BREWER, Maine — After skipping a Labor Day event last year, the Eastern Maine Labor Council and Food AND Medicine held a picnic and fundraiser at their facility on Ivers Street behind St. Teresa Catholic Church.
Nearly 150 people turned out for the event designed to mark the holiday to honor American workers and to raise money for a new roof on the council’s building. Council president Jack McKay said Monday that $25,000 has been raised but another $12,000 is needed so the new roof can be installed this fall.
Scott Cuddy, 39, of Hermon said he came to the event with his wife and two sons “to remember what organized labor has done for this country and what workers have done for this country with their labor and sweat.
“The biggest challenge Maine workers are facing continues to be the economy,” he said in between bites of a hamburger. “Working people have been let down the past couple of years. In the Northeast the economy is growing but it’s not growing fast enough. In Maine we’ve lagged behind.”
Cuddy, an electrician who is treasurer of the labor council, said he was concerned about what the future holds for his boys, aged 4 and 2.
“My concern is that the union movement might not be strong enough to speak up for working people and they won’t have the opportunities I’ve had,” he said.
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud expressed concern that more trade agreements with foreign countries that end import tariffs would be bad for American workers. He said that government employees in Washington, D.C., should be buy American products.
“I was at the Labor Day parade in Buckfield earlier today with [Oxford County] Sheriff Wayne Gallant,” Michaud, who worked for 22 years in a paper mill, said Monday. “He told me he’d been to a meeting with the FBI and people from the Department of Justice. He pulled out a badge they’d given him and handed it to me. I turned it over and it said, ‘Made in China.’
“We have a lot of work to do to educate people in the procurement departments of the federal government that what they want it to say is: ‘Made in the USA,’” the congressman said.
The first Labor Day holiday was marked on Tuesday, Sept. 5, 1882, in New York City, by the Central Labor Union to celebrate a “workingmen’s holiday,” according to information posted on the U.S. Department of Labor’s website. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.
By 1894, 24 states had adopted the holiday in honor of workers, and on June 28 of that year, Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of each year a legal holiday in every state, the District of Columbia and the territories, according to the DOL.
Good Job Scott.. You do know if we had a president that could create an enviroment for job creation, that the union membership would grow.
I wish that were true. Union membership as a percentage of the workforce has declined sharply since Reagan took over, and that includes the incredible job creation we experienced under Clinton. Unions suffered like everyone during the Bush Recession of ’07-09, but with the modest job creation we have been experiencing under Obama, we’re not seeing a rebound in union numbers yet.
”
that includes the incredible job creation we experienced under Clinton.” Counting down the posts until you get the typical far right “but what about his affair in office?” response.
The best labor gift that the state could give to Maine’s labor force would be a real “right to work” law
George Orwell loves you!Show me where wages have gone anywhere but way down in RTW states.More greed for the oligarchy.
It would be wise for the people of Maine to NOT listen to people such as yourself because you do not know what you are talking about. Using South Carolina as an example, the average mean wage increased by 30% between 2001 and 2011 going from $14.26 per hour to $18.54 across all occupations. Maine saw a 33% increase over the same period with $14.51 per hour to $19.32.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_arch.htm
The modest increase in average mean wage over South Carolina is more than compensated for by the expanded payroll opportunities that RTW states offer their citizens. Manufacturing expansion in this country has been occurring in RTW states at a significantly greater pace than the union shop states. South Carolina, a state with a significantly higher unemployment rate than Maine, still saw an increase of 1.4% of jobs over the 10 year period while Maine with it’s union shop laws and lower unemployment witnessed a 2.9% decrease in jobs. That is a drain of jobs flowing from union shop states to RTW states.
Pull your head out of your arse and start thinking for yourself. Your own pocketbook will thank you for it.
Guess what, Romulan supporter? Foreign firms are now moving to South Carolina for the cheap labor! That’s why S.C. has had an increase in jobs – CHEAP LABOR!
Why is labor so cheap there? Right to work laws mean few if any unions to organize the workers so they can make a decent wage.
That’s always the goal of corporations – to drive down labor costs so CEO’s can take home more millions per year. My question: how much food can one person eat? How many beds can one person sleep in? How many cars can one person drive?
And how can corporate management see good workers lose their homes after they lose their jobs, having been replaced by robots? Things are missing from these CEO’s brains; their morality, their sense of what’s right and wrong are gone. Just gone.
I have already demonstrated that there is little difference between SC and ME average mean wages.
Perhaps you are not aware that “average” and “mean” are not always the same thing, depending on who’s making up the statistics.
You call Maine’s labor laws “repressive,” Mr. Corporate Shill? When unions have been losing ground for years through corporate lobbyists buying off elected officials who do their bidding by sourcing projects to non-union companies, out of state companies, and denigrating unions at every chance they get?
Well, it’s clear who and what you are – anti-union, anti-working people’s getting decent wages and working conditions. You can take your twisted ideas right back out of state with you to Wall Street – I’m sure they love you there.
In this case it was the US Dept of Labor that was “making it up”. As for being anti-union, I have been successfully working with unions in a manufacturing environment for many years now. My father was a Teamster.
Perhaps the 90% of Maine workers who do not belong to one of these outdated “unions” might take offense at your ham fisted approach to true worker rights.
You are not your father’s son. I was also in the Teamster’s union, and they would not have tolerated your anti-union blather.
How, exactly, since workers have been losing ground for years, do you think unions (which you put in quotes as if they’re not real) are outdated, as you state?
So, you don’t think everyone who benefits should pay their fair share of the struggles to win better working conditions? You think that anti-union people should be able to parasite off union workers who contribute to the struggle, many of which take years to win?
Then you are definitely a member of management, and definitely not your father’s son.
My father is more conservative than I and I remember the Teamsters being solidly in Nixon and Reagan’s camp. They were not the red shirted neo-communist bastards of today.
It is not workers who have been losing ground. It is unions that are losing ground and membership.
Nobody should have to pay anything to receive the benefits of the law. What was relevant 70 years ago is not relevant today.
Are you accusing 90% of the workers in Maine of being parasites?
Don’t talk nonsense. Name-calling is for kindergarten. Red-baiting was discredited in the 1950’s, but continues when corporations and their minions have no arguments left.
Destroying unions has been the goal of corporations since the 1930’s when corporations attacked union workers and organizers with clubs and guns. Look it up.
They’ve succeeded to a great degree in all these years but I believe regular working people know they can trust union people more than they can trust managemenr, which is always about getting more work from workers while paying them less.
Simple common sense and logic. You lose.
If the shirt fits, wear it.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/former-union-boss-at-occupy-event-our-goal-is-to-overthrow-the-capitalist-system-and-build-communism-video/
Uh, huh. Had to work to find that one, didn’t you? Why does working for fair treatment of working people equal communism in the eyes of corporate shills?
Or is it just to scare people away from unions? Because unions are in the interest of all working people, you profits-over-all people have to work hard to turn people against their own interests.
People may be temporarily swayed by your ridicule and calumny against unions, but they will realize in time that their interests lie in joining with other working people just like themselves – which is all a union is.
It was easy to find. Unions have been drifting hard to the left for years.
What does that mean “unions have been drifting hard to the left?” What precise examples of “leftism” in unions can you give me?
Does “left” mean working to help people keep their good jobs and health care? What, exactly, does “left” mean to you? I really would be interested to know, since you seem to think it’s a terrible thing to fight for jobs and decent wages.
Left means Marxist-Socialist. I gave you one example. The SEIU is another very large one. You might also explore the rising influence of this one.
http://www.iww.org/
I was once a communist for several years. I do know a little about it.
You did not answer my question – specific examples of what you consider “hard left,” please. Not more name-calling.
What are you playing at, “I Led Three Lives?”
Maine U.S. Senator, Republican Margaret Chase Smith, denounced Joseph McCarthy’s slandering people by calling them “communists.” I see you following in McCarthy’s footsteps.
Let’s have concrete example of “hard left” or simply admit that you do not think working people should be allowed to congregate together for their own betterment. It’s clear that’s your position, that you oppose unions working to protect working people’s livelihoods and decent working conditions.
Not much left to say since your position is now crystal clear.
I’ve given you three examples now. You should be able to figure it out by yourself now without having to be given the coloring book.
Yes, yes, now you’ve stooped to ridiculing me – typical.
Question: since most unions support the Democratic Party (I am an independent, not a Democrat), do you consider the Democratic Party to be “hard left?” And, if so, what exact actions have they taken to warrant being called “hard left?”
Not just more rhetoric or name-calling, please, but specific actions that either the Democratic Party or Maine unions have taken that you consider “hard left?”
This is what’s important – you make accusations but then just call names without coming up with specifics.
If you’ve got any “evidence” at all that the Democratic Party or Maine unions have committed “hard left” acts, then please share with us so we can get an idea of what you consider “hard left.” and some idea of why you hate them so much.
Perhaps you’re so hateful and angry because the unions want fairness for the workers at the corporations that you represent? That’s my conclusion.
The Democratic Party has certainly gone hard to the left. It has been taken over by leftist progressives. It is not remotely the party it was 30-40 years ago. This years party platform is the best evidence of that.
I employ fewer workers today because of unions. While automation is an expensive capital investment, it is a profitable investment long term. Unfortunately this makes some labor obsolete. Those are the facts of life.
You keep making accusations with substantiating them. What do you think is a “hard left stance” by the Democratic Party? Please be specific. Name two, or even just one.
Nonsense claims like that are easy to make; backing them up with facts and genuine examples is harder because these claims are mere political blather.
Robots and chemicals replacing real people means fewer decent jobs means fewer people to buy your product means a worsening economy from now on.
That’s what’s been happening for some years now – and here we are with millions unemployed losing their homes and unable to feed their children properly. You see this state of affairs as all well and good, just “the facts of life.” Unconscionable.
Money uber alles.
Wealth confiscation and redistribution.
Demonization of American capitalism.
Those are just empty phrases. Specifics, please. Just one real example of someone in leadership of the Democratic Party doing these things.
Of course you know that only you and I can read these responses anymore……single letters on top of one another are pretty hard to read.
Wall Street has gotten billions of taxpayers’ money. as you surely know. But it’s never enough, is it?
A “jobless” recovery,” they call it. Outsource the jobs to China or India or Bangladesh, lay off the used-to-be better-paid American workers and take the profits to the bank. So, “jobless,” indeed. Who benefits? Not the American worker.
Everything I state is going to be an empty phrase to you.
The two things I have stated are repeated over and over by Democrats. Obama campaigned on it and we have witnessed his administration assault capitalization.
Wall street paid back almost all of the TARP funds.
I think you have expended whatever goodwill you had left.
Not sure what you mean – I’m an independent, not a Democrat. But I’ve worked with Republicans on issues of importance on which we can all agree, for example, pesticides in our drinking water. That’s not a partisan issue.
I often think political parties can get in the way of people working together on issues that concern all of us.
However, treatment of working people, from whom capital makes its profits, is a critical issue and not one to be treated lightly as you have done. Of course workers, who create the wealth, should have a reasonable and livable share of those profits. That’s just logical and sensible for all, including even the gluttons of Wall Street, Goldman-Sachs, etc.
Actually you showed that there is little difference between the average mean wages across all fields. If Maine and South Carolina are exactly the same in all respects regarding employment (except for wages), then your argument would hold water. In this case, Maine and South Carolina are not exactly the same, therefore your argument doesn’t hold water.
Nothing is “exactly” the same but the trend and results remain very similar. If you prefer, you can examine two more closely related states, one closed shop and the other RTW. You choose the states and present the results keeping in mind to meet your own criteria, exactly alike.
Citing statistics that cover an increase across all occupations is misleading. It skews the result because it weights each occupation the same. For example, over the period of 2001 to May 2010 (the last date available from your link, it doesn’t go through 2011), a chief executive’s hourly mean went from $43.46/hour to $80.63/hour. That’s an increase of 85%. For electricians, a different picture: $15.99/hour to $19.19/hour (still the hourly mean). That’s only a 20% increase. Averaging these two together shows an average increase of over 50% for these two occupations! Misleading? Absolutely.
It actually does provide 2011 data if you explore it further.
I used total averages for expediency sake. The data disproves the previous posters falsehood concerning strong drops of wages in RTW states. It is also misleading for you to pick two such disparate occupations for comparison purposes. Average the typical hourly positions for both states and you will have the same indicators, increased wage scales for both states.
Sure, let’s have “right-to-work” laws so the people who choose not to join the union – or refuse to pay towards the union’s efforts on their behalf – can parasite off the workers who do join the union.
No, thanks. If people get the benefits – which all non-union members do when the unions win better working conditions or a wage increase – they should help with the costs of the unions fighting for them.
Fair is fair. So-called “right to work” laws are just another way of weakening unions leading to their destruction – which is the goal of the Koch brothers and other corporate owners who are never satisfied, and who don’t care about their workers. They only want more, more, more money and are never satisfied.
So, let them make their products with cheap foreign labor and robots instead of good working people; when people don’t have good jobs, they can’t afford to buy manufactured “stuff,” so the gluttons will have few buyers. Then what?
RTW laws allow people to determine whether they wish to pay union dues or not. That is about all there is to it. Maine lacks good jobs even with repressive union shop laws in place. What’s your plan?
My idea, regarding your idea of weakening unions by instituting a so-called “right to work” law, is that everyone who refuses to help pay expenses for the unions to win them better working conditions and wages SHOULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT THOSE BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS AND WAGES WON BY THE UNIONS.
If they’re so opposed to unions, then you’d think they would refuse unions’ gains for working people out of pure principle, wouldn’t you?
Perhaps their wages and working conditions should go back to before the unions were successful in winning the 40-hour work week, paid vacation and sick leave, safe working conditions, and so on. Let them earn their money pre-union and see how they fare.
90% of the workers in Maine receive no benefit from closed union shop laws. In fact, such laws reduce employment and stymie economic development.
That is not correct. RTW laws allow people to opt out of paying a fair-share payment, which is not dues, and is a smaller amount of money than membership dues. If it were dues, they would be full voting members of the union. Fair-share payers are only paying for the representation the union is forced to provide for them by law. A RTW law allows that person to get all the benefits, including representation in grievances, without paying a penny.
That is not true at all. I have managed both union and non-union employees is a RTW state. RTW laws allow employees to opt out of all membership dues, fees and any association with union membership. None of my non-union employees were represented by union officials nor did they have grievance redress accorded to the union contracts.
The laws vary by state but most do not function as you allege.
“should be buy American products”
How about a union job for a new editor?
Sad that only one Mainer in 10,000 showed up but thanks to F&M for this. Koches are rubbing their fat hands in glee.
The Koch brothers run several union shops, very well paid union shops. Georgia Pacific is among them.
Georgia Pacific left Maine years ago to go where there are more trees not yet clearcut, and to where they wouldn’t have to put up with Maine winters. They also got HUGE tax breaks from Baileyville, Old Town, and I don’t know where else before they left.
Also, we, the people, in the person of John Baldacci, bought G-P’s paper-mill sludge dump for $25 million – taxpayers’ money,
Now the dump is being expanded for even more out of state garbage so Casella – Baldacci’s friend – can make even more money, When the dump is totally full and really, truly cannot be expanded any further – like Sawyer’s Mountain on I-95 – then you and I will be permanently liable for all the water it poisons.
Before they left, they mechanized everything they could and laid off many good workers who were making livable wages. So, yes, they’re no doubt profitable, but much of it doesn’t help real people at all.
I am not sure what your reply has to do with the fact that the Kochs run a lot of union shops but I am guessing you can somehow explain it? The Kochs did not own GP when the events you mention took place.
Then why mention only Georgia-Pacific? And who are you, anyway?
You’re just looking for anything you think will strengthen your anti-union stance. Won’t work. People know what’s fair, and helping pay for the work it takes to win decent working conditions is only fair.
NO to so-called “right-to-work” laws unless people who don’t want to help win good working conditions REFUSE TO ACCEPT ALL GAINS WON BY THE UNIONS.
That would be only fair, don’t you think?
I mentioned GP only as an example when the Koch brothers were unfairly presented as anti-union and evil. If you wish to take back legislative protections that eliminate the need for most unions and benefit all workers, then you should have no objection if we also eliminate all laws that benefit only unions. Your notion is silly.
RTW is going to be the vehicle that brings growing prosperity to those states that adopt it. Those that knuckle under are going to suffer economic losses, Maine being one of them.
Right to work laws benefit only corporations and their CEO’s excessive paychecks.
With robotics taking over manufacturing, out-sourcing of labor to places where people will – because they’re desperate – accept very low pay (and because they don’t have unions to protect them), then all that “right to work” laws do is help kill unions.
Goldman-Sachs and their ilk on Wall Street are determined to drive down wages worldwide, and they’re hard at it through people like you and their lobbyists.
You’re not fooling anyone here.
RTW laws directly benefited 1,000 people in Charleston, SC and indirectly another 2,000 when Boeing decided to build their new Dreamliner assembly plant there. The explosive growth of Greenville/Spartanburg was due to BMW’s location and expansion in RTW South Carolina. That success story is being repeated across the RTW states.
The facts are just not with you and it remains true that the workers of Maine would be beneficiaries if RTW were passed in Maine.
I am not interested in fooling you. I am focused on beating you.
You say to me, “I’m focused on beating you.” Maine working people will not long put up with people like you who work against their interests.
And you will not “beat” us.
Your “us” is a rather small number and I have already beaten you.
Jobs will always flow to places that are willing to drive down wages, do away with environmental regulations, and remove protections for working people. The job growth in South Carolina is only a measure of how little they’re willing to accept. RTW states are doing well with job creation, and any state willing to participate in a race to the bottom will also create a good number of jobs. The only problem for the people of those states is that you’ll need to work two or more just to get by.
The problem is that the wages are not being driven down by any significant degree. If anything, the data indicates that attracting manufacturing jobs in RTW states increases the average wages for that state.
How many jobs do the people of Maine need to hold down to get by and why hasn’t it’s closed shop laws addressed this?
Is it your position that the Koch brothers are happy to have union shops? I think that’s a doubtful proposition.
No business is happy to have union shops. Most businesses work in full faith to deal effectively with the adversarial relationship, some better than others. Koch has not brought any pressure to eliminate the unions in businesses they have acquired.
ROMNEY / RYAN 2012 !!!
Sure, vote against your own interests, if you’re a working person. Check out some genuine truths about these people before you laud them to the world.