http://www.afscmelocal34.org/ AFSCME Council 5, Local 34, Hennepin County Social Services and Related Employees

News from the June General Assembly—June 6, 2007
Officers attending were: Jean Diederich, Mary Kay Popko, Shannon Wesley, Wes Volkenant, Patrick Regan, Rita Salone, Kela Williams, Ibrahim Adam, Chalmers Davis, Angel Alexander, Vicki Moore, Katie Farber, Andrea Lazo-Rice, Clifford Robinson, Margaret Yzaguirre
Excused Absences: None Absent: None
v  Three new stewards were appointed: Barbara Harrison of MHP and Jamoda Williams and Ester Killion at Century Plaza
v  Steward Monica Jochmans raised an issue concerning workers who do not have an MSW (but do have other Masters degrees), and are not being placed on the Supervisor’s promotion list. During discussion, it was pointed out that their current jobs do not require having an MSW degree – however Program Managers can set subsets to reduce large numbers of names on the lists (to reduce the number of interviews). State law prohibits us from telling the Employer who to interview for Supervisor promotions. In a related issue, Mark Lee of Administrative Services has issued an e-mail indicating a new Social Worker promotion list for in-house candidates is being created.
v  President Diederich reported on a Presidents’ breakfast with Congressman Keith Ellison, who is actively working with the Minneapolis labor community. At the President’s meeting with Acting Administrator Richard Johnson, the 2008 Budget was discussed. The goal is to budget at 102.5% of this year’s budget. The 2008 Levy and a new payroll system (said to be more user-friendly) were also discussed. Mr. Johnson professes to support Dignity & Respect goals, seeking to institutionalize the message.
v  Member-at-Large Katie Farber shared a thank you from Diane Bourgeois for her good-bye gift.
v  Member-at-Large Vicki Moore encouraged members to file grievances in the current work environment, where Supervisors and Managers are seemingly doing whatever they want in the form of disciplinary actions.
v  Vice President Volkenant reported on the May Meet & Confer, and he reported on actions at the May E-Board, including a renewal of our NAACP membership, and the purchase of tickets to the Neighborhood House Annual Awards Event and the Alliance of the Streets Dinner. He also reported on the Hennepin County AFSCME Policy Committee’s work preparing for the July 21st Picnic at French Regional Park – kicking off our Negotiations campaign. He also discussed the Master Negotiations Committee’s three meetings and preparation of our Negotiation positions.
v  A motion was approved to contribute six $34.34 cash certificates – and Local 34 T-shirts - to the July 21st picnic.
v  Volunteers are being sought to work with this year’s Action and Strike Committees in support of our Negotiations efforts. Brenda Wood from Local 552 is heading up our Action Team efforts this year.
v  Business Agent Matt Nelson reported on three grievances. The Council 5 Arbitration Team voted to dismiss two grievants who sought Arbitration. A third grievance sent to the Arbitration Team was held open pending disposition of criminal charges against the grievant, who had received a 10-day suspension. On Negotiations, Matt reported that the master team put together a full proposal on June 4th. The master team also voted to have the Minneapolis Library employees from Local 99 join the committee with full voting rights, as they will become County employees (joining Local 2822) in January, 2008, when the Library merger is complete. Working America, an AFL-CIO affiliate, is looking to help us organize in Hennepin County. They will do door-knocking of union members, and encourage them to become activists. We might ask for their help getting Levy support.
v  A motion was approved to contribute $500 as a sponsor to the Bill Peterson 7th Annual Golf Tournament (for Union scholarships). We will also reserve a spot for a Local 34 golfer at the Oak Marsh Tournament on July 30th. The golfer will be chosen at our July 18th E-Board meeting.
v  Jean Ayer was appointed Local 34’s representative to a Century Plaza HSR Series workgroup. Union membership in workgroups and committees is under attack from quarters in Labor Relations. Jean discussed setting up a meeting with County Administrators to get confirmation of our active role in County committees and workgroups. One issue to be continued at the June E-Board meeting was a Council proposal to cover ½ lost time costs for internal organizing before negotiations – with the intent to contact current fair share fee payers about becoming full members.

Do You Have Friends Who Would Like to Receive Our Newsletter?

UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE

August / 1st
GA - HSB 112 / 15th
E-Board - HSB 917 / September / 5th
GA - HSB 110** / 19th
E-Board - HSB 917

AFSCME Conducts a Presidential Leadership Conference

Local 34 sent officers Shannon Wesley, Rita Salone, Andrea Lazo-Rice and Wes Volkenant to Washington DC, June 18-20, to attend the International’s Leadership Conference, “A Roadmap to Victory in 2008”, the centerpiece of which was a 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate Forum at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. Most of the 2000+ delegates were in the hall to hear MSNBC’s Chris Mathews moderate questions to Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Sen. Barack Obama. MSNBC aired it live on June 19th. Local 34’s Wes Volkenant submitted a question that was read to Gov. Richardson concerning the loss of trust in the Justice Department in light of the recent Congressional hearings – and whether it should lead to Attorney General Gonzales’ impeachment. Delegates later rallied near the Capitol for the Employee Free Choice Act bill and lobbied their Senators and Representatives, as well. On the final morning, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi in addressing the Conference. Our Senator was a big hit. Here’s a photo:

More Coverage of the AFSCME Leadership Conference, June 18-20

Legal News Impacting Unions & Employees

US Supreme Court: You Have Just 180 Days to Identify Gender or Race Discrimination – and to Sue
The US Supreme Court, in its May 29, 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire decision, once again has given the Employer the legal advantage over employees – especially women, victimized by years of pay discrimination. A summary of the case, the ruling, and Judge Ginsburg’s blistering dissent - as well as analysis of the opinion and links to a number of items of commentary follows:
Summary: Workers can't sue under a federal job- bias law to claim they are underpaid because of gender or race discrimination that occurred years earlier, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a victory for employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Employees suing under Title VII must (as relevant here) bring their claims no more than 180 days after “the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” In a 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court delivered a victory for employers in discriminatory pay cases by holding that the unlawful decision to set an employee’s pay, rather than the subsequent issuance of a paycheck reflecting the earlier discrimination, counts as the “unlawful employment practice” for purposes of triggering Title VII’s limitations period.
Lilly Ledbetter worked for nineteen years at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama. At the end of her career, her salary – the product of a series of annual raise decisions, ostensibly based on merit – was significantly (between fifteen and forty percent) lower than her male counterparts. Ledbetter filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination with regard to her pay. She then sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, where she prevailed. The Eleventh Circuit, however, reversed, holding that Ledbetter’s current low pay did not justify reaching back to challenge pay decisions that occurred years ago. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit held, plaintiffs may only challenge pay decisions within the limitations period. Finding that no jury could conclude that either of Ledbetter’s last two pay decisions was intentionally discriminatory, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed her claim.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit that Ledbetter’s claim was time-barred. Emphasizing that discriminatory intent is the “central element” of any disparate treatment claim, the Court distinguished between past discriminatory acts (pay decisions) and the present effects of those acts (paychecks), and Justice Alito concluded that “current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination.” Instead, Ledbetter should have challenged the intentionally discriminatory pay decision within 180 days of the discriminatory pay decision itself.
In a relatively rare dissent from the bench, Justice Ginsburg argued primarily that pay discrimination cases are more analogous to hostile environment claims (which build up over time) than to firings, denials of promotion, or other “discrete acts” that should give rise to immediate suit. She emphasized that pay decisions build on each other over time, that information about pay disparity may not often be readily available until several pay decisions have been made, and that the intent to discriminate is still there as long as an employer knowingly perpetuates past discrimination. “Today's decision counsels: Sue early on, when it is uncertain whether discrimination accounts for the pay disparity you are experiencing,” Ginsburg said. She said the majority, “does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.” In Justice Ginsburg’s view, the need to further the broad remedial purpose of Title VII outweighs any potential prejudice to employers: “Congress never intended to immunize forever discriminatory pay differentials unchallenged within 180 days of their adoption.” Finally, she contended, the Court’s decision is likely to strip many racial and religious minorities of the ability to redress the effects of pervasive historical discrimination.
The ruling left open the possibility that women can win similar claims under a different law, the Equal Pay Act, which lets female workers sue when male counterparts receive higher wages for doing the same work. However, it doesn't cover other types of discrimination, such as racial bias. “The opinion matters much more for folks bringing race discrimination claims or religious discrimination and the like,” said Kevin Russell, a partner at Howe & Russell in Washington who represented Ledbetter. “They have no alternative” to the Civil Rights Act. Ledbetter originally invoked the Equal Pay Act as part of her lawsuit, later dropping that claim. Whether she would have succeeded under that law isn't clear. The Equal Pay Act is of limited use in cases pressed by individuals, according to Neal D. Mollen, an employment law attorney at Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker in Washington. The law is typically invoked to compare the pay of a predominantly female class of workers with a largely male group doing a similar job, he said.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will reorder the legal landscape for employees and employers, workplace experts said. Because eight circuits have applied the Bazemore rule to disparate pay claims, the Ledbetter decision may have a substantial effect on disparate pay suits, effectively precluding relief under Title VII for a large number of potential litigants whose salaries are the products of past discrimination.
Today’s Decision in Ledbetter: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/05/more_on_todays_8.html#more
Recap: Ledbetter v. Goodyear on 11/27: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/11/recap_ledbetter.html
“Current Effects Alone Cannot Breathe Life into Prior Uncharged Discrimination”: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/05/current-effects-alone-cannot-breathe.html#comments
Maloney and Ginsburg Parry High Court Ruling: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3190/context/archive
Justices’ Ruling Limits Suits on Pay Disparity: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Experts Say Decision on Pay Reorders Legal Landscape: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/us/30pay.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Worker Job-Bias Claims Limited by U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aiGkeausau.Y
Supreme Court Limits Time Frame for Filing EEOC Claims: http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1180429523609&hub=TopStories
Pay Discrimination Lawsuit Dismissed by High Court: http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/29/news/pay-discrimination/index.htm
Only Fresh Bias Counts, Court Rules: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus30may30,1,3240328.story?track=rss
Supreme Court Restricts Title VII Filers: http://employment.lawfirmnewjersey.com/archives/title-vii-supreme-court-restricts-title-vii-filers.html
Bad Think: Supreme Court Mix-Up in Ledbetter: http://www.slate.com/id/2167286/
Supreme Court Limits Employment Discrimination Claims: http://www.acsblog.org/economic-regulation-employment-supreme-court-limits-employment-discrimination-claims.html#discussion
The Effects of Ledbetter: http://www.acsblog.org/economic-regulation-employment-the-effects-of-ledbetter.html#discussion
Don’t Blame the Court: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/31/couricandco/entry2870228.shtml
Some in Congress say they intend to introduce legislation to counteract the Court decision (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Carolyn Maloney): http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3227429 "All Americans deserve equal pay for equal work, and it is my hope that Congress can remove the technical hurdles that will prevent individuals from receiving what is rightfully theirs," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

One Management-Side Response to Ledbetter (Morgan Lewis)

On May 29, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 2007 WL 1528298 (U.S. May 29, 2007), affording employers relief from untimely pay discrimination claims . . . .

Ledbetter affords employers additional defenses against pay discrimination claims, including pattern or practice pay discrimination claims . . . .

Employers facing pattern or practice pay discrimination allegations in a class action should use Ledbetter to force the plaintiffs to focus their statistical analysis on pay decisions made within the 180/300 day charge filing period. Typically, the central evidence used by plaintiffs in pattern or practice pay discrimination cases is a multiple regression analysis of compensation and personnel data as of a particular snapshot date. There are several methods for modifying this type of analysis to focus only on pay disparities that emerged during the charge period. Employers should consider using Ledbetter to defend against pay discrimination claims brought under state and local antidiscrimination laws because many of those laws were modeled after Title VII, and state and federal courts interpreting those laws frequently look to Title VII interpretations for guidance.

Good News/Bad News for Union Elections

BNA (Bureau of National Affairs) has released data for union elections in 2006. Some highlights - or lowlights - depending on your view, quoted from their report:

·  The number of representation elections held in 2006 decreased to 1,648 from 2,142 in 2005, continuing an annual decline in NLRB elections since 1996 when about 3,300 elections were conducted by the agency. The number of elections won by unions also decreased to 1,014 in 2006, from 1,315 in 2005.