After a two-day vote, the workers approved the first-ever union contract at the Smithfield Foods plant. Here are the details via the United Food & Commercial Workers:

The new contract includes:

* Wage increases of $1.50/hour over the next four years. * Continued company-provided affordable family health care coverage. * Improved paid sick leave and vacation benefits. * Retirement security through protection of the existing pension plan. * Continued joint worker/management safety committee, including company funded safety training for workers. * Guaranteed weekly hours that protect full-time, family supporting jobs in the community * A system to resolve workplace issues. * Three working days of paid funeral leave following the death of immediate family members.

"This contract will completely transform our workplace," said Orlando Williams.  "This is the biggest four-year wage increase Smithfield workers have ever had and it will make a real difference for our families and in this community. We could never have gotten that increase without a chance to bargain with the company. We will finally have a sense of security on the job because through our union we can make sure we have a safe place to work, and that everyone’s treated fairly."

  The first thing to note is that the UFCW deserves a lot of credit. It stuck with this organizing campaign over 17 years through, among other things, a racketeering suit Smithfield filed against the union because of a very persistent corporate campaign waged by the union. In two previous union representation elections, the company brutally harassed the workers, and in particular, the union supporters, to the point that the National Labor Relations tossed out the results of the elections. Finally, last December, the union won overwhelmingly in an election that was more fair then anything in the past.

   Which brings us to this point: when workers have a chance to vote for a union--free of intimidation and threats--they will do so. And certainly one step in that direction will come with the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

  The point that I think is valuable to remember is this one:

Workers and union officials say that perhaps the most important change is that workers will be allowed to voice concerns and challenge management decisions through a formal grievance process. In the past, many workers have said they were treated disrespectfully by their supervisors and fired after speaking out or being injured.

"We really did accomplish something with this union," said Mattie Fulcher, a 10-year employee who helps usher pigs to their deaths. "We might not have gotten the raise that we wanted, but that will come in time. This is our first contract, and it is a start."

  Too often, in the public sphere, and among the talking heads, the focus on union jobs is about wages and benefits. No doubt, that is important. But, what the workers at Smithfield gained was some POWER over how they will be treated.

  Independence Day is about a lot of symbols--patriotism, flag-waving and I suppose mostly, now, a long weekend at the beach. But, it is also about gaining power and the triumph over tyranny. It is always ironic and sad to me that, too often, we assert that triumph by showcasing the very instruments of power that we now use to the detriment of other people around the world.

  But, I forget that when I sit back and think, for a moment, what these workers went through--the struggle, the fight, the commitment that held them together over so many dark days--this is the America that inspires me. They have triumphed over tyranny, they have gained back the power they deserve to shape their lives. That's what Independence Day means to me.

This is cross-posted from UnionReview.

On one hand -- I love sharing labor victory stories. I know that victory stories don't get out there very far and I think it is important for folks to see the action workers are taking every day to secure better wages, work rules, a grievance process and health benefits. On the other hand, can you imagine voting for a union and then not being able to see your first contract for five years? In short, this is one of the reasons this country needs the Employee Free Choice Act.

Anyway, it was not very long ago that I drove a passenger bus to and from an airport with pilots and crew members. Though it was a job I really enjoyed, I didn't enjoy the sub-standard wages, the lack of work rules and the fact that we had no formal grievance process. I thought to organize there and, though there were some attempts before I got there and after I left, it never came to fruition. I have worked a lot of union and non-union jobs driving or loading and though I moved on from that specific line of work, I try to stay in tune to what is taking place in transportation and logistics.

This week I was pleased to learn that workers at Prime-Time Shuttle, a company doing the same work in Los Angeles that I used to do, unanimously ratified a first time three-year agreement with Teamster Local 952.

According to a release issued by the union, the workers voted 22-0 about five years ago for representation. As I alluded to before, one cannot help but wonder if they would have had to wait that long if we didn't have the Employee Free Choice Act in place.

From the release: The members at Prime-Time Shuttle work as guest service representatives and help board passengers onto the vans at Los Angeles International Airport.

"I'm proud to be able to represent a group of Teamsters that stuck together and showed great perseverance throughout this process, " said Eric L. Henry, Business Representative of Teamsters Local Union 952. "Committee members David Purcell and Jeremy Browder continued to build strength and unity among the workers."

Browder and Purcell look forward to having the opportunity to having their new contract in place to help resolve issues at the workplace.

"We know that with the strength of the Teamsters behind us we will be able to continue to improve our working conditions in the coming years," Browder said.

"Customers of Super Shuttle or Prime-Time out of LAX can be confident in the service the Teamsters will provide. They will make sure you get your van ride," said Patrick D. Kelly, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 952.

Today I am tipping my hat to these workers.

   A long battle has taken one step forward to victory:

The Stella D’Oro Biscuit Company factory in the Bronx, where 134 workers on strike since last August have been replaced, must reinstate the workers and pay them wages going back to May, a federal administrative law judge has ruled.

The 134 workers, members of Local 50 of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers, went on strike on Aug. 14, two weeks after their contract had expired.

Most of the workers at the factory, at 184 West 237th Street in Kingsbridge, are paid $18 to $23 an hour, according to the union’s lawyer, Louie Nikolaidis. The union and the company could not reach an agreement over a new contract. Stella D’Oro demanded a $5-an-hour wage reduction for certain workers, along with cuts in pension and heath care benefits, Mr. Nikolaidis said.

   Of course, the company can, and probably will, appeal the case to the full National Labor Relations Board. This is an example why elections matter: the NLRB, now lead by a Democrat, will be more inclined to affirm the decision.

   But, it's also another sign of the pathetic nature of workplace rights. A union has to fight for the rights of 134 workers who have been out of work almost a full year simply for trying to exercise the basic human right to strike--which means, obviously, time and energy drained from any attempt to organize new members.

Members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers joined with hundreds of other union members and health care activists calling on Congress to make quality and affordable medical coverage available to every American on June 25.

Yesterday, June 30th, I was asked to post an article Teamster General President Hoffa wrote to Daily Kos, it is here. (The story also appears on Union Review here.) In this piece we are looking into the fact that a tax hike on health benefits to pay for health care reform is a bitter, bitter pill for middle-class wage-earners to swallow. The comments on Kos run the gamut, as they do often -- but one person asked if the unions were exempt (an article recently ran in Bloomberg about this issue). The blogger asked for a response and we wrote back:

The difference between being in a union and being non-union is that a union worker has a contract. A contract is an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy.

As a rule, labor is against any tax on health care benefits whether a collective bargaining agreement is in place or not. That said, unions collectively bargain for wages and benefits with the understanding that workers will forgo raises to maintain benefits, especially in the economic climate they are faced with today. In some instances, especially of late, workers agree to wage freezes and even givebacks with the understanding that they will maintain benefits they have bargained for over the years. Under the Baucus plan, once a collective bargaining agreement expires, workers will negotiate a new contract with the understanding that new rules apply and they can proceed accordingly.

This would not be the first time collectively bargained benefits have been grandfathered when there has been a change in federal law and it is disingenuous to act as if this is just coming into play under the Obama administration and his health care plan.

A union contract IS the union difference.

---

By Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa

Congress is finally beginning to grapple with a way to give all U.S. citizens access to affordable health insurance. Unions support universal coverage like a large majority of Americans.

Almost 15 years have gone by since lawmakers considered comprehensive reform to our nation’s health care system with the goal of making sure every American can access health care. How to pay for health care reform was the problem then — and it’s the problem now.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the powerful chairman of the Finance Committee, is suggesting an enormous new tax on employer-sponsored health insurance.

Such a tax would raise hundreds of billions of dollars. That tax revenue would help pay for a public government-sponsored plan for individuals and families.

For those who have employer-provided coverage, creating a "public" plan is a sensible way to make health insurance available to people who can’t get it through their employer and don’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. But a tax hike on health benefits to pay for health care reform is a bitter, bitter pill for middle-class wage-earners to swallow.

Most Americans find the prospect of such a tax downright obnoxious. Fortunately, Members of Congress are aware of the public’s hostility to taxing employer-based insurance. A recent national survey by Lake Research Partners shows 80 percent of likely voters oppose taxing health benefits.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made the mistake of floating the idea during his presidential campaign. Candidate Barack Obama lashed out with a television commercial calling it "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Obama’s opposition to taxing employer-based health insurance was a big reason the Teamsters supported him for president.

For all those reasons, it seems extremely unlikely that a tax on employer-sponsored health insurance will ever become a reality. Or, let us hope.

If it did, it would destroy employer-sponsored health insurance.

Adding a tax onto an already crushing expense for employers and employees would create a huge disincentive to buy employer-sponsored health insurance.

It would mostly burden people who are older or sicker, women of childbearing age, employees of small businesses and residents of high-cost communities.

It would set off a stampede to the public plan. And the public plan would lose a major source of revenue.

There is no reason that revenue to pay for health care reform has to come out of the current health care system. Middle-class taxpayers just gave Wall Street the biggest bailout in history. Wall Street can well afford to return the favor.

We know Members of Congress can be creative when they need to find revenue offsets. Let them use that creativity just as they did for Wall Street to prevent another tax on those of us who live on Main Street.

Eliminating subsidies and preferences for the wealthiest Americans would go a long way to pay for the health care reform this country so desperately needs.

President Obama is suggesting a limit on itemized deductions for the 3 million wealthiest people in this country. That would raise about $270 billion over 10 years.

Another good suggestion is to extend the 2.9 percent Medicare tax, which applies only to wages, to ALL adjusted gross income, would raise $38.1 billion.

Imposing a 1.05 percent surtax on the Medicare tax on single people who earn more than $200,000, or couples that earn more than $250,000, would raise $7.2 billion.

Raising the capital gains tax to 28 percent — the rate under President Ronald Reagan — in top income brackets would raise $34.7 billion.

Limiting tax deductions for stock options and the write-off for intangible assets would add $15 billion to the federal Treasury.

Let’s make health care reform cover the uninsured but not penalize hard-working American families and individuals who have employer-sponsored plans. For those who claim this is class warfare, I’d say it’s been going on for quite a while and it’s time for that to change. Middle-class families — the backbone of this country — deserve better.

   A few days ago, I wrote about the coming crisis of retirement that could last for decades. Here's another example:

And even as its pension fund faces this giant bulge in payouts, G.M. is not putting any new money in — the company is not required to make any contributions to the fund until 2013.

The longer this goes on, the weaker the fund will be and the more uncertain its long-term viability.

For now, the pension payments to its younger “retirees,” part of a deal G.M. negotiated with the United Automobile Workers union in 2007, allow the company to drastically shrink its work force without having to come up with the cash to pay severance. The payments also relieve some of the burden on social service programs in the countless factory towns and counties around the country with large numbers of G.M.’s newly jobless.

   And...

In the short term, G.M.’s newly minted retirees, those in their 40s and 50s, have the most to lose if the plan is rapidly depleted and fails. But over time, the risk will shift to the government and the dwindling number of active U.A.W. workers still building cars at G.M. For those workers, a secure pension is already becoming an increasingly distant dream.

“They could find that they don’t get their full pensions when they retire, because the plan has had to be terminated because of the payments to current retirees,” Mr. Elliott said. “There are definitely these intergenerational transfer issues with underfunded pensions.”

   And, this article does dispell the notion that UAW retirees are living it up in retirement:

   I can't help but laugh at the transparent crap passed around by the protectors of the financial kingdom. In a column in today's Wall Street Journal, Roger Altman writes under the headline, "We'll Need To Raise Taxes Soon". Altman's tagline for his bio reads: "founder and chairman of Evercore Partners, was deputy secretary of the Treasury in the first Clinton administration." It really doesn't describe him fully--this is a guy who started his career at Lehman Brothers in the 1970s and, until his "selfless" service to the nation in the Clinton years, was a vice-chairman of The Blackstone Group, and "head of its merger and acquisition advisory business and a member of its investment committee", with "primary responsibility for Blackstone's international business". If you want a profile of a guy with the hand on the tiller of the disastrous financial system that has impoverished millions, Altman is your guy.

   So, what's the upshot of the future of tax hikes?:

Today, the U.S. ranks next to last among the 28 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations in total federal revenue as a share of GDP. Our federal revenues represent 18% of national output, down from 20% just 10 years ago. That makes the mismatch between our spending and our revenue very large, producing the huge deficits we face.

We all know the recent and bitter history of tax struggles in Washington, let alone Mr. Obama's pledge to exempt those earning less than $250,000 from higher income taxes. This suggests that, possibly next year, Congress will seriously consider a value-added tax (VAT). A bipartisan deficit reduction commission, structured like the one on Social Security headed by Alan Greenspan in 1982, may be necessary to create sufficient support for a VAT or other new taxes.

This challenge may be the toughest one Mr. Obama faces in his first term. Fortunately, the new president is enormously gifted. That's important, because it is no longer a matter of whether tax revenues must increase, but how.

   Altman is now the most recent stalking horse for the VAT--a regressive tax. It is fascinating to read how someone can write an entire column about the decline of tax revenues and entirely ignore the reason: a raid on the country's treasury by people like him, the richest one person who have plundered our resources to the tune of trillions of dollars. Why does the U.S. ranks next-to-last among 28 OCED nations? Mainly because in most of those nations, it is an accepted fact that the richest one person pay a larger percentage of their income back as dues to run a decent society.

   So, we now are told: taxes are going up. We, the bankers and the other genuises who have entirely failed in managing the economy, are going to sock middle-income people with a regressive tax--but never address the real crime: how the wealthiest one percent have ripped off the country.

   Last week, I wrote about the energy bill and passages that impose penalties on countries that violate the bill. The president thinks this is "protectionism":

“At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade,” Mr. Obama said, “I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there.”

He added, “I think there may be other ways of doing it than with a tariff approach.”

   Respectfully, Mr. President, you don't do the debate over trade any good by lapsing back on lazy marketing phrases like "protectionism". Can we just simply talk about the RULES. You may not like the rules but let's deal with that notion--rather than toss around intellectually soft hot-button phrases that shed more heat than light. Indeed, it would be hard to make the argument that the rules the energy bill has would have more than a pinprick on trade levels given that the decline in trade is about the collapse of consumer demand which directly results from depressed wages.

   Trade and climate change are closely connected issues. Think just about the carbon emissions of planes and ships traversing the globe carrying stuff that we consume. I'll come back to that in a sec.

   Yesterday, Rep. Mike Michaud of Maine introduced the House version of the TRADE Act; the Senate's sponsor is Sherrod Brown. Eyes On Trade reports:

This year's version of the legislation is backed by 106 original cosponsors, including nine committee chairs and 45 subcommittee chairs. The cosponsors come from the full range of Democratic caucuses and from around the country. The full list of cosponsors is available here. The Trade Act - 2009 version - has double the number of original cosponsors as the Trade Act introduced last June, showing that support is rapidly growing for a fair-trade alternative to our current failed NAFTA-WTO model.

   What the bill means is nicely summed up by Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch Division:

The premise of the TRADE Act is that America's trade agenda must be brought into conformity with America's domestic agenda of good jobs, a clean environment, safe food, quality and affordable medicines, and essential services. By removing provisions that limit imported food and product safety and financial service regulation, provide foreign investors with rights to attack domestic environmental and health laws, and incentivize the offshoring of jobs to low-wage countries - and adding effective labor, environmental, health and safety standards to provide the floor of decency necessary to ensuring trade agreements benefit more people - the road map provided by the TRADE Act would lead to trade agreements that could enjoy broad public support.

   At the same time, there is some question about whether the current energy bill does enough to deal with global warming and whether the president has given up too much just to get a bill passed, per The Financial Times:

Others argue that the dozens of compromises Democratic leaders have struck with their colleagues from the rural and manufacturing belts have made a hash of the bill's framework.

"In order to get the votes, the bill's managers have taken off most of its environmental edge," said Rob Shapiro, chairman of the US climate change taskforce, which backs a carbon tax. "If we were to pass a toothless bill like this, we would probably have to wait five or 10 years for another chance to do it right."

For example, in contrast to Mr Obama's campaign promise that 100 per cent of the permits would be auctioned off, the bill gives away 85 per cent for free and only moves to a full auction in 2030.

   So, back to the trade-climate change link. The story that caught my eye this morning was in The Wall Street Journal:

I have argued that the current crisis we are in now is the product of at least three decades of a bankrupt economic system. Now, looking forward, the same system has set the stages, according to a report just out, for a massive worldwide crisis in retirement security that will last decades. The reason we face this crisis is because of the foolishness of the "free market" ideology and the greed of the wealthiest people in society.