs. His leg brace, which extends from his ankle to thigh, often restricts blood flow in his extremities.

Today, however, Harper now has a foot rest and a desk that adjusts in height so he can use it from a sitting or standing position.

"Accommodations are made to remove workplace barriers so that the employee can perform the essential functions of the job and enjoy equal employment opportunities," explains Fanée B. Harrison, director of Cultural Diversity & Inclusion at Boeing.

Despite lingering fears about hiring people with disabilities, corporations are acknowledging that discriminating against talented individuals because of a disability only hurts companies who could benefit from their skills. And so companies are starting to develop programs that assist disabled employees to perform in a variety of circumstances.

For example, Marriott International offers an at home reservation agent position for its disabled workers known as "Myplace by Marriott." In addition, the Marriott Foundation for People with Disabilities, an independently incorporated not-for-profit organization, helps youth with disabilities transition into potential long-term employment.

GRAPHIC: Picture, HARPER'S DESK ADJUSTS IN HEIGHT TO ACCOMMODATE HIS DISABILITY.

LOAD-DATE: January 22, 2009

Inside Higher Ed, January 21, 2009, Wednesday

Inside Higher Ed

January 21, 2009, Wednesday

Inside Higher Ed

More Women on College Boards

While higher education worries about undergraduate student bodies lacking a good ratio of men, that’s not a problem in college board rooms, which remain dominated by men.

But a new national survey of four-year colleges and universities finds slow but steady progress in the representation of women on college boards. Between 1981 and 2007, the percentage of trustees who are women increased to 31 percent from 20 percent.

The percentage of female board chairs during that time increased to 18 percent from 10 percent.

The study was conducted for the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities and analysis was released by the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute. A paper on the research — by Ronald G. Ehrenberg, director of the center, and Joyce B. Main, a Ph.D. student at Cornell — notes that future research will explore whether there is a link between the share of female trustees and efforts by colleges to recruit and retain greater numbers of female faculty members.

Female trustees — especially in powerful roles on boards — were once relatively rare. A report on female trustees at the University of Pennsylvania notes that when Judith Rodin became Penn’s first female president in 1994, she was only the ninth woman to serve on the board’s Executive Committee — and Penn was chartered in 1755. At many colleges and universities, board chairs who are women are the first to hold that role, and it is considered notable enough to issue a press release. Adrian College and Johns Hopkins Universities are among the institutions that have only recently named a woman as board chair.

The Cornell paper on the data notes that much of the research about corporate boards and gender suggests that women tend to have an impact, not when there are only one or two female board members, but when there is some critical mass. The research found that the share of boards with at least three female members rose to 90 percent from 60 percent over the years studied. The number of boards with at least five female members rose to 60 percent from 40 percent.

In terms of gender representation on boards, the study did not find notable differences between public and private institutions. Comparing bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral institutions, the study found increases in female representation on boards across the sectors. However, the proportion of female trustees is lowest at doctoral institutions.

— Scott Jaschik

Buffalo News (New York), January 21, 2009, Wednesday

Copyright 2009 The Buffalo News

All Rights Reserved

Buffalo News (New York)

January 21, 2009, Wednesday

CENTRAL EDITION

HEADLINE: Layoffs spread through local auto plants; Nearly 600 workers are off the job

BYLINE: By Matt Glynn - NEWS BUSINESS REPORTER

BODY:

The area's major auto manufacturing plants are putting about 600 workers on layoff to cope with production cutbacks, as new-vehicle sales remain mired in a slump.

Just when those laid-off workers might be called back isn't clear, since the plants' workloads depend on demand for new cars and trucks.

"It's all due to production volume decreases," said Nina Price, a spokeswoman at General Motors' Town of Tonawanda engine plant.

Under the United Auto Workers contract, laid off workers are paid about 95 percent of their wages while out of work.

The GM engine plant will lay off about 340 of its 1,130 hourly workers for starting Jan. 26, Price said. The layoffs are for an indefinite amount of time, she said, since they are tied to production needs.

If the plant's production needs increase, she said, "possibly those employees will be called back to work."

At Delphi Corp.'s Town of Lockport plant, 175 of its 1,540 hourly workers received layoff notices last Friday, said Gordie Fletcher, president of UAW Local 686 Unit 1.

Ford Motor Co.'s stamping plant in Hamburg has 75 of its roughly 800 workers on layoff, and is preparing for a weeklong shutdown in early February, said Charles Gangarossa, president of UAW Local 897.

No one in the industry is predicting a quick turnaround. Forecasts for U.S. auto sales in 2009, on top of a weak 2008, are gloomy.

Fletcher said he has "no idea" when the laid-off workers at Delphi will be brought back. "Obviously our hope is that we bring everyone back," he said. "The current state of the economy is putting a crunch on everybody."

Claudia Piccinin, a Delphi spokeswoman, said the automakers' production schedules are constantly changing, and Delphi constantly has to adjust the size of its work force to keep up.

Ford's stamping plant along Route 5 is closely connected to Ford assembly operations in Oakville, Ont., and St. Thomas, Ont. Among the vehicles it supplies stamped parts for are the Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX and Ford Flex.

Gangarossa said the Oakville and St. Thomas operations will shut down production for one week starting Feb. 2, and that the Hamburg plant will close that same week as a result.

A number of assembly and components plants went through a similar process around Christmas and New Year's, extending their normal holiday shutdowns to cut production.

"We just hope things get better with the new president" and the stimulus package President Barack Obama has laid out, Gangarossa said. "Hopefully the economy will get better and people will start buying American vehicles."

Art Wheaton, director of labor studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations in Buffalo, said while layoffs are never good news, the area's plants are holding up better than many others in the industry around the country.

"I think it says it's good that they're taking it slow on the slowdowns," Wheaton said, noting that some other plants have taken more drastic steps to cope with the downturn.

"The products are still valuable," he said.

The area's auto plants have reduced the size of their work forces through attrition and buyouts over the years. The local plants have also enjoyed mostly good labor-management relations "to work through what is needed" in order to remain competitive, Wheaton said.

Under terms of their labor contracts, most of the UAW members will receive about 95 percent of their pay and benefits while on layoff, a combination of unemployment benefits and supplemental benefits provided by the automakers, Wheaton said.

Those types of benefits provided to UAW members are under scrutiny as General Motors and Chrysler put together restructuring plans required by the government for the loans they are receiving to stay afloat, he said.

The industry slowdown is being felt in another way at the GM engine plant in Tonawanda. The automaker is delaying the start of production of the "Duramax" 4.5-liter engine that was expected to get under way later this year, Price said. GM has not announced a new launch date for the line but the Tonawanda plant is still GM's choice to produce the engine, she said.

The $100 million new investment, which was announced in June 2007, was not projected to create new jobs, but it was viewed as another way of shoring up the plant's viability. Early last year, GM announced it was canceling a V-8 gasoline engine line that was also planned for the River Road site.

e-mail: mglynn@buffnews.com

GRAPHIC: Buffalo News file photos GM Tonawanda Engine Plant: 340 of 1,130 Delphi Corp. in Lockport: 175 or 1,540 Ford Stamping Plant in Hamburg: 75 of 800

LOAD-DATE: January 21, 2009

Las Vegas Review-Journal, January 18, 2009, Sunday

Copyright 2009 DR Partners d/b/a Las Vegas Review-Journal
All Rights Reserved
Las Vegas Review-Journal (Nevada)

January 18, 2009, Sunday

HEADLINE: PAY As You Grow?

BYLINE: John Przybys

BODY:
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
When Tamara Dungan was growing up, her grandparents would pay her $1 for every A on her report card.
"For me, it was motivating," says Dungan, co-owner of VegasParent.com, an online parenting resource. "The first thing when I got my report card, I didn't care what my parents said. I'd call my grandfather and grandmother to get the money."

Now, Dungan, 39, who has children in preschool, first grade and fourth grade, jokes that it may be time to start bribing her fourth-grader to earn better grades.

"For me, it's not a moral issue," Dungan says. "There's nothing wrong with it. I think (children) should be rewarded for hard work. In our jobs we get rewarded with more clients, more bonuses and things like that, and school is their job and they need to have some kind of incentive. We all work better for incentives."

Las Vegas attorney Spencer Judd and his wife never have offered their kids money for good grades. Besides being pricey - Judd and his wife, Jill, have nine kids, ages 3 to 21 - Judd says studying hard and earning good grades is "just kind of expected in our home."

"I have, at times, looked at (a pay-for-grades model), but we've determined the best way is just to set high expecta-tions and follow up with them and then reward them in other ways.
"I think kids just have to learn that you don't get rewarded for things you're expected to do," Judd says.

It's a conversational grenade to liven up any PTA meeting: whether a parent should pay a child for earning good grades.

On one side of the debate: parents who reason that money can be an effective performance incentive for kids, just as it is for those kids' moms and dads.

On the other: parents who worry that exchanging grades for cash may taint a child's attitudes toward learning.

In the middle: pretty much every other parent, who might acknowledge the beneficial effects a reward or incentive system can have, but becomes queasy about turning learning into a commercial exchange.

C. Kirabo Jackson, an assistant professor of labor economics at Cornell University, has studied a Texas program in which high school students receive cash awards for earning passing scores on advanced placement exams.

According to Jackson, cash incentives were linked with increases in AP participation, an increase in higher scores on ACT and SAT exams, and an increase in the number of students in the program who go on to enroll in a college or university.

However, Jackson doesn't know whether the results of the Texas program translate into the more intimate model of a parent paying a child for good grades.

"My study looked at when you pay both the student and the teacher for good grades," he says.
"I'm not able to say what happens if you pay a student an allowance, per se (for good grades)."

The general notion of rewarding academic performance isn't new, Jackson notes. Spelling bee winners receive prizes, for example, and nonmonetary incentives and rewards long have been used in the classroom to promote student achievement.

But, Jackson says, "I think it's the fact that it's monetary that starts to make people feel a little uncomfortable. That's my assessment, because the general idea of having some kind of carrot-and-stick motivator is definitely not new."

Jackson says one concern he hears from parents is that a cash reward system can result in "sapping the student's intrinsic motivation and replacing it with an extrinsic motivation. So the worry they have is, in the short run you get the positive effects, but in the long run you're worse off because children don't understand how to be intrinsically motivated and enjoy work for work's sake."

Ideally, says Kevin Dunning, executive director of Faith Lutheran Junior-Senior High School, a student will, during the course of his or her academic career, "develop a love of learning."
The idea, he continues, is to find "something that will spark a passion in them that they'll start to explore as they go into adulthood. And 'passionate' and 'pay' don't mix."

Dunning says he respects every parent's right to reward children for academic performance in whatever way they deem best. But Dunning adds that, when his own children, who are now in their 20s, broached a cash-for-grades pro-posal with him during their school days, "I just didn't think that was something we wanted to try.

"We wanted to try to encourage them to do their best because that's what they should be doing, not because they were working to get money," he says.

Brad Beal, president and chief executive officer of Nevada Federal Credit Union, recalls giving the practice a try when his children, now 29 and 31, were younger.

"Let's put it this way: It worked fine for a while," he says, but, eventually, the children "got kind of bored with it. I think it's like a lot of things: Even for adults it loses its luster."

Deborah Danielson also tried it for a while with her children, who now are 29 and 31. But, says Danielson, owner and president of Danielson Financial Group: "I just found it didn't work. They were never satisfied. Somebody's parent always paid more and they (argued that they) worked hard and deserved more.

"We did it for one year," Danielson notes, "and it was just really frustrating."
However, remove cash from the equation and, in many parents' minds, an incentive system becomes not only more palatable but even beneficial. Toward that end, Judd says, a family outing, a special dinner, or even just the acknowledgement of a good report card during family
dinner can serve as an effective incentive for children.

"Money is not the No. 1 thing," he says, "and I think if you teach children that money is the No. 1 thing, you're re-ally doing them a disservice."

Contact reporter John Przybys at jprzybys@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0280.

LOAD-DATE: January 20, 2009

The New York Times, January 18, 2009, Sunday

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

The New York Times

January 18, 2009, Sunday

Correction Appended

Late Edition - Final

HEADLINE: An Internal Union Dispute Turns Nasty, With a Local in the Balance

BYLINE: By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

BODY:

As president of a union local representing 150,000 health care workers in California, Sal Rosselli knows how to get under management's skin, setting up picket lines at hospitals, ridiculing company executives in advertisements and sometimes even protesting outside their homes.

But now Mr. Rosselli is using his street-fighting savvy to battle the head of his own union, Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, who is widely considered the most powerful labor leader in the nation.

The feud has grown so nasty that many members of Mr. Rosselli's local, United Healthcare Workers-West, based in Oakland, petitioned this month for a vote to secede from the national union. The local's board decided on Friday to schedule such a vote this March. These moves came in response to Mr. Stern's efforts to oust Mr. Rosselli, remove 65,000 workers from his local and place it in trusteeship. The parent union has accused Mr. Rosselli of financial malpractice and fraud.

''Liar,'' says Mr. Rosselli, who regularly denounces Mr. Stern as a top-down leader who retaliates against leaders who disagree with him.

''Hypocrite,'' Mr. Stern responds.

The parent union has accused Mr. Rosselli of diverting $3 million into a political slush fund to protect himself against trusteeship and the chopping up of his local. Mr. Rosselli argues that it was an education fund for health care reform, and his backers say that the fund was legal, that only $100,000 was spent and that its goals were legitimate.

''This is a civil war,'' said Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a Rosselli supporter.

''The cost of a trusteeship will be great,'' Mr. Lichtenstein said. ''To my mind, it will mean the destruction of a very dynamic, progressive union that is the model for which most of American labor should aspire.''

Ray Marshall, a former labor secretary, has been appointed the hearing officer in the dispute and is expected to rule this week on whether Mr. Rosselli, who was re-elected to a three-year term on Tuesday, should be ousted and his local placed into trusteeship.

Mr. Stern's union is the nation's fastest-growing labor group, with 1.8 million members, and many labor leaders and their Democratic allies are alarmed by the feud, saying it is hurting the union at a pivotal time. This month, the union began a $30 million campaign to press President-elect Barack Obama and Congress to enact universal health coverage and pass a law making it easier to unionize.

Mr. Rosselli and his local are an influential force. They have created a giant political action committee, helped forge an unusual labor-management partnership with Kaiser Permanente, and helped block Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan for universal health coverage, arguing that it was too watered down.

In many ways, Mr. Stern and Mr. Rosselli are similar. Both are fierce fighters, and both are experts at building loyalty and mobilizing the rank and file.

Their fight escalated last spring when Mr. Stern proposed removing 65,000 nursing home and home-care workers from Mr. Rosselli's local and uniting them with workers from two other locals to create a giant local of 240,000 long-term workers. The new union was to be headed by Tyrone Freeman, president of a Los Angeles local.

Mr. Rosselli denounced the move as an effort at retaliation.

''We achieved the highest standards for nursing home workers in the country because they were in the same union as hospital workers,'' Mr. Rosselli said. ''Putting these workers in a separate long-term union would relegate them to permanent second-class status.''

Mr. Rosselli was angry that Mr. Stern seemed to be rewarding Mr. Freeman, a Stern ally who he said had negotiated worse wages for nursing home workers.

Mr. Rosselli was able to derail part of that plan when his allies dug up information that Mr. Freeman had spent $10,000 in union money at a cigar lounge and hundreds of thousands of dollars more for his mother's day care agency and his wife's video company. Those revelations led to Mr. Freeman's ouster.

Not long ago, Mr. Rosselli was a Stern ally who backed Mr. Stern's plan to increase dues to finance far more organizing. Mr. Rosselli said tensions began when he became convinced that the parent union had bypassed him and his members in some negotiations and when he soured on a nursing home contract that he had previously supported. That contract -- many of its details had been kept secret from members -- traded away some potential gains for current members; in exchange, management agreed not to oppose unionization efforts at dozens of nursing homes.

Nowadays Mr. Rosselli loudly denounces that deal and Mr. Stern. ''To achieve his goal of top-down sweetheart deals with the nursing home industry, he wants to take us out of representing nursing home workers because we won't stop objecting,'' Mr. Rosselli said.

Mr. Stern defended the union's negotiating strategy, saying, ''We've always believed our job was to use all of our strength to raise everyone up, and not just a few.''

Mr. Stern said that creating a giant California local of nursing home and home-care workers was approved by the parent union's board and was consistent with overall policy: to form larger locals that have greater bargaining and political power. He said the move resembled a 2005 merger that benefited Mr. Rosselli, when a health care local in Southern California merged with his old local, with Mr. Rosselli heading the combined local.

''I would say the idea that this is retaliation for him speaking up defies history and reeks of hypocrisy,'' Mr. Stern said. ''This is about members' interest, not leaders' interest.''

One reason for the move to create the larger local, Mr. Stern said, was that Mr. Rosselli's local had not done nearly enough organizing of nursing home workers. Mr. Rosselli vehemently disagreed, pointing out that he recently signed contracts that gave a green light to organizing 65 nursing homes.

Richard Hurd, a professor of labor relations at Cornell University, said the bigger bulldog -- Mr. Stern -- was likely to prevail.

''You have someone who is arguably the most successful national labor leader who has a done a lot of internal restructuring that has worked by and large,'' he said. ''I don't see him bowing down or backing down because a strong local labor leader wants another approach.''

URL: http://www.nytimes.com

CORRECTION-DATE: January 20, 2009

CORRECTION:

An article on Sunday about a dispute within the Service Employees International Union omitted one source of information involving accusations that Tyrone Freeman, president of a Los Angeles local, spent union money improperly. While some of the information was unearthed by allies of a rival, Sal Rosselli, president of United Healthcare Workers West, some of it was also uncovered by The Los Angeles Times in its reporting during the past six months. The article also referred incorrectly to the relative of Mr. Freeman whose day care agency received union money. It was his mother-in-law, not his mother.

GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Sal Rosselli, head of a 150,000-member union local in California, was re-elected last week but might be ousted from the post.(PHOTOGRAPH BY JIM WILSON/THE NEW YORK TIMES)

LOAD-DATE: January 18, 2009

Belleville News-Democrat, January 16, 2009, Friday

Copyright 2009 Belleville News-Democrat

Belleville News-Democrat (Illinois)

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News

January 16, 2009, Friday

HEADLINE: Accomplished author and educator to return to East St. Louis

BYLINE: Carolyn P. Smith, Belleville News-Democrat, Ill.

BODY:

Jan. 16--EAST ST. LOUIS -- -- He grew up in the tough Villa Griffin housing project in East St. Louis and was raised by a single mother on welfare. And if you look at the odds, he should never have made it out.

But, he did.

Today, Jarik Conrad owns his own business -- Conrad Consulting Group in Jacksonville, Fla. He holds a doctorate of education degree from the University of North Florida, and a master's of industrial and labor relations degree and a master's of business administration from Cornell University. Conrad also holds a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Illinois.

He's also the author of several books.-On Saturday from 1-3 p.m., he will be at the East St. Louis Public Library to host a discussion on his newest book, "The Fragile Mind."

Conrad says many more individuals can make it out of the poverty that grips East St. Louis and other cities like it if educators, elected officials, employers and social service providers acknowledge the existence of what he calls "traumatic stress disorder (TSD)."

"-It must be understood as a legitimate mental health crisis in these communities. Efforts should be devoted toward-reducing the stigma associated with mental health challenges like persistent-TSD," Conrad said.

For Conrad, existing programs aimed at improving the quality of life for individuals in these communities must have significant resources that focus on addressing persistent-TSD, he said.

Conrad said mental health professionals need to be trained on TSD and then they must be mobilized to the communities where they are needed. He said particular focus must be placed on children.

"Many people point to individuals who have overcome dire circumstances and suggest that if those people can make it, anyone can, provided they work hard enough. However, it's doubtful that anyone would suggest that because not all soldiers come home with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. PTSD is not a (widespread) problem. The solution to this issue requires us to redefine the issue in terms of what is probable as opposed to what is possible. It is possible that you can go out today, buy a lottery ticket and win millions of dollars, but the odds are 18 million to one that you will lose," said Conrad.

Conrad opened his consulting firm in 2004 "to help people solve complex people-related issues-through an innovative approach to human dynamics."

St. Clair County Circuit Court Judge Milton Wharton has read Conrad's book and says, "Dr. Conrad offers novel and innovative ways to approach race, success and failure. Our entire region is burdened by any segment of it, which is crime-ridden and populated by large numbers of individuals who are not making positive contributions of which they are capable. So,-I believe that his ideas are important to anyone, would be important to any concerned individual regardless of their ethnic, economic, or residential location," Wharton said.

(Contact reporter Carolyn P. Smith at csmith@bnd.com)

To see more of the Belleville News-Democrat, Ill., or to subscribe, visit http://www.belleville.com. Copyright (c) 2009, Belleville News-Democrat, Ill. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

LOAD-DATE: January 16, 2009

Time Magazine, January 14, 2009, Wednesday

Time Magazine

January 14, 2009, Wednesday

Time Magazine

Should Students Be Paid for Good Grades?

By Laura Fitzpatrick Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2009

Back in the day, a good report card earned you a parental pat on the back, but now it could be money in your pocket. Experiments with cash incentives for students have been catching on in public-school districts across the country, and so has the debate over whether they are a brilliant tool for hard-to-motivate students or bribery that will destroy any chance of fostering a love of learning. Either way, a rigorous new study — one of relatively few on such pay-for-performance programs — found that the programs get results: cash incentives help low-income students stay in school and get better grades. (See TIME's special report on paying for college.)

According to a study released today by the social-policy research group MDRC, a nonpartisan organization perhaps best known for evaluating state welfare-to-work programs, cash incentives combined with counseling offered "real hope" to low-income and nontraditional students at two Louisiana community colleges. The program for low-income parents, funded by the Louisiana Department of Social Services and the Louisiana Workforce Commission, was simple: enroll in college at least half-time, maintain at least a C average and earn $1,000 a semester for up to two terms. Participants, who were randomly selected, were 30% more likely to register for a second semester than were students who were not offered the supplemental financial aid. And the participants who were first offered cash incentives in spring 2004 — and thus whose progress was tracked for longer than that of subsequent groups before Hurricane Katrina abruptly forced researchers to suspend the survey for several months in August 2005 — were also more likely than their peers to be enrolled in college a year after they had finished the two-term program. (Read "Putting College Tuition on Plastic.")

Students offered cash incentives in the Louisiana program didn't just enroll in more classes; they earned more credits and were more likely to attain a C average than were nonparticipants. And they showed psychological benefits too, reporting more positive feelings about themselves and their abilities to accomplish their goals for the future. "It's not very often that you see effects of this magnitude for anything that we test," notes Thomas Brock, MDRC's director for young adults and postsecondary-education policy.

Although U.S. college enrollment has climbed, college completion rates have not. Only a third of students who enroll in community colleges — which educate nearly half the undergraduates in the U.S. — get a degree within six years. Hence the interest in this study among such philanthropic powerhouses as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which helped fund the MDRC study. (MDRC, by the way, was created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies; originally named the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, it now goes only by the abbreviation.)

Given that the follow-up study of the program was disrupted as the schools struggled to rebuild enrollment and facilities in the wake of Katrina, it's difficult to draw any long-term conclusions about the effects that cash incentives will have on community-college students. However, there could soon be more data to parse: with a grant from the Gates Foundation, MDRC plans to test cash incentives at community and state colleges in California, New Mexico, New York and Ohio.

Despite the study's impressive, albeit short-term results, some critics in higher education are concerned that cash incentives will encourage students to start taking easier courses to ensure they'll do well enough to pocket the money. "Everyone knows what the gut classes are when you're in college," notes Kirabo Jackson, an assistant professor of labor economics at Cornell who has studied cash incentives for high school students. "By rewarding people for a GPA, you're actually giving them an impetus to take an easier route through college." Other critics note that students' internal drive to learn may be sapped as they focus on getting an external reward.

But those involved with the study note that particularly in this economy, cash incentives could help part-time students devote more hours to their studies. Faced with soaring bills for tuition, books and housing, many college students need a job just to get by. In the Louisiana program, all the participants were low-income parents, three-quarters of whom were unmarried or living without a partner. "We're talking about adults who have quite a number of other responsibilities," says Brock. "When you're talking about minors who are required by law to be in school, that's a different situation."

Arnel Cosey, assistant vice chancellor for student affairs and provost for the City Park Campus at New Orleans' Delgado Community College, one of two schools in the study, says she understands why some people are concerned that cash incentives are nothing more than bribery. "But on the other hand, I think because I am involved with these students daily, I'm not sure that I'm opposed to bribing," she says. "If that's what we need to do for these people to reach these goals, which ultimately will lead to them having a better life, I wish I had more money to give."

Besides, as Cosey adds, if all goes well, students will be getting cash incentives for their work soon after graduating — in the form of a paycheck. "Most of us wouldn't turn up at work every day if we weren't getting a check," she says. "What's wrong with starting the payment a little early?"

The Pantagraph, January 12, 2009, Monday

Copyright 2009 The Pantagraph
The Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois)

January 12, 2009, Monday

HEADLINE: Economy taking a toll on no-layoff policies

BYLINE: By Cari Tuna;WALL STREET JOURNAL

BODY:
Until recently, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. prided itself on a 51-year history of never laying off a U.S. employee. When competitors slashed fleets and shuttered branches after the Sept. 11 attacks, Enterprise kept hiring.

Last fall, though, the nation's largest car-rental agency said it would dismiss 1,000 of its 75,000 employees, as Americans curtailed driving and flying. "These types of declines are unprecedented," says Patrick Farrell, Enterprise's vice president of corporate responsibility.

The deepening recession is prompting layoffs at long-established employers that avoided job cuts in previous downturns. These layoffs demonstrate both the severity of the current recession and the continued erosion of workplace norms that once shielded many U.S. workers from permanent job loss.

Several of these employers are in hard-hit industries. Employment in the car rental and leasing sector, for example, fell 3.3 percent in October from a year earlier, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Gentex Corp., a Zeeland, Mich., automotive supplier, conducted its first
layoffs in 34 years this month amid plunging car sales.

Some workplace experts say such layoffs show that the stigma associated with permanent job cuts - unthinkable to many employers three decades ago - continues to decline. They say companies find it easier to let go of workers when rivals and other employers also are eliminating jobs.

"Companies really respond to these things based on what they think they ought to be doing," says Peter Cappelli, director of the Center for Human Resources at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "They watch what their competitors do and listen to what the investment community tells them."

Kevin Hallock, a professor at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, says as layoffs become more common, managers may find it easier to discount the human and business costs. He recalls a group of senior executives who broke into tears after announcing their company's first layoffs. When Hallock returned to the company six months later, the same executives were discussing another round of job cuts in "the starkest economic terms."

"It was a really difficult thing for them the first time," he says. But "they got over that hump."


Many of the employers conducting their first layoffs say they first tried other ways to cut costs, such as freezing salaries or drumming up work for idle employees.

Enterprise managed to grow through past recessions. Its business, based largely on referrals from insurance compa-nies, was mostly immune to volatility in airport traffic. But the

2007 acquisition of rival Vanguard Car Rental Group Inc., parent of the Alamo and National brands, increased Enterprise's stake in the airport rental market and added 10,000 employees, leaving the company more vulnerable to economic factors heading into 2008.

For most of this year, closely held Enterprise skirted the drop in rentals that hit some competitors as fuel prices climbed. But in its fiscal first quarter, which ended Oct. 31, revenue at the St. Louis company dropped 4 percent. Enter-prise initially slowed hiring, froze salaries and reduced overtime. In mid-October, Chief Executive Andrew Taylor urged employees in a company-wide e-mail to seek "additional opportunities to reduce expenses."

Two weeks later, with the prospect of further revenue declines, Enterprise decided to close struggling branches, consolidate regional offices and dismiss hundreds of administrative and tech support staffers. "This was not easy for us to do," Farrell says. But "in the end it's better for our company and employees to make the difficult decisions today ... and ultimately protect the majority of jobs in the long term."

The recession and tighter credit markets prompted the first-ever layoffs at Life Time Fitness Inc. by derailing ex-pansion plans. The Chanhassen, Minn., fitness-center operator has grown rapidly, to 81 centers in 18 states, from 45 centers three years ago.

This fall, though, Life Time Fitness scaled back its planned 2009 expansion to six club openings, from 11. In No-vember, the company laid off 100 of its 15,000 employees, primarily architects, designers and real-estate developers, says spokesman Jason Thunstrom.

Gentex, which makes rear-view cameras and other gear for cars and airplanes, earlier this month dismissed about 370 employees, or roughly 15 percent of its staff, in its first layoffs. "This was a significant, emotional event," says Bruce Los, vice president of human resources. "We didn't even have a layoff policy."

CUTLINE:
PUB: The Pantagraph
PUB DATE: 20090112
Section: Money
EDITION: Main
QRKPAGE: 1
PAGE SLUG: D5
XMLFILE: 36919760.txt
DOC NAME: D05 011209 No layoff policies
CREATOR:

GRAPHIC: /* //JCL004 EXEC JCL004,COND=(0,NE), // USER=, // OWNER=I03 // //I1A JOB (PR,33FB,0,99,0,,,,,0A0F00FA,0A0C00CQ,A4858,), // 'NEWSVIEW: ', // MSGCLASS=X, // CLASS=I /*ROUTE XEQ DCC /*JOBPARM S=ANY,PROCLIB=PROCIPOP /*ROUTE PRINT DCC //JOBLIB DD DSN=PI00.LPA00.EXECLIB,DISP=SHR // DD DSN=PI00.LPA99.EXECLIB,DISP=SHR //RJEIP EXEC MDCRJEDK, // USER=, // OWNER=I03 //SYSUT1 DD *

LOAD-DATE: January 12, 2009

Buffalo News, January 9, 2009, Friday

Copyright 2009 The Buffalo News

All Rights Reserved

Buffalo News (New York)

January 9, 2009, Friday

CENTRAL EDITION

HEADLINE: Donald T. Barry, Courier-Express reporter and editor;

April 29, 1927 -- Jan. 8, 2009

BODY:

Donald T. Barry of the City of Tonawanda, an editor at the Buffalo Courier-Express and the Buffalo Business Journal, died Thursday in the Center for Hospice & Palliative Care, Cheektowaga, after a brief illness. He was 81.

Born in Newark, N.J., he was a Navy veteran of World War II and earned a bachelor's degree in journalism from Long Island University in 1952. In the early 1980s, he attended the Cornell University Industrial/Labor Relations School.

Mr. Barry's first job as a reporter was for the Wellsville Reporter. He then spent four years at the Bradford (Pa.) Era, where he was a reporter and columnist. After a brief stint as a reporter with the Tonawanda News, he joined the Courier-Express as a reporter in 1957.

He became the Courier's assistant metropolitan editor in 1962 and metropolitan editor in 1973. He was assistant managing editor for the paper from 1980 until it closed in 1982.

After serving as editor-in-chief at the Buffalo Business Journal in 1984 and 1985, he became a freelance journalist, writing numerous articles and columns for newspapers and magazines.

An avid photographer, he also operated Frames by Barry, a custom picture framing shop, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s in the City of Tonawanda. He was one of about a dozen Certified Picture Framers in New York State.

He won numerous regional and state journalism awards. He also was honored with the George Polk Memorial Award and the National American Legion Award.

He was a member of Lorenzo Burrows Post 78, American Legion; St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church; and the Tonawanda Library Board. He also was a dedicated supporter of the University at Buffalo and its sports programs.

Surviving are his wife of 56 years, the former Sylvia Gustavson; three sons, David, John and James; four daughters, Laura Perillo, Patricia Mulcahy, Barbara Schulz and Susan Schulz; a brother, Laurence; and two sisters, Helen Siragusa and Marilyn Sipple.

A Mass of Christian Burial will be offered at 10 a.m. Monday in St. Francis of Assisi Chapel, 70 Adam St., City of Tonawanda.

[ANDERSON]

GRAPHIC: [Half-col pic]

LOAD-DATE: January 10, 2009

Workforce Management, December 2008

Workforce Management

December 2008

Workforce Management


HR 2018: Future View

What will human resources look like a decade from now? As it did in 1998, Workforce Management has asked a group of HR executives and thought leaders to make their best predictions.
By Ed Frauenheim

The concept of "offshoring" will cease to exist. Millennials will redefine jobs, doing work at home and taking home to work. The labor market will look more like eBay than Monster or Yahoo HotJobs. And companies will engage in "crowd sourcing."

These are among the top predictions from a panel of experts for what human resources will be like in 2018. Overall, the nine thought leaders and HR executives surveyed by Workforce Management envision a quite different workplace and HR profession from those of today. In 2018, work will consist of transient teams made up of internal and external workers, HR officials will assume many more seats on corporate boards, and leaders increasingly will be held accountable for their talent management decisions.

And don’t be surprised if an HR executive becomes CEO of a Fortune 100 firm—our experts put the odds of that happening as high as 100 percent.

Of course, forecasting is always iffy. Workforce Management’s attempt to predict 2008 back in 1998, for example, had mixed results (see story on page 22). But we decided to try again, given the importance of preparing for and benefiting from workforce trends ahead. It also seems like a good time for constructing scenarios for the future, given the global economic upheaval that is forcing firms to wrestle with talent strategies.

Panelist Libby Sartain, former head of HR at Southwest Airlines and Yahoo, thinks the coming decade will differ from the past one when it comes to the pace of change in HR. In other words, hold on to your seats. "The last 10 years moved slower than I thought they would," she said. "We will be moving faster."

Creating the lists
Sartain was joined on the panel by other leading HR practitioners. They included Kevin Kelly, director of the people team for the Americas at professional services firm Ernst & Young, and Nandita Gurjar, vice president of human resources at India-based technology services company Infosys Technologies. Also participating were two HR executives from business software firm SAP: Terry Laudal, senior vice president of human resources for the Americas, Japan and the Asia Pacific region; and Virginia Clark, global head of learning and talent management.

In addition, our panel featured HR experts from the academic world: John Haggerty, managing director of executive education at Cornell University’s Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies; John Boudreau, business professor at the University of Southern California; and Dave Ulrich, business professor at the University of Michigan. Ulrich also participated in our prediction study a decade ago.

Rounding out the group of thought leaders was Susan Meisinger, who recently stepped down as CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, the HR field’s largest professional organization.

This panel of experts helped us compile predictions in six workforce categories. We first asked participants to provide several predictions in each of the categories. Then we took the composite lists of predictions and fed them back to the panel members, asking them to rank their top 10 in each category. From those rankings, we calculated the top 10 predictions in each category.

The purpose of asking panel members to rank the composite lists was to arrive at something akin to a consensus. We instructed experts to keep in mind how realistic the predictions were as they ranked them, but to focus on the significance of the forecasts in shaping the HR field.

Not surprisingly, the experts didn’t always agree on what’s ahead. For example, one of Haggerty’s initial predictions was "substantially less business travel and fewer expatriate assignments." But Meisinger said she expected "even more demand for leaders with global experience, creating more demand for ensuring key talent has expatriate experience."

Haggerty also disagreed with Ulrich over the impact of Generation Y on the workplace. While Ulrich foresaw "Millennials redefining work" and blurring the boundaries of life and work, Haggerty forecast a minimal effect. "Gen Y issues will have had far less impact on business reality than predicted," he wrote. "Talented people, willing to work very hard, will flourish in most organizational settings."

Still, we found a fair amount of common ground among panelists.

Key forecasts
In the "Structure of Work" category, experts collectively pointed to collaboration as a key in 2018. The top-ranked prediction was: "There will be an increased focus on infrastructures—such as social networks and wikis—to support building strong relationships and collaboration." The second-most popular choice predicted novel work arrangements: "The structure of work will become more adaptive, more informal and less focused on formal structure and static design solutions."

Gurjar, of Infosys, envisions expanded use of virtual teams of employees who communicate extensively through videoconferencing, e-mail and text messaging. Gurjar said people are learning to work well together without much, if any, face-to-face interaction. At Infosys, workers text message despite sitting just a few feet away from one another. "Our communication is so highly dependent on e-mail or SMS [short messaging service, or texting]," she said. "Nobody talks on the phone anymore."

Under the "Global Business" heading, panelists focused on making corporate principles clear to workers in all locations. "Companies will need to balance the need for a unified global culture with local strategic and cultural differences and make core global values locally relevant and easily understandable for all employees," the top prediction stated.

The corporate social responsibility movement will grow stronger, experts said in the category of "Work and Society." Their No. 1 prediction was: "Societies throughout the world will focus on work as a more important crucible for social progress and values. The memory of today’s financial crisis will leave a legacy of greater scrutiny and regulation of issues such as fairness, pay differentials and ethics, particularly in traditional Western economies."

At the same time, decisions about hiring and training will be tied more carefully to the bottom line, panelists predicted. The top forecast in the field of "Recruiting and Workforce Development" was: "Recruitment and development will increasingly be seen as part of an integrated workforce-supply optimization process. Both will become virtual, global and just-in-time, but they will also be transformed through an increasing emphasis on optimization, differentiation and return on investment."

Another top forecast in this category was that leadership development will be critical. SAP’s Clark sees a continued shift away from a pure "command and control" leadership style to a more "matrixed, collaborative" approach. This puts the onus on an organization to develop different types of capabilities in their leaders.

"I really think that leadership development is going to be one of the areas on top of the corporate agenda," Clark said. Panelists suggested that HR executives will face tough scrutiny of the way they recruit, manage and retain people. The top prediction for the "Strategic Role of HR" was: "The strategic role of decisions about talent and how it is organized will increasingly be recognized as pivotal to sustainable strategic success. Leaders will be held accountable for the quality of those decisions."

And the benefits world of the future will be customized and creative, with offerings that could include elder care, pet care and concierge services, according to the panel. "Companies will need to offer tailored benefits to meet diverse needs and attract talent," the experts predicted in their top choice.

Other emerging trends
Apart from asking panel members to make and rank predictions in the six categories, we also asked several specific questions about HR a decade from now. Among these was how much a data-driven "decision science"—similar to the disciplines of finance or supply chain management—will emerge in HR by 2018.

USC’s Boudreau, who is among the leading voices calling for HR to develop a decision science, is optimistic. "A decision science for talent markets will advance significantly by 2018," he said, "and will increasingly be seen as equally important for business leadership as finance, marketing and supply chain."

Meisinger suggested some caveats. "Those that have a business degree as well as HR certification will be very comfortable with a decision-science approach," she wrote. "It is much more likely to be present in larger companies than small, since smaller companies have fewer resources."

Ulrich agreed there will be more data to crunch, but he also said, "It is hard to make a science out of talent and organizational issues."

Panelists generally gave good odds that an HR executive will advance to become CEO of a Fortune 100 firm by 2018. Boudreau put the chances at 100 percent. Sartain also said it was likely. "With many HR people moving to operations or from operations and having strong business acumen, this will happen more often," she said.

Asked what the most important workforce management issue will be in 10 years, Clark and Laudal said continued labor shortages, particularly in leadership positions. Gurjar cited the need for constant learning and updating of skills.

Haggerty predicted: "Talent management, same as 2008."

Another thing he doesn’t see changing is what the profession calls itself. Terms such as "talent management" and "human capital management" have been bandied about, but Haggerty doesn’t see them sticking.

" ‘HR’ will still be the name," he predicted. "Fads with fancy titles will fade."

Kelly, of Ernst & Young, begged to differ. A 27-year veteran of the profession, he already sports an unusual title as director of people for North and South America, and Israel. Just as terms such as "personnel" and "employee relations" gave way to more modern labels, he expects the name "HR" will be "outdated and old-fashioned" in a decade.

After all, he said, the field is starting to race forward, thanks to such factors as globalization, increased attention to talent and a greater focus on inclusive workplaces. "In my last five years, the rate of change is greater than in the first 22," he said.

A still faster pace is ahead, he predicted. "I wish it wasn’t so," he said with a chuckle, "because I’m trying to catch my breath."

Workforce Management, December 2008, p. 1, 18-23 -- Subscribe Now!

Friday, January 09, 2009

Detroit Free Press, January 9, 2009, Friday

Detroit Free Press

January 9, 2009, Friday

Detroit Free Press

UAW strike would kill auto loans; Auto rescue terms raise stakes in deal mandating changes in pay, benefits

BY JUSTIN HYDE and TIM HIGGINS • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITERS • January 9, 2009

An extraordinary new wrinkle in the federal loans to Detroit's automakers became clear Thursday from the fine print:

A UAW strike could derail the rescue effort.

The U.S. Treasury Department could declare General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC in default of their $17.4 billion in loans and demand the money back, according to pacts signed with the Bush administration last month.

Although the impact -- and even the legality -- of such a provision is not clear, the details of the pact highlight the complications facing the union, which must agree to make sweeping changes in wages and benefits for workers by Feb. 17. That's far more quickly than the companies have to reach agreements with its creditors.

The union has not threatened a strike, but a work stoppage is one of the strongest levers it has to resist terms with which it disagrees in negotiations.

"In effect, it makes a strike the nuclear option," said Harley Shaiken, a labor expert from the University of California at Berkeley. "In a perverse way, it strengthens the UAW but makes it much more difficult for the UAW to use this weapon."

Said Tony Sapienza, a GM spokesman: "The agreement doesn't prohibit the union from striking. The agreement is between General Motors and the federal government -- it's not between GM and the UAW and the federal government.

"However, if they were to strike, we would be immediately in default, which -- I think we all agree -- is not in anyone's best interest, " Sapienza said.

During an appearance on NBC's "Today" show, GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger didn't hint at any major trouble.

"We've worked some tough stuff together over the last three or four years, and I'm confident that we'll come together and get the kind of changes that we need," Wagoner said.

Wagoner also indicated that retiree benefits, which hundreds of thousands of former GM workers rely on, would not need to be changed.

Terms of the deal
The Treasury Department set a myriad of conditions on GM and Chrysler as part of their plans for survival, under which GM will get $13.4 billion and Chrysler, $4 billion. Those terms had not been fully disclosed until GM filed the documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission late Wednesday.

The deal requires the UAW to accept by Feb. 17 a plan to lower wages and benefits for workers to match those of employees at foreign-owned U.S. plants by Dec. 31. It also requires the union to take half of the money it is due for a retiree health care trust fund in company stock, rather than in cash or company debt.

As part of the loan, the treasury defined several conditions that would trigger a default, including that "any labor union or collective bargaining unit shall engage in a strike or other work stoppage." If the loans are in default, the treasury has the power to call them back immediately and force the automakers into bankruptcy.

A UAW spokesman did not respond to questions for this story.

Chrysler's deal has not been made public, but its loan includes a similar provision, according to a person familiar with the agreement.

Talks could get more complicated
GM and Chrysler have until Dec. 29, 2011, to pay back the loan under the current deal.

The UAW has a no-strike clause in its current national labor contracts with the automakers, which expire in September 2011.

However, the UAW's local chapters can hold strikes for health and safety violations or work standards disputes, said Shaiken, the labor expert.

"With that said, I think it's more molehill than mountain because nobody is talking about a strike," he said. "Both sides are seeking to work together and work through this."

Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School, sees the strike-default provision in the federal loans deal as making the next labor negotiations much more complicated.

"In 2011, unless the economy turns around in a major way, it maybe the most bizarre auto negotiation we've ever seen where no one has any leverage," Henning said. "The UAW can't walk out. ... GM can't let them walk because they could get the loan yanked."

Henning also cautions against thinking that a strike would immediately result in the loans being called. "They could be called," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean the loan would be called. It would give the government leverage."

John Pottow, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said the provision is similar to what would be found in debtor-in-possession financing used in bankruptcy and implies that the government is working to protect the needs of GM.

"They're not preventing the union from striking. The union can ... strike if it wants to," Pottow said. "They're simply letting GM, the company, borrow money and saying as a creditor, 'Your loan is in default if your employees strike.' "

The union's leaders began meeting this week to talk about ways to meet the demands in the loan agreements. But Gettelfinger said the union would not reopen its labor contracts. Gettelfinger said Thursday that the UAW is looking at changes that could be made to the contracts that would help the companies.

"We want to ensure that whatever we do is done in the best interest of our membership as well as our retirees but we're also taking in mind that we want to keep this company competitive," he said during the "Today" show appearance.

Negotiations could begin as early as next week, but the UAW plans to ask its members to vote on any concessions that are reached. The UAW has also indicated that it could press Congress and the Obama administration to change the terms of the loan agreement in the coming weeks.

Harry Katz, dean of Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, doesn't see the strike-default provision impacting the negotiations between GM and the UAW but questioned whether such a provision that could bar a strike is legal.

"Workers have the right to strike guaranteed under the National Labor Relations Act," he said. "It's maybe there symbolically."

Contact JUSTIN HYDE at 202-906-8204 or jhyde@freepress.com.

The Tennessean, January 8, 2009, Thursday

The Tennessean

January 8, 2009, Thursday

The Tennessean

Strikers feel pressure; options for union dwindle at Vought

By Wendy Lee • THE TENNESSEAN • January 8, 2009

After striking for 14 weeks, more than 840 Vought Aircraft Industries' union workers say they will continue to seek a better contract, despite the company's announcement this week that it will hire permanent replacements for them.

But the union's options are few, experts say, especially at a time when unemployment is rising and a troubled economy continues to wreak havoc on businesses.

"Since they went on strike, (the union) used their nuclear weapon," said Mark Johnson, president of Grapevine, Texas-based ERISA Benefits Consulting Inc.
"The company, by hiring permanent replacements, is telling the union take it or leave it."

Since the strike began, about 8 percent of the union's prior 940 members have crossed picket lines to continue working, angering those who remain on strike.

More than two-thirds of the members voted in favor of the strike in September over objections to proposed changes to pension and health-care benefits, said Mike Worrell, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 735.

Worrell said the union plans to continue to negotiate with Vought Aircraft, and a meeting between the two sides is scheduled for Jan. 13. Vought's Nashville plant builds wings and tail sections for military, commercial and general-aviation aircraft.

Analysts said the odds have shifted in favor of the company.

Johnson said at this point, the union has only three options: to hold firm, accept Vought's last offer, or come up with a compromise the company would accept. But by holding firm, the union will face the possibility of losing jobs to the permanent replacements, he said.

"Management has raised the stakes considerably, and given the economic climate, certainly the union is not in a good position," Johnson said.

Striker James Stewart, 52, a plant maintenance worker, said he plans to stand in solidarity with the union as long as he can before he has to find another job, and he vowed that he would never cross the picket line to go back to work.

"I will lose my house, I will lose everything; I will not be a scab," Stewart said. "We go out together, we go back in together."

401(k) plan didn't fly
The September proposal that union workers turned down would have given them a 75-cent hourly raise in the first year and 50 cents in each of the next two years, along with a $3,000 bonus.

Workers on average earn about $20 an hour.

But the union disagreed with proposed changes to the company's pension and plans to raise the workers' health-care premiums and medical co-pays.

Under the proposed contract that was voted down in September, workers with fewer than 16 years of service would have been switched from a pension to a 401(k) plan and an annual contribution from the company to each worker's personal retirement account. They would have retained the pension amounts they earned to date.

The union turned down another company proposal in November that would have outsourced about 100 union jobs, among other changes.

"In general, all the changes are to bring (the contract) in line with what we do with other plants," Vought spokeswoman Lynne Warne said.

The company has brought about 500 contractors and 80 employees from other Vought sites to work at the plant, Warne said. The temporary workers will be eligible to apply for permanent positions, she said.

Ads for the permanent positions will be posted in the near future, but the company has begun receiving resumes, Warne said.

"We need to continue to operate our business, and we just can't do it with the temporary work force anymore," she said.

Steve Davis, vice president and general manager of Vought's commercial aerostructures division, recently sent out letters encouraging the striking workers to "return to work immediately because the company will now seek permanent replacements for you in order to continue to operate its business."

The company is "playing the ultimate trump card, the biggest threat that you can make to a worker," said Richard Hurd, a Cornell University professor of industrial and labor relations. "The company's goal is to persuade more people to cross the picket line. The union is put into a difficult decision. Do they recommend they accept the final offer or call the company's bluff?"

Meanwhile, the union has filed several complaints with the National Labor Relations Board regarding issues brought up by workers about supervisors influencing their votes on the strike and alleged misinformation on the company's Web site, among other issues, Worrell said. Those complaints are still being reviewed.

Wendy Lee can be reached at 615-259-8092 or wlee@tennessean.com.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

The Nation, January 7, 2009, Wednesday

The Nation

January 7, 2009, Wednesday

The Nation

Can Labor Revive the American Dream?

The financial markets are in tatters, consumer spending is anemic and the recession continues to deepen, but corporate America is keeping its eyes on the prize: crushing organized labor. The Center for Union Facts, a business front group, has taken out full-page ads in newspapers linking SEIU president Andy Stern to the Rod Blagojevich scandal. The Chamber of Commerce is capitalizing on the debate over the Big Three bailout to claim that "unions drove the auto companies off the cliff," while minority leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators insist on steep wage cuts. A December 10 Republican strategy memo revealed their central obsession: "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor," the memo read. "This is a precursor to card check"--a clear reference to the Employee Free Choice Act.

This simple amendment to federal labor law, which would, among other things, allow workers to unionize when a majority sign cards rather than requiring a bruising election, has galvanized the business community in a way even the $700 billion bailout couldn't. "I get the sense that this is more important to them than even taxes or regulation," says the AFL-CIO's director of government affairs, Bill Samuels. "This is about power. And the business community is not going to give up power willingly." Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said as much to a meeting with analysts in October. "We like driving the car," he told them, "and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."

In the lead-up to the election, the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus, called Employee Free Choice "the demise of civilization." Wal-Mart summoned store managers into mandatory meetings to warn them against it. Industrial launderer Cintas launched a website to oppose it. The retail industry associations paid blue-chip lobbying firms to block it. The Chamber of Commerce hired Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's chief of staff to run its opposition campaign, which trashed the bill as antidemocratic because it allows workers to bypass a formal election. Business groups spent tens of millions on ads attacking Democrats in tight Senate races, including $5 million targeting challenger Jeff Merkley of Oregon, a supporter of the bill who was smeared with a mailer accusing him of doing the bidding of corrupt labor leaders and trailed at every campaign appearance by a grim reaper claiming "Merkley kills democracy." "I've never seen anything like it," says Merkley's campaign manager, John Isaac, "where a group spent so much money to insert their issue into a campaign."

At first glance, Employee Free Choice looks like little more than a technical fix. In addition to allowing unionizing through majority sign-up, it stiffens penalties for intimidating or firing union supporters and imposes arbitration when a company refuses to bargain a first contract. But as the leading corporate lobbies recognize, the bill could have far-reaching effects. By reviving unions, it could push up wages, realigning the broken economy so that company profits are spread beyond CEOs. It could help rein in corporate power and, perhaps most threatening to a business community that has enjoyed decades of deregulation, sustain a progressive majority in Washington in the years to come. If progressives aren't doing the math, conservatives are. "Unions don't spend money to elect Republicans," Senator John Ensign told a group of executives this past fall. "They spend money to elect Democrats. From our perspective, this would have devastating consequences."

Throughout his run for president, Obama was explicit in his support for Employee Free Choice and his understanding of the forces arrayed against it. "If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union; it's that simple," he told union members in Pennsylvania in April. "Let's stand up to the business lobby." Since his election, he's sent other friendly signals: supporting a factory takeover by pink-slipped glass workers in Chicago and tapping Representative Hilda Solis as labor secretary. While her predecessor stacked the labor department with experienced unionbusters and gutted regulations and workplace safety inspections, Solis has been a regular on Los Angeles picket lines and pushed a minimum-wage hike into law as a state legislator. Significantly, she made an impassioned plea from the House floor for the Employee Free Choice Act.

But the business lobby Obama once railed against is now giving him a taste of its wares. The Chamber denounced the bill in op-eds as "payback" to "union bosses" that would signal the end of "workplace democracy" and the advent of "Soviet-style thuggery." All the big industry associations called press conferences to declare war. "This will be Armageddon," one top Chamber official said of the battle ahead. Another pointedly warned Obama against "picking a fight right away on a major, titanic clash." Obama's advisers got the memo. At a November gathering of CEOs, Rahm Emanuel refused to answer a question about the bill, and that same month economic adviser Jennifer Granholm called it "divisive." Obama recently restated his commitment to ending the "barriers and roadblocks" to unionization but avoided any reference to the bill itself. "The Chamber is fanning the flames on this, saying this is the epic battle between labor and business," says a key strategist working to pass the measure, "and it scares the shit out of the Obama people and some of the Democrats."

For a snapshot of how current labor law works, you could do worse than to travel to McComb, Ohio, a small town a half-hour south of Toledo, where, one Wednesday in early December, Bill Lawhorn showed up for his job as a forklift operator for the first time in six years. He and six other workers were fired in 2002 after leading a campaign to unionize Consolidated Biscuit, a massive industrial bakery in McComb that produces popular snacks for Nabisco such as Oreos, Nutter Butters and Ritz crackers. The workers started out with "a fire in their belly," recalls an organizer from the bakery and confectionary workers union, with more than 650 of 800 signing cards of interest. But after Consolidated Biscuit hired a unionbusting firm and started threatening workers with firings or deportations or shuttering the plant altogether, the union lost the election. In 2004 an administrative law judge found the threats and firings to be illegal, but the company appealed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and then to a circuit court. It wasn't until mid-November that Consolidated Biscuit was finally forced to bring Lawhorn back and allow a fresh vote.

Consolidated Biscuit is one of the few big employers in northwest Ohio, and after eleven years earning around $12.50 an hour there, Lawhorn was stuck hunting for work in a region where jobs are scarce. He estimates that he applied for more than a hundred, including security guard positions paying only $7 an hour, but he says he never got a single call. Eventually he borrowed money from his kids to buy a truck to haul garbage for his neighbors, which brought in a little extra cash until gas prices got too high. He and his wife skated along on her wages from a retail distribution center, but then she developed heart trouble and ended up out of work herself. "Times really, really got hard," he says. "I'm 52 years old. At 52, you shouldn't borrow from your children; you should loan to them. You shouldn't wonder how do you buy your grandchildren a Christmas present." Though Lawhorn received a paycheck in time for Christmas last year, Consolidated Biscuit is still contesting the order to give him back pay.

At least Lawhorn got his job back; one of his fired co-workers died before the case was resolved. Nationwide, some 86,000 workers have been fired over the past eight years for trying to unionize (countless others have been threatened), and only a fraction of these get reinstated by the NLRB. So Lawhorn's return to the forklift is what passes for a victory these days, under the shredded protections of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, whose intent was not merely to protect the right to collective bargaining but to "encourag[e] the practice."

That, says Cornell University's Kate Bronfenbrenner, is long gone. According to her research, employers fire workers in a quarter of all campaigns, threaten workers with plant closings or outsourcing in half and employ mandatory one-on-one meetings where workers are threatened with job loss in two-thirds. All of these tactics are illegal. Unions, meanwhile, are consigned to getting out their message off the clock and off the premises. "The fact that our labor law has no penalties for employer violations, no punitive damages, no financial penalties, that the worst thing that happens to employers when they commit egregious violations is a slap on the wrist, has emboldened employers to break the law at an extreme that is really astonishing," says Bronfenbrenner.

The crisis is so deep that in a rising number of campaigns, unions have abandoned board-certified elections altogether, instead using public pressure to secure union recognition from employers when a majority of workers sign cards. Over the past decade, the number of election petitions has fallen by 41 percent. Take the Communications Workers of America: within a year and a half of pressuring management at Cingular (now AT&T) to recognize card check, CWA had organized 30,000 new members. But CWA recently lost three elections in a row at Comcast worksites, despite enjoying majority support--the result of antiunion threats from Comcast. With Employee Free Choice in place, CWA could have used card check even with this sort of intransigent employer.

Likewise, with Employee Free Choice in effect, Consolidated Biscuit workers would have had a union since May 2002, when a majority first signed cards. With the threat of arbitration, a contract would have been signed before the end of the year, likely boosting pay to $20 an hour. And the penalty for firings may have been stiff enough--triple back pay plus penalties--that Lawhorn and the others might never have lost their jobs.

What would its passage unleash now? Though union membership has slid to 12 percent in recent decades, the desire to unionize has grown--from 30 percent of nonunion workers in the mid-1980s to 53 percent of them now. "Look, the bill will not stop corporate unionbusting," says the AFL-CIO's head of strategic research, Kenneth Zinn, "but it will level the playing field for workers to join a union." If the bill passes, says Change to Win campaign director Bob Callahan, his federation's unions--including the Service Employees, Teamsters, and Food and Commercial Workers--are poised to organize on a massive scale. He predicts 5 million new members in the first eighteen months after passage--meaning, he says, 5 million workers winning a double-digit raise, nearly a million of them lifted out of poverty. Zinn imagines whole industries, and even the "right to work" South, possibly opening up to unionization.

With the concentration of wealth approaching 1929 levels, there is a forceful case to be made that unionization holds the best chance for a reversal. Corporate profits have doubled since 2001, while real wages have flatlined and the number of workers earning poverty wages has risen to nearly a quarter of the workforce. Unionized workers earn between 15 and 28 percent more than their nonunion counterparts and receive far better health and retirement benefits, and when unions reach a high enough density in a particular industry, wages in nonunion shops tend to rise to meet the new standard.

But unionization rates have been crashing for decades. "Historically, unionization basically created the middle class," says economist James Galbraith. "First, by its direct effect on the wages and benefits of unionized workers; second, by its indirect effect on the wages of workers who weren't unionized; and third, by the impact unions had on the creation of the social institutions that underpin the middle class, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--the very structures of the New Deal and the Great Society." A line tracing the rise of wealth inequality and one tracing the decline in unionization make a perfect mirror image of each other.

The business community's massive campaign this past fall to defeat candidates who supported Employee Free Choice focused on the misbegotten claim that the legislation would take away workers' right to choose a union by secret ballot election. Actually, labor law allows either a secret ballot or majority sign-up, at the discretion of the employer; the bill would simply put that choice in the hands of the workers. Still, the Chamber, betting on its trumped-up prodemocracy message, dumped millions of dollars on ads with this message in nine battleground states, some using a Sopranos actor to play the union tough who just might kneecap you if you vote no. Interestingly, the gambit failed. Voters in these states told pollsters that secret ballot in union elections ranked last on their list of concerns; many more said they were troubled by the excessive power of big corporations than said they were troubled by the power of big labor.

Since the election, the business community has savvily retooled its campaign. In a November 21 letter to Congress, the Chamber wrote that passage of the bill "would have a particularly devastating impact on small employers who, as the primary source for new jobs, would be counted on to reverse the current economic downturn." The bill, the letter went on, "is an awful idea in good economic times and a catastrophic idea in the difficult economic times now upon us." Days later, the Chamber presented new research claiming that unionization is a drag on GDP--an assertion that Galbraith and other economists find laughable. And the Chamber used negotiations over the auto bailout to claim that unionization bankrupted the industry. In fact, labor makes up a tiny portion of a car's production cost, but in a tense economic environment with spiking unemployment, such talking points easily gained traction in the media.

If the rhetoric doesn't work, the business lobby is ready to threaten retaliation. "They'll promise to dump money to oppose supporters of the bill in the next election," says Mary Beth Maxwell, director of the pro-union American Rights at Work. The Chamber of Commerce has been aggressively educating its local chapters so that business leaders can buttonhole senators in their home districts. When Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat who counts Wal-Mart among her top donors, met with the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce in late November, she tried to talk about healthcare and the economy, but the businessmen in the room hammered her on Employee Free Choice. A Rove disciple, former US Attorney Tim Griffin, publicly mulled over a run against her if she repeats her 2007 yes vote. Weeks later, the senator hedged her bets, saying the reform is perhaps "not necessary." "We have the most ideological business community in the world," says economist Larry Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, "and they enforce it."

According to the AFL-CIO's Samuels, "We're seeing heavy pressure from the retail world, the chain drugstores, Wal-Mart, the retail federation, the nonunion building contractors and some of the low-wage employers like Tyson's, the ones who have spent twenty years trying to create a business climate that isn't friendly toward unions, and from the several-billion-dollar-industry of antiunion consultants." Wal-Mart, he says, is at the top of that list. "They're flying their forces into DC already." Wal-Mart sent a shot across the bow in October, when the company shuttered an auto shop in Quebec within days of the workers there voting to organize. "It will be very tight in the Senate," says one Democratic Congressional aide. "We're not kidding ourselves."

One of the many ironies here is that the Employee Free Choice Act already has majority support--the bill just needs to get a vote on the Senate floor. In 2007 the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House and garnered fifty-one votes in the Senate, but when Democrats failed to achieve a filibuster-proof majority, the business press was quick to assert that this put "a question mark" over labor law reform. The real question, says SEIU president Stern, is, "Are we willing to say if we can't get sixty votes we won't fight? We will lose as progressives if we concede that idea." Other union leaders worry privately that the bill can't be won intact, that the increased penalties for worker intimidation might face better odds on their own. Representative George Miller, chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, insists that it can. "We had the same opposition last year [2007], and the members understand the issue pretty clearly," he says. "You're either going to give the middle class the tools so they can hold on to their economic livelihood or you're not. It's a very important priority for me."

SEIU has committed 50 percent of its staff to a field campaign in support of Employee Free Choice and national healthcare and expects each local to commit 30 percent of its staff as well. Secretary-treasurer Anna Burger says the union will be in fourteen states with an ambitious "field, phone, air, town-hall-meeting press strategy. We're going to tie that to a Hill strategy as well so they never lose sight of us, and we never lose sight of them, until we get this done. And if they don't vote with us, they need to be clear about what's going to happen to them. People up for re-election should experience some of our ground operation now." Kenneth Zinn says the AFL-CIO will be active in eighteen states, continuing the record-breaking ground operation it put in place for the 2008 election. It is also raising $30 million for a media campaign. Altogether, says Bob Callahan of Change to Win, the two labor federations will have several thousand people on the ground full time to fight for the bill. "Labor has done an incredible job of staying focused on this as a top priority," says Mary Beth Maxwell, "and allies have really stepped up and realized this is more than just labor's fight."

As UC Santa Barbara labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein points out, the New Deal was not just a series of reforms that stabilized banking or stimulated the economy. "Those reforms," he says, "were backstopped by the organization of the working class, and those reforms continued for two generations." Any Obama-era reforms, he adds, "can and will dissipate" unless unions form an institutional bulwark against retreat.

Fred Feinstein, a former counsel to the NLRB during the Clinton years, was a Congressional aide in the late '70s, the last time Democrats, in control on Capitol Hill, made a full-court press to pass labor law reform. They failed to achieve cloture in the Senate by a single vote. Then, unions were more than twice their current size and less allied with progressive causes, and so it was easier to frame the battle as a parochial fight between big labor and big business. "Labor's decline helps recast that dynamic," he says. "This time around it isn't about two special interests; it's about economic recovery and restoring the middle class."