Labor statistics show that this is a hopeful time

As Fall arrives, it’s natural to look back on the year as it winds down. In 2022, 2,510 union-election petitions were filed with the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB records show – up 53% from 2021.

Also up – exactly 53% – is this year’s increase in labor’s work stoppages, according to Cornell University’s Labor Relations School.

The UAW has 25,000 workers out, Screen Actors Guild/ American Federation of Television and Radio Artists 160,000, Kaiser Permanente health workers almost 80,000, plus 53,000 Unite Here workers in Las Vegas, and, seemingly, dozens of other union workers, totaling well over 300,000 Americans on strike – plus hundreds of workers at Amazon and Starbucks signing cards and winning recognition.

Positive change is genuine.

Nurses and autoworkers, baristas and railroad workers, hotel workers and teachers, Teamsters and pharmacists, office and clerical staff, and workers in libraries and entertainment and universities and warehouses all are moving on sharing the fruits of their labor.

Their demands go beyond wages, too. They’re building clout to press for safety, for home lives, for financial inequality, for patients, for justice for all.

Labor seems more willing to take risks and face facts, to be more creative and bolder – and more successful.

“Workers are more aggressive now,” said Thomas Kochan, co-director of the Sloan Institute for Work and Employment Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s School of Management. “They see that there's a possibility of negotiating for better terms. They see successes in some settlements that are coming in, that wage settlements in negotiation are higher than they've been in decades. And so they're emboldened, and they're taking more direct action.”

Although new leaders chosen by rank and file voting – Shawn Fain (UAW), Sean O’Brien (Teamsters) and Fran Drescher (SAG/AFTRA) – have made a difference, 2023’s “Strike-tober” shows an approach that’s shifted from top-down to bottom-up. Power is coming from below, concedes the union-busting firm Littler Mendelson, which reported, “There has been a shift in how people are organizing together to petition for representation. What was once a top-down approach, whereby the union would seek out a group of individuals, has flipped entirely. Now, individuals are banding together to form grassroots organizing movements where individual employees are the ones to invite the labor organization to assist them in their pursuit to be represented.”

The climate’s more conducive, too, after many months of a tight labor market, inflation, and increasing public awareness of the stark economic differences in our economy – where workers struggle and corporate boards’ pay and companies’ profits soar. All that’s combined to spark growing public support.

Gallup and other polls show some 70% of Americans approve of organized labor – 91% of Democrats, 69% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans. Even more of the population that’s “Gen Z” (those born between the late-1990s and early-2010s) view unions favorably: 88%.

Issues as well as ideals might be attracting younger adults.

“More and more young people in particular … are realizing if you care about climate justice and income inequality and worker dignity and reproductive freedom and racial equality and immigrant rights, there is no better place to be than in the labor movement,” Washington State Labor Council’s April Sims told the Northwest Labor Press. “Our work is at the center of all of those things.”

In addition to approving organized labor in general, the U.S. public in particular backs legislative goals pushed by the labor movement, according to polling by Data for Progress, which this summer show popular support of initiatives including the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, a paid sick-leave measure, and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Leo Leopold of the Labor Institute, headquartered in New York City, said, “For the first time in a generation the labor movement is held in high esteem by the American public. It is widely understood that working people need the protections only collective bargaining can provide.

“This puts unions like the UAW at the forefront of the struggle to protect jobs and the environment,” he continued.

And within organized labor, support runs across sectors; Painters and Communications Workers have shown up on UAW picket lines in acts of solidarity, for example.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said all of this shows strength and momentum, which can contribute to consequences for even more progress.

“The activism of the UAW, the Writers Guild, SAG-AFTRA, the Teamsters, flight attendants, Amazon warehouse workers and Starbucks workers is so important,” he said. “In a very real sense, these workers are representing all American workers. If they win, they’ll energize other workers, even those who are not unionized. They’ll mobilize some to form or join unions.”

Indeed, on the heels of the Teamsters’ forceful, successful negotiations with UPS, the union is increasing its activity in bolstering organizing efforts at Amazon, and other new organizing – from workplaces upward or traditional unions accelerating action – is growing, from flight attendants at Delta Air Lines and UFCW at cannabis dispensaries to Communications Workers at Microsoft and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union at REI locations.

It's a hopeful Autumn.

Concerns, disinformation depressing election-judge numbers

 It’s 12 months before the next general election, and the Peoria Election Commission is about 30% short of what it needs to fully staff an election.

There’s still time to enlist people to help.

Peoria Election Commission Executive Director Elizabeth Gannon says, “Prior to the 2020 General Election, we had over 200 election judges cancel due to the pandemic. The majority of these cancellations came from judges ages 70+. They never returned to service.

“We have also had many judges state that serving as an election judge today is too stressful – the stakes are too high,” she continues. “So, I think both have contributed to the lack of volunteers.”

The situation is serious but not yet urgent, Gannon says.

“I wouldn’t say dire, but we want to be fully staffed for next year,” she says. “We are attempting to recruit from the 30-55 age group.”

Peoria needs 470-500 election judges and currently has 320, Gannon says.

“Nationwide there is a shortage of poll workers, and I think it has always been an issue,” she adds, “But it has become even worse since 2020.

To help meet the need, the commission is expanding its outreach.

“We will be recruiting at all of the high schools, and we are hoping to have about 100 student judges,” she says. “The post-war generation and a majority of the Boomer generation have served for decades. It is time for the younger generations to pick up the torch and fill their positions as election judges.”

The position has responsibilities – and compensation: $200 for working Election Day, and minimum wage ($14/hour in Illinois next year) if they work with Early Voting or mail-ballot verification.

Some judges’ concern with stress is justified, according to an April poll of election officials nationwide conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice. It shows almost one in three election officials have been harassed, abused or threatened because of their jobs; 20% know someone who left the job for safety reasons; and 73% said threats and harassment have increased in recent years.

Spurred by online claims, exaggerations and lies, some accuse election authorities and workers of cheating or having vulnerable machines or processes, or they file frivolous requests that interfere with officials’ work, or they demand unnecessary recounts, or paper ballots. (Peoria, Gannon notes, has paper ballots and all the state’s voting equipment is certified by the State Board of Elections and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.)

“Misinformation and disinformation needlessly [are] eroding confidence and integrity of elections,” said Matt Dietrich, a spokesman from the Illinois State Board of Elections. “We’re all working hard to debunk these attacks.”

The attacks continue. Last month, ex-President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign revived false claims about stolen elections. Senior advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles on Oct. 2 demanded that the Republican National Committee cancel the Nov. 8 debate in Miami “and end all future debates in order to refocus manpower and money on preventing Democrats’ efforts to steal the 2024 election.”

Besides interfering with elections and staff, such partisan activists and conspiracy adherents also could jeopardize voter turnout, which broke records in the last three federal elections, according to Stanford University political science professor Justin Grimmer, who studies election denialism.

Indeed, the effects are widespread.

“We all need election judges,” said Tazewell County Clerk John Ackerman, a Republican speaking in Pekin at one of a series of Sept. 26 press conferences statewide. In Pekin, where 27 counties and the state Board of Elections appeared together, Ackerman said they’re “breaking the cycle of misinformation [and] welcome you [to] get involved, engaging with the process.”

Several of the officials also stressed that they’re not outsiders, but neighbors.

“We are from your community,” Gannon said, “everyday people [working] to ensure free and fair elections.”

Still, election workers in many states and counties are leaving their jobs in large numbers due to an increase of harassment, the proliferation of conspiracy theories, and heightened workloads, according to a new report, “The High Cost of High Turnover,” released this fall by Issue One, a nonpartisan nonprofit democracy advocacy group. The turnover rate among the nation’s local election officials since 2020 is far higher than it was before.

“Tom Bride, the [Peoria Election Commission’s] former Executive Director, resigned in part due to the overall pressure, stress, and ridicule of managing elections,” Gannon says. “If I’m being honest, I think about leaving daily. What keeps me here is knowing that my experience, professionalism, and overall election knowledge is needed now more than ever to safeguard our democratic process.”

Also federal agencies hope to safeguard voting, government and democracy. The U.S. Justice Department in 2021 set up its Election Threat Task Force to enforce laws about intimidating and threatening others. Through this summer, 14 people nationwide have been charged with threatening election workers, nine were convicted, and two were sentenced to prison. And the Department of Homeland Security in May issued a national advisory bulletin warning of domestic terrorism this early in the 2024 campaign (that advisory expires this month).

Ironically, the more that disinformation and disruption affect election authorities, the more likely problems could occur.

“If we chase off election workers with this insanity, we're going to make elections run more poorly,” Stanford’s Grimmer told the Center for Rural Strategies. “We'll be hemorrhaging so much experience and expertise for no reason other than the sort of falsehoods that are in people's brains.”

CEOs making out like the bandits they are

UAW President Sean Fain has made the issue timely in the union’s strike against automakers’ Big Three, but the AFL-CIO “Executive Paywatch” report underscores how pervasive the imbalance has become.

S&P 500 Index CEO pay has increased $5 million over the past decade, according to the latest findings, based on Securities and Exchange filings for 2022.

Last year, CEOs of those corporations received, on average, $16.7 million in total compensation. That by itself is revealing, but what’s worse is the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio. Last year, the pay ratio comparing CEO pay and worker pay was 272-to-1 for S&P 500 Index companies.

“Overall, U.S. workers’ real hourly wages fell in 2022 for the second year in a row, down 1.6% after adjusting for inflation,” the report shows.

Publicly traded companies are required to disclose the pay ratio between their Chief Executive Officers and median (midpoint) pay of their employees.

“High CEO-to-worker pay ratios contribute to economic inequality and can undermine employee morale and productivity,” the report comments.

Here were the nation’s 10 highest-paid CEOs in 2022 –

1. Stephen Schwarzman, Blackstone Inc. $253,122,146; 1,068:1 pay ratio

2. Sundar Pichai, Alphabet Inc. (Google) $225,985,145; 808:1 pay ratio

3. Stephen Scherr, Hertz Global Holdings Inc. $182,136,137; 4,983:1 pay ratio

4. Barry McCarthy, Peloton Interactive Inc. $168,073,420; 2,299:1 pay ratio

5. Michael Rapino, Live Nation Entertainment Inc. $139,005,565; 5,414:1 pay ratio

6. Safra Catz, Oracle Corp. $138,192,032; 1,842:1 pay ratio

7. Douglas Ingram, Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. $124,938,694; 494:1 pay ratio

8. Bill Ready, Pinterest Inc. $122,651,735; 999:1 pay ratio

9. Kiwi Camara, CS Disco Inc. $109,531,440; Undisclosed pay ratio

10. Carl Eschenbach, Co-CEO Workday Inc. $102,685,309; 439:1 pay ratio

 

Commenting on Schwarzman, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Fred Redmond said the hedge-fund billionaire “took home almost a quarter of a billion dollars in just one year. It’s almost inconceivable.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” Redmond continued, “and working people are starting to fight back.”

Other familiar multinational companies based in the United States –

Tim Cook, CEO Apple, Inc. $99,420,097; 1,177:1 pay ratio

Douglas Herrington,   CEO, Amazon.com worldwide stores $43,215,779; 1264:1 pay ratio

David Zaslav, CEO Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. $39,288,458; 227:1 pay ratio

Brian Roberts, CEO    Comcast Corp. $32,069,850; 385:1 pay ratio

Robert Iger, CEO Walt Disney Co.  $14,998,299; 276:1 pay ratio

 

In Illinois, “Executive Paywatch” reports the average S&P 500 CEO pay in 2022 was $14,850,449, and the average worker pay (according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) was $73,729. The S&P 500 CEO-to-worker pay ratio in Illinois was 201:1

Illinois’ top 10 in outlandish CEO-to-worker pay ratio is below, with the dollar figure the median worker pay at that employer, followed by the [pay ratio] –

McDonald's Corporation $14,521 [1,224:1]

Ulta Beauty, Inc. $14,998 [901:1]

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. $24,530 [705:1]

Mondelez International, Inc. $35,707 [502:1]

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company $68,383 [362:1]

LKQ Corporation $34,099 [315:1]

Illinois Tool Works Inc. $71,962 [309:1]

Baxter International Inc. $46,830 [290:1]

Dover Corporation $51,237 [276:1]

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. $58,776 [242:1]

 

Just below those top-heavy ratios are –

The Allstate Corporation $66,189 [226:1], Conagra Brands, Inc. $57,855 [206:1], Motorola Solutions, Inc. $107,215 [196:1, and Deere & Co. $124,321 [163:1

Also, two major employers of local interest but not headquartered in the state are Caterpillar Inc. (now based in Texas) $56,930 [362:1] and Ameren Corp. $112,030 [66:1]

For some context, a sampling of other countries’ pay ratios of CEO to worker pay, as compiled by statista.com – China 127:1, Canada 149:1, Netherlands 171:1, and South Africa 180:1.

“Too many working people across the country are struggling to afford the basics, much less save for college or retirement,” the report comments. “Some states serve as stark examples of the incredible gap between CEOs and the hardworking people who make their companies profitable.

 

CEO pay by sector

S&P 500 company CEO pay was the highest in the communication services industry in 2022. The average ratio of CEO-to-worker pay is also the highest in the communication services industry, where Live Nation Entertainment had the highest CEO-to-worker pay ratio in the S&P 500 Index of 5,414-to-1.

Industry	Average CEO Pay	Average Pay Ratio
Communication Services	$37,581,870	508:1
Consumer Discretionary	$14,035,044	480:1
Consumer Staples	$14,629,942	407:1
Energy	$16,288,704	118:1
Financials	$17,672,213	218:1
Health Care	$15,991,308	225:1
Industrials	$13,299,271	196:1
Information Technology	$22,215,146	357:1
Materials	$14,015,577	218:1
Real Estate	$14,145,284	168:1
Utilities	$10,735,588	94:1

There seem to have been some warning signs of financial crisis at WTVP-TV 47

 Revelations about financial irregularities were announced in October by WTVP-TV 47, but according to the most recent tax return Form 990 filed by WTVP/Illinois Valley Public Telecommunication Corp. (IVPTC), there were hints at trouble months earlier.

In the document filed May 10 this year, total revenue was $4,418,346 and total expenses were $4,826,318. From the previous year, contributions and grants were down $303,625, and expenses were up $524,322. Listed separately, salaries and other employee compensation were reported to have increased $391,328 during that period.

Form 990 – submitted to the government by tax-exempt organizations – notes that “the tax return is provided to members of the board of directors” and “the executive committee of the board of directors determines the compensation of all employees.”

One salary that increased was to Lesley Matuszak, WTVP’s president who resigned Sept. 27 and was found dead at her home the next day. Her compensation is reported to have gone from $150,000 in 2020 to $170,146 ($140,146 plus $26,000 in unspecified compensation) in 2021, to $176,084 plus the additional $26,000 in 2022.

The station lists as IVPTC’s volunteer Board of Directors: Kim Armstrong, Helen Barrick, Amanda Campbell, Wayne Cannon, Amanda Campbell, Andrew Chambers, Alex Crowley, John Day, Dawn Dinh, Jessica Ford, Monica Hendrickson, Jerry Herbstreith, Stephen Morris, Andrew Rand, Sid Ruckriegel, Stephen Shipley, Sally Snyder and Ashley Spain.

According to WTVP’s original charter, published in 1969, the board was to include representatives from Bradley University, Illinois Central College, Lakeview Museum, Pekin Public Schools, and Peoria Public Schools. Besides Armstrong, an ICC administrator, it’s unclear who has what affiliation, but there seem to be several connections between an apparently close-knit group. Of the 17 board members, five also serve on one or more of the boards of Advanced Medical Transport, Carver Center, Heartland Health Services, the Heart of Illinois United Way, Peoria Hospitals Mobile Medical Services, and the Peoria Riverfront Museum.

Also, three board members and Matuszak contributed to fellow board member Ruckriegel’s unsuccessful campaign for Peoria Mayor in 2021.

Within days of board chairman Rand announcing a 30% budget cut last month, the station laid off nine employees. Comparing the company’s online staff directory between Oct. 13 and Oct. 14, eight names were removed: Theresa Aten, Ryan Benton, Chris Buckely, Scott Fishel, Taryn Klockenga, Bill Porter, Kathy Withers and Thomas Zimmerman. Also, the station’s Peoria magazine, edited by Mike Bailey, suspended publication “for the foreseeable future,” WTVP announced Oct. 20.

Bankrupt Yellow trucking executives given $4.6 million

The Yellow Corporation in July paid $4.6 million in bonuses to eight current and two former executives before closing down and permanently dismissing about 30,000 workers, according to court filings in Delaware bankruptcy court, Fortune magazine reports.

The payouts included $625,000 to Yellow Chief Executive Officer Darren Hawkins, $1 million to Chief Restructuring Officer Matthew Doheny, and $1.08 million to Chief Operating Officer Darrel Harris, according to a company court filing cited by Fortune.

This year, Yellow failed to make a $50 million payment for contractual obligations for workers’ health-care and pension benefits, and the Teamsters threatened to strike over the issue. The union said Yellow has had “decades of gross mismanagement,” and the executives getting bonuses arguably are the people who led the Less-Than-Load (LTL) trucking company to insolvency.

Teamsters President Sean O’Brien blasted Yellow for paying bonuses while the company skipped mandated payments for worker benefits.

“Disturbing details of corruption, greed and graft continue to emerge at Yellow,” O’Brien said. “Workers in this country need real protections against corporations who game the system.”

The Teamsters have called on Congress to investigate the situation and consider bankruptcy reforms such as limiting the enrichment of executives responsible for companies’ financial condition.

The Nashville-based Yellow, having operated for almost a century, filed bankruptcy on Aug. 6, reporting $39 million cash on hand, 11,700 trucks, 35,000 trailers and assorted real estate holdings, but $1.2 billion in long-term debt, including a $700 million government bailout loaned to the corporation as part of the COVID rescue package.

Yellow going broke could be the largest trucking bankruptcy in U.S. history.

The deadline for bids for tractor-trailer assets is Oct. 13, with Oct. 18 set for a sale auction is necessary. Bids for the disposition of the shipping sites are due Nov. 9, with a possible Nov. 28 auction if needed.

In a Sept. 13 filing, the non-union Estes Express trucking firm bid $1.525 billion for Yellow’s shipping centers, setting a floor for possible bidding for the terminals.

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar in a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting accused Yellow of trying to speed up liquidation of assets to avoid taking responsibility for mismanagement at the expense of workers.

“After a company files for Chapter 11, employees risk losing their livelihoods, health benefits and pensions through no fault of their own,” Klobuchar said. “These are things that workers have worked hard for and have earned.”

In the last 14 years, Teamsters General Secretary-Treasurer Fred Zuckerman says, the union made about $5 billion in concessions to help the corporation “stay in business.”

Last year, Yellow posted a net income of $21.8 million.

Farm Bill languishing as Congress bickers

 In a moment of optimism for bipartisan collaboration, in July I wrote about the possibility of Members of Congress reaching across the aisle for a new Farm Bill.

Obviously, I was less a hopeful-helpful Mr. Rogers than a Mr. Magoo, unable to see what was in front of us all.

In September, the Farm Bill expired, just when Congress narrowly averted a government shutdown (until Nov. 17, when the temporary compromise Continuing Resolution expires, too).

The Farm Bill stakes are high for Illinois and the nation: tens of billions of dollars in key funds, from conservation programs to rural internet access, from farm programs to clean-energy development – and there’s little sense that a resolution will be quick or easy, unlike most of the last 90 years.

First passed in 1933 as part of the New Deal, the last Farm Bill was wide-ranging, with 12 parts, or “Titles,” such as environmental conservation (Title II), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP – formerly “food stamps” – Title IV) and rural development (Title VI).

A Farm Bill has been approved 18 times since, about every five years. The last one, the “Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018,” cost about $430 billion, and logic dictates what’s needed won’t cost less.

If Congress doesn’t pass a Farm Bill by Dec. 31, things would get much worse.

“Farm Bill[s] suspend long-abandoned permanent laws for certain farm commodity programs from the 1940s that used supply controls and price regimes that would be costly if restored,” reported the Congressional Research Service.

Failing to act means reviving 1938 and 1949 laws, outdated policies of supply management and higher crop and dairy subsidies. Alone, the latter could disrupt the dairy industry and cause the price of milk to spike.

Meanwhile, between July 1 and Oct. 1, the U.S. House was in session for fewer than 30 days (and that included hearings on book bans, calling Attorney General to testify on his “weaponizing” the Justice Department to, well, enforce laws, and an inquiry on impeaching President Biden despite several Republicans saying there was no proof of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Such antics, plus shutdown brinkmanship and the Crisis Caucus’ chaos about the Speaker of the House all derailed meaningful work. Americans seem tired of gridlock and incompetence, but there’s no clear path, no compromise or even compromiser.

Concerning spending – whether the Farm Bill or Ukraine aid – it’s down to Republican vs. Republican debating drastic cuts or even deeper cuts to the budget (especially to and for the needy) – all while ignoring the bipartisan complicity in the national debt. The annual federal budget had surpluses from 1998 to 2001. It’s grown since, with most Democrats and Republicans signing off on deficit spending after the 9-11 terror attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Great Recession, 2017’s huge tax cuts mostly benefiting the rich, and the COVID pandemic.

As I wrote this summer, U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson (R- Pa.), chair of the House Ag Committee, promised progress and seemingly supported SNAP, but he hasn’t delivered even a proposal.

Democrats aren’t much better. U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chair of that Ag Committee, I said a few months ago, pledged to be bipartisan in drafting something palatable to most folks. Alas, her approach seems to lean toward just keeping things about the same (maybe because she’s reportedly not running again: less muss, less fuss on the way out the door). But the same-ol’/same ol’ is inadequate for rural infrastructure: fire departments and ambulances, the vital rural electric co-op system and small-town water and sewage facilities, plus SNAP’s safety net for urban and rural residents alike. True, some extremists have put SNAP in their bull’s eye, but nutrition for regular people could still link farm country and metro areas.

Both parties must advocate for small farmers as well as subsidized giants, the climate as well as the market, and crops that feed people and not just livestock and fuel tanks. Republicans and Democrats need to stress not just their campaign donors and reelections, but what will serve most people, from the 46 million Americans in rural America to the rest in cities who benefit from the outdoors and the commodities grown there.

Too many everyday Americans may think, “It’s just politics. It’ll all work out.”

Really? Ask Kevin McCarthy about that.

But I hope so.

Oops. Did I just bump into something again?

Solidarity from labor, U.S. public and foreign unions key to UAW position

 At deadline, UAW insiders say progress has been made in bargaining with each of Detroit’s Big Three, most notably with Stellantis (formerly Chrysler/Jeep), and the three-week strike of 25,000 autoworkers and 38 parts warehouses and 5 assembly plants may produce a just contract.

Of course, though reasonable observers may think a just agreement is a matter of fairness, fairness may mean less to the Big Three than power. Although separate companies, the three corporations share board members with other corporations with dubious labor relations. Interlocking interests include:

* Ford’s John C. May, on its board since 2017 and serving on its compensation and finance committees, is also chairman and CEO of Deere & Co., which forced UAW workers to strike in 2021 over wages, among other issues;

* At GM, CEO Mary Barra – top exec there for almost 10 years (making more than $28 million in compensation in 2022 and over $81 million from 2020 to 2022 – is also on the board at Walt Disney Co., which has had turbulent labor relations; and

* Stellantis’s chief operating officer in North America, Mark Stewart, who has a key role in bargaining with the UAW, used to be vice president of operations at the notorious union-busting Amazon.

Against such muscle, the rank and file nevertheless expects gains but increasingly may accept compromises.

 

Andrea Repasky, who works at a GM pickup-truck plant in Fort Wayne, Ind., told the Chicago Tribune that she doesn’t think the union will get everything back in one contract. But she’s hoping for progress.

 

“I would probably say that they’re going to have to maybe meet us halfway,” she said of GM. “Because we really gave up a lot to keep the company afloat.”

 

Meanwhile, the union’s creative strategy (from expanding targeted strikes to informal canvassing of select dealerships), demonstrations of solidarity from other unions (such as Communications Workers picketing a Reno GM distribution facility with UAW Local 2162), and impressive support from regular Americans all seems to be providing the extra strength the UAW needed.

 

In the run-up to the work stoppage, car-company executives claimed to have little recourse to boost pay because of the industry’s need to set aside money to invest in electric-vehicle plants. However, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis together plowed profits over the last contract into stock buybacks for Wall Street investors and multi-million-dollar annual pay and perks for corporate honchos.

 

“They want to scare the American people into thinking that autoworkers are the problem,” said UAW President Shawn Fain. ​“Corporate greed is the problem.

 

“They spent more money enriching shareholders in a year than they spent on us in the entirety of the last contract cycle,” he continued. “They could double our wages and not raise car prices – and still make billions of dollars in profit.”

 

Specifically, the Big Three in the last 10 years have “paid out nearly $66 billion in shareholder dividend payments and stock buybacks,” reported the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), not counting the $14 billion in dividends and buybacks shelled out so far this year. (Stock buybacks are when corporations use funds that could be applied toward investment in plants or in wages to, instead, artificially inflate the value of their stock.

 

“Just as in the 1930s,” Fain said, “we’re living in a time of stunning inequality throughout our society.”

Indeed, the union says autoworkers’ pay since 2008 has fallen 19.3%, according to EPI.

 

Fain in 2007 criticized the UAW concessions to bail out the industry, writing, “You might as well get a gun and shoot yourself in the head.”

 

Last month, he added, “We’re all fed up with living in a world that values profits over people. We’re all fed up with seeing the rich get richer while the rest of us just continue to scrape by. We’re all fed up with corporate greed and, together, we’re going to fight like hell to change it.”

 

His key words “all” and “together” apparently resonate with the public. Everyday Americans support the UAW, as shown in several polls from firms such as Morning Consult and Blue Rose Research: 58% back the strikers, including self-described conservatives and Trump voters. Just 17% oppose the strike.

 

Support is world-wide, too, evidenced by solidarity demonstrations by the Malaysian Transport Workers, South African Metalworkers, and the Mexican Independent Union of Goodyear Mexico Workers, which held a rally at GM’s office in Mexico City.

 

In this country, politicians’ actions reveal the stark differences between Democrats and Republicans. For instance, GOP presidential candidates increasingly show that they’re out of step with public opinion, denouncing the strike. Ex-South Carolina Gov. Nikki Halley (who while governor bragged about being a “union buster”) criticized the strike. And worse was U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, also of South Carolina, who on Sept. 21 in Iowa responded to a question about the strike by saying his philosophy is, “You strike, you’re fired.” That public remark provoked the UAW to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board for Scott (as an employer of office and campaign workers) advocating an illegal action since a strike is a “protected, concerted activity.”

 

Fain wasn’t surprised, commenting it was “just another example of how the employer class abuses the working class in America. Employers willfully violate labor law with little to no repercussions. Time for more stringent laws to protect workers' rights!" 

 

In contrast, on Sept. 22, Illinois U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth demonstrated with striking autoworkers in Naperville, and on Sept. 25 Sen. Dick Durbin followed suit, showing up at a GM site in Bolingbrook. The next day, President Biden joined a Michigan UAW picket line, commenting, “You guys, the UAW, have made a lot of sacrifices and gave up a lot. The companies were in trouble, but now they’re doing incredibly well. And guess what? You should be doing incredibly well, too. You deserve a significant raise.”

 

The day after that unprecedented show of support by a sitting U.S. President, former President Trump also appeared in Michigan, but at a non-union parts facility in a transparent attempt to appeal to that state’s voters who oppose the strike. (Trump won Michigan in 2016 by about 10,000 votes but lost the battleground state in 2020 by more than 154,000.)

 

Fain dismissed Trump’s presence as “pathetic irony, nothing more than a PR stunt [meant to] distract and gaslight” people.

 

Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber called out the hypocrisy: “Trump has a record. And that record was nothing short of catastrophic for workers, highlighting an open hostility especially to union families. He never cared about our jobs. Or our wages. Or our pensions and health care. Or even our safety. Trump just cared about making his rich buddies even richer at our expense.”

 

Such a partisan divide is only a few decades old.

 

In 1952, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, campaigning for President, said, “Today in America unions have a secure place in our industrial life. Only a handful of unreconstructed reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.”

Illinois Appeals Court upholds decision for Schock, LaHood and GOP

 On Aug. 8, the Circuit Clerk’s Office received confirmation that the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the summary judgment for Darin LaHood, the Peoria County Republican Central Committee, and Aaron Schock. They were sued for libel in 2015 by Richard Burns for the contents of a campaign mailer sent to Peoria County voters when Burns ran as a Democrat against Peoria County Board member Brad Harding in 2014.

“The material submitted was insufficient to establish a triable issue on the question of actual malice with respect to those defendants,” wrote Justice James Knecht in his order. Circuit Judge Michael Risinger in April 2022 found that Burns “could not prove defendants made the alleged defamatory statements with actual malice.

“To establish actual malice, a plaintiff must ‘prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the defamatory statements with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity’.”

Although the defendants conceded that the contents mostly stemmed from unverified rumors, the court didn’t consider that reckless.

“This disposition should not be construed as providing any opinion on the truth or falsity of those allegations,” Knecht wrote.

Farmers, environmentalists aren’t really strange bedfellows

Different interests and points of view can still find common ground – territory that can be more effective than separate efforts.

In Illinois and throughout the Midwest unlikely allies with different perspectives and concerns are joining forces against carbon-dioxide pipelines proposed by huge agribusiness and fossil-fuel companies.

Two companies, Navistar and Wolf Carbon, hope to get consent to transport carbon dioxide from sites that burn fossil fuels to bury the gas underground in Illinois, part of a proposed expansion of CO2 pipelines from about 5,300 miles now to more than 65,000 miles. Besides approval by the Illinois Commerce Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Army Engineers, Counties are weighing in, trying to balance job potential, public safety and private profits.

And, increasingly, property rights.

Landowners have been asked to agree to give corporations permission to use parts of their property for the pipeline, but reportedly less than 14% have agreed, and companies could resort to eminent domain to seize some private acreage without owners’ permission.

Companies can try to seize private property under the guise of a “public good,” but people can see hypocrisy when the companies are for-profit ventures. Elsewhere, environmentalists see CO2 pipelines as dangerous to residents, aquifers and more. Together, farmers and environmentalists regard such pipelines as destructive to the land, unnecessary and dangerous.

My hometown paper reported on public meetings about county officials deciding whether to continue spending tens of thousands of public dollars to join with other counties to oppose Navigator’s proposed route through Adams, Brown, Christian, Fulton, Hancock, Henry, Knox, McDonough, Morgan, Pike, Sangamon, Schuler and Scott Counties.

One farmer endorsed spending public funds to reject the pipeline because it’s an investment that for individual taxpayers “is going to be pennies.” A rural homeowner whose residence is about 200 yards from the proposed route offered to make a donation toward legal fees, and another man said if Navigator succeeds with its 1,300-mile-long pipeline, he’ll “be farming over that pipeline. This issue for me is my kids and my grandkids.”

A local environmentalist added, “I commend and support what you are doing” in the litigation, adding that Navistar has never installed a CO2 pipeline.

“They are making this up as they go along,” he said. “There are no real solid rules involving CO2 pipelines.”

Indeed, there are about five ruptures a week, according to Pipeline, Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration estimates, and a 2020 rupture of a Denbury pipeline in Mississippi forced the hospitalization of dozens and the evacuation of hundreds, emergency officials said.

Alliances for convenience need not be unusual when civility and community trump anger and isolation.

 (That said, other “odd couples” also include pro-pipeline efforts by some labor unions and Big Business, which see possible work for union members and lucrative profits for corporations.)

“We might not agree on a lot of things, but this is something we will all oppose, these pipelines,” Iowa farmer Kim Juncker said in the Chicago Sun-Times. “We will lock arms on this one.”

Standing against Navigator, the self-proclaimed constitutional conservative added, “We like our property rights and we like our freedom.”

For their part, active environmental groups have organizing abilities and experience analyzing data.

Looking at Iowa, Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous said, “More than 150 landowners now join weekly Zoom calls with environmentalists to share information and strategy. More than 460 landowners have filed to intervene when the Iowa Utilities Board holds its hearing over the Summit pipeline’s request to take land through eminent domain.

“Our system allows for the power of enough people to thwart the power of money, which the pipeline developers certainly have,” Jealous continued. “That’s how opponents have managed to claim some big wins.”

But pipelines’ power – and money – is substantial.

The U.S. government through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act plans tto spend about $10 billion from taxpayers (another potential pipeline-skeptic interest group), and in May the Biden administration announced $251 million for a dozen climate projects focusing on CO2 transport and storage.

But besides counties, some state and federal lawmakers have doubts. In Springfield, legislators have been conferring with industry, unions and environmentalists on new regulations.

And in Washington, Congressman Jared Hoffman (D-Calif.), who’s on the House subcommittee on pipeline safety, questions whether these pipelines address climate change anyway.

“We should be concerned about this from a safety standard,” he said. “We really have to be concerned about this from a climate perspective as well.

“This entire strategy is being represented as a climate solution, when most of the time it's really not,” he added. “Most of the time it's really part of the climate problem.”

TV or not TV, that is the question -- Trump on trial

A lot of union voters have cast ballots for Donald Trump: 43% of us in 2016 and 40% in 2020, according to the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. So organized labor’s rank and file must be divided about whether his criminal trials should be televised.

However, legal and civic leaders are less divided on showing viewers the testimony and other evidence in his upcoming trials: for January 6 (in Washington, D.C.), for taking and keeping classified documents (in Florida), for fraud (in New York City), and for election interference (in Georgia) – much less for campaign violations in connection with hush money paid to an adult actress and other issues.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

 

WHY SHOW?

* The allegations and issues before juries of everyday Americans are important to people not empaneled to vote not guilty or guilty;

* watching the proceedings could help heal divisions in the country, and

* could reassure regular people that no one’s above the law;

* the U.S. Constitution’s 6^th Amendment guarantees public trials.

 

January 6 – the conservative Wall Street Journal called it “the worst offense against democracy” – and attempts to interfere with the election in Georgia are significant accusations deserving of a full airing. (Trump’s main lawyer, John Lauro, also thinks it should be televised, saying, “I would hope that the Department of Justice would join in that effort so that we can take the curtain away and all Americans can see what’s happening.”)

Americans could find common ground by watching witnesses (almost all of whom are Republicans); a televised trial could increase public confidence that there are at least merits to the charges.

Conversely, such a consequential trial conducted outside open proceedings could lead people to doubt its legitimacy, wrote Neal Katyal, who was a special prosecutor earlier this year in the televised murder trial of Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd.

Plus, “this criminal trial – the gravest matter of public concern imaginable – is being conducted in the name of the people of the United States,” Katyal said. “It is our tax dollars at work. We have a right to see it. And we have the right to ensure that rumormongers and conspiracy theorists don’t control the narrative.”

 

WHY NOT SHOW?

* Trump has a history of confusing the public – or convincing them of falsehoods;

* the ex-President excels at manipulating media; his antics and expressions of outrage get attention.

* the cases may seem complex – dull TV?

* televised trials could risk the political climate getting more divisive – “If you listen to his speeches, they are deeply, deeply divisive in addition to being horribly negative about the immediate future of this country,” said journalist Mike Barnicle (who nevertheless supports televising them);

 

Currently, only Georgia plans to televise its case. Federal and New York state courts prohibit televised trials. However, there are exceptions in other high-profile cases. The U.S. Supreme Court broadcasts live audio of oral arguments it hears; the Bush-Gore dispute in Florida in 2000 was broadcast in real time; Congressional hearings about January 6 and Watergate were shown live, and the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, televises its proceedings.

Further, federal trials may be permitted to be televised if OK’d by the U.S. Judicial Conference, chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, or if Congress passes a law approving it. (U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican, has introduced a bipartisan measure doing so, and 38 Democratic members of Congress have urged the federal judiciary to permit a TV trial. That letter from those dozens of House members split the difference as Members of Congress who urged the Judicial Conference to approve televising the trial due to its “extraordinary national importance.”

Even attorney Alan Dershowitz (who was on Trump’s defense team for Trump’s first impeachment) said televising the trials would directly show the cases without it being filtered through courtroom drawings or summaries by reporters.

“If the Trump trial is not televised, the public will learn about the events through the extremely biased reporting of today’s media,” wrote Dershowitz. “It will be as if there were two trials: one observed by reporters for MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times and other liberal media, the other through the prism of reporters for Fox, Newsmax and other conservative outlets. There will be nowhere to go to learn the objective reality of what occurred at trial.”

 

MORE PRO-TV TRIAL

Court TV founder Steven Brill wrote, “The last thing our country and the world needs is for this trial to become the ultimate divisive spin game, in which each side roots for its team online and on the cable news networks as if cheering from the bleachers.”

Televising Trump’s trials “might temper the national mood,” he added.

Arkansas newspaperman Gene Lyons wrote, “Some must see it to believe it.”

It’s possible that some viewers would see facts clarified too often disputed online or by partisan commentators.

For instance, only 17% of Republican primary voters say the indictments are legitimate, according to a recent poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University, so it seems possible that sworn testimony and physical proof would help observers appreciate the investigations as legitimate, whether or not there are convictions.

“All the bad news in the world doesn’t matter if voters aren’t paying attention to the news,” said government and politics professor and FDU poll director Dan Cassino.

 

MORE OPPOSITION

Boston University researcher Lee McIntyre, author of the forthcoming “Disinformation and Democracy,” warns, “Trump is an expert at disinformation and understands intuitively how to capitalize on short attention spans and lack of political literacy. One way he does this is by creating a constant state of chaos where so much is happening that people don’t have time to think, talk to one another, and form their own opinions.”

Some say people don’t read details, like indictments, and viewers could be swayed by dramatic or even outrageous comments or behavior, but Dershowitz disagrees, saying that in the wall-to-wall televised O.J. Simpson trial “the judge and some of the lawyers played to the cameras, but their presence had no discernible effect on the trial or verdict.”

Still, Marjorie Cohn, who analyzed the Simpson trial for her book “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice,” has misgivings.

“With a camera present, critics assert, lawyers embellished arguments, waged unnecessary debates, prolonged the examination of witnesses and tended to ‘perform’ for the camera,” Cohn said.

Again, Dershowitz disputes that conclusion, saying we should have faith in viewers.

“The public can generally distinguish pomposity from authenticity. But whatever small risks that there are, they are more than outweighed by the benefits of transparency.

“The more people see it, the more justice there will be.”

Further, Trump’s popularity with his base (and fund raising) could increase, commented Christina Bellantori, media director at University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, who said, “My prediction would be that his public-opinion ratings would go up, no matter what evidence is presented.

“People will hate-watch it; people will rally and root for him,” she added. “And there’s not going to be anybody that’s like, ‘Gee, I think I’ll watch this and see how justice plays out’.”

The bottom line, according to Bill Tubbs, publisher emeritus of the weekly North Scott Press in Iowa, is that “every American should have the right to watch it in real time, to see and hear witnesses for themselves instead of a talking head on any network spinning the issues to partisan advantage – or paying attention only to the words of the defendant himself,” he wrote. “This is not forcing anyone to watch, but we should have that right as informed citizens – and voters. If ever a trial needed to be televised, this is the one. Let the people watch!”

 

A sampling from the chorus of comments about whether or not we should be able to watch Trump’s trials as they happen

“The is the trial America deserves.”

- the neo-conservative magazine The New Republic

 

Trump thrives in the spotlight. Giving a reality TV star a reality TV trial is almost too easy. Viewers see what they want to see. Trump’s fans are unlikely to be swayed by a live feed.”

- Amherst College political science professor Austin Sarat.

 

“Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings. If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.”

- letter from 38 Democratic House members

 

“The reality is that the public now expects audiovisual coverage of events that are of great significance. The best way to counter any spin from any side is to allow people to see what’s actually transpiring and let them draw their own conclusions, and the only way you can do that is with cameras in the courtroom.”  

-  University of Minnesota professor of media ethics and law Jane Kirtley

 

“In our polarized information world, with millions getting only news that is politically palatable, it’s excruciatingly difficult to convey basic facts. But trials, especially trials that will dominate every single news outlet, are probably the one way to penetrate those hermetically sealed bubbles.”

- conservative columnist Mona Charen

 

“Televising the trial would provide deep educational benefits. Law is often viewed as inaccessible, chock-full of jargon and impenetrable procedures. This broadcast would provide a real-time civics lesson, especially for children, in how our legal system operates.”

- Georgetown law professor or former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal

 

“The American legal system is under attack from both the Right and the Left. Although it is far from perfect, our legal system is, in general, better than how it is perceived by partisans. Most of the participants — judges, jurors, lawyers and even litigants — try to do their jobs honestly. Some do better than others, and we the public are entitled to see the good, the bad and the ugly. The more people see it, the more justice there will be.”

- Attorney Alan Dershowitz, member of the defense team for Trump’s first impeachment trial

 

“It’s not just four prosecutors. It’s grand juries — dozens of American citizens who reviewed the evidence and indicted him — what do they know that you as a voter don’t? People believe what they see on their screens.”

- Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way