SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
shontel brown
'Strikes Work': REI Agrees to March 3 Union Election After Ohio Walkout
"We are basically making demands that we have a livable wage, that we are able to live our lives outdoors, like REI's mission statement includes," said one sales associate at the Beachwood store.
Feb 03, 2023
After REI employees in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio walked off the job Friday morning, the recreational equipment retailer agreed to schedule a union election vote next month and stopped pushing to exclude certain workers.
Following successful union drives at two other REI stores, employees in Beachwood last month filed for a union election with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking representation with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU).
John Ginter, a sales associate at the Beachwood REI, told Cleveland-based Ideastream Public Media that he and his co-workers are seeking better working conditions.
"We are basically making demands that we have a livable wage, that we are able to live our lives outdoors, like REI's mission statement includes," he said. "So having a better work-life balance, being able to care for ourselves and to increase benefits for employees across the spectrum, whether or not they are part-time, full-time, whatever that situation would be."
According to the report: "Ginter alleged REI has some 'pretty rigid stipulations' with regard to which employees are eligible for benefits and accrual of sick time. He also said he believes his REI location is 'not living up to our diversity, equity, and inclusion statement.'"
Beachwood workers launched their brief unfair labor practice (ULP) strike Friday as an NLRB hearing got underway at the federal agency's Cleveland office.
\u201c\ud83d\udea8\ud83d\udea8\ud83d\udea8Alert: our store is closed due to our ULP strike. Stand in solidarity with us @rei co-op members and ask the company to #letREIvote https://t.co/HytMzwzBAI\u201d— REI Union Cleveland (@REI Union Cleveland) 1675439795
In a ULP charge that RWDSU filed Thursday with the NLRB, the union claimed REI "engaged in the unlawful surveillance of workers and/or created an impression of surveillance of the workers at the Beachwood store."
RWDSU has also accused REI of putting forth "meritless assertions to delay the election" by claiming that sales leads, bike shop workers, and "casual" employees—or those who work part-time with irregular schedules—should not vote.
"RWDSU vehemently disagrees with REI's objections," the union said in a statement. "It is especially galling because, as the company unnecessarily fights RWDSU in Ohio, it is currently bargaining contracts with workers holding these same classifications at the SoHo, New York and Berkeley, California stores. REI's hypocrisy is union-busting plain and simple and is a meek attempt to exclude more than half of the proposed bargaining unit to be eligible to vote."
\u201cIn a petty move by local management we're locked out for the day. The main office says we can come back tomorrow, but enjoy this video of the type of attitude we have to put up with every day from local management ...\u201d— REI Union Cleveland (@REI Union Cleveland) 1675457892
REI pushed back against RWDSU's characterization of its intentions in a Thursday statement to Axios, saying that the NLRB hearing was "to ensure that all employees who hold the right to vote are included in the voting process."
The agreement reached Friday includes all eligible workers at the location, "a reversal from REI's position last week," according to RWDSU. "The union election will take place on March 3, 2023 from 12:00 pm-6:00 pm ET at the Ohio store."
New York Times labor reporter Noam Scheiber tweeted Friday evening: "One thing I've learned covering labor over the past several years: Your labor rights are typically as robust as the power you and your co-workers can muster at the workplace. This case was a perfect example."
More Perfect Union similarly said, "Strikes work."
\u201cCleveland REI workers went on strike this morning, and just hours later the company agreed to all of their demands. Strikes work.\u201d— More Perfect Union (@More Perfect Union) 1675450448
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown and Congresswoman Shontel Brown, Ohio Democrats who are not related, expressed solidarity with the REI workers in their state this week.
Others, from the REI union in SoHo to UNI Commerce to the AFL-CIO, have also publicly supported the Beachwood workers this week.
\u201c\ud83d\udea8\u2757\ufe0fHey @REI: You might want to update your website. \n\nThere is NOTHING respectable about a workplace environment where employees are harassed, intimidated & prevented from exercising their LEGAL RIGHT to vote in a fair union election. \n\nSolidarity with @reiunioncle! #letREIvote\u201d— AFL-CIO (@AFL-CIO) 1675441800
If the Ohio employees vote to form REI's third union nationwide, RWDSU would represent approximately 55 workers there—though RWDSU noted that "the store currently operates at a 60% staffing level of its full capacity, potentially increasing that number to over 70."
As the Beachwood workers prepare for next month's election, contract negotiations are underway in Berkeley, and 10 fired employees—including two bargaining team members—are accusing REI of retaliation, which the company denies.
Meanwhile, in Washington state on Tuesday, REI laid off 167 people, or 8% of headquarters workers. President and CEO Eric Artz said that "in the face of increasing uncertainty, we need to sharpen our focus on the most critical investments and areas of work to best serve our members and grow the co-op over the long term."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Champion Nina Turner Falls to Establishment Incumbent Shontel Brown
Justice Democrats, a progressive group that stayed out of the race after endorsing Turner last year, said it is "getting massively outgunned by Republican donors."
May 04, 2022
Rep. Shontel Brown, an establishment incumbent whose campaign was boosted by torrents of super PAC spending, handily defeated progressive champion Nina Turner on Tuesday in the Democratic primary for Ohio's 11th Congressional District.
Outside organizations spent heavily on Brown's behalf in the U.S. House race, a rematch of a heated special election that drew national attention less than a year ago. Tuesday's contest wasn't nearly as close as last year's: Brown prevailed this time around with just over 66% of the vote.
"This is another hard-fought victory," Brown said in a speech Tuesday night. "I'm going to continue to show up for you."
Turner's campaign, endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), decried the influence of corporate money on the race, one of several contests nationwide in which special interests are spending heavily against progressive contenders.
"The reason special interests are committed to this election is because Shontel Brown relies on their money to stay in power," Kara Turrentine, Turner's campaign manager, said in a statement Tuesday.
Cleveland.comreported that the Democratic Majority for Israel's (DMFI) political action committee--which is bankrolled by an oil and gas heir--"spent more than $1 million to help Brown during this election, on top of [the] $2 million it spent during last year's special election."
Brown's campaign was also bolstered by more than $1 million in spending from Protect Our Future, a super PAC launched this year with the support of cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried.
Additionally, as The Intercept's Akela Lacy noted late Tuesday, "United Democracy Project, an AIPAC political action committee, spent more than $280,000 on the race last month, including more than $198,800 on ads attacking Turner."
"How pathetic!" Sanders tweeted earlier this week. "AIPAC and their billionaire friends are spending some $10 million to defeat Nina Turner, Summer Lee, Nida Allam, and Jessica Cisneros. Why are they so afraid of strong, progressive women of color fighting for the working class?"
\u201cHow pathetic! AIPAC and their billionaire friends are spending some $10 million to defeat @ninaturner, @SummerForPA, @NidaAllam and @JCisnerosTX. Why are they so afraid of strong, progressive women of color fighting for the working class?\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1651537004
While Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Turner in both the special election and Tuesday's rematch, other high-profile progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups stayed on the sidelines in the latter contest.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, endorsed Turner last year, as did the CPC's campaign arm--but the CPC's PAC supported Brown in the rematch, sparking backlash from progressives. Brown is a member of both the CPC and the corporate-friendly New Democrat Coalition.
"As a rule, [the CPC PAC] does not back primary challenges to its existing members of the caucus, which at 98 current members, including Brown, makes the body a formidable voting bloc," Politico reported Tuesday. "Jayapal... said there is a review underway for how the group considers endorsements, including a minimum length of service before determining if one is in good standing and signing onto a certain number of bills the group supports."
Justice Democrats, meanwhile, did not get involved in the rematch after endorsing Turner and raising money for her special election campaign last year.
"Nina is a giant in the progressive movement and we're proud to have gone all in for her campaign last year," the group said in a statement to The Intercept. "The reality is our organization has to be strategic about our priorities as we are getting massively outgunned by Republican donors funneling millions to super PACs like AIPAC and DMFI against our existing candidates."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What the CPC's Failure to Endorse Nina Turner Tells Us
The choice of Shontel Brown over Turner in Ohio should be understood as a bellwether event that shows progressives cannot depend on the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Apr 27, 2022
Sometimes one decision speaks volumes. And so it was when the Congressional Progressive Caucus--with 98 members in the House--recently chose to have its PAC endorse a corporate "moderate" against the strong progressive candidate Nina Turner. In the process, the Progressive Caucus underscored its loyalty to establishment Democrats while damaging its credibility among progressives nationwide.
By siding with Brown against Turner, the Progressive Caucus appears to be operating like much of official Washington does--as an incumbent protection racket.
The endorsement of Congresswoman Shontel Brown against Turner in their upcoming May 3 rematch came just five months after Brown took office following last year's special election in a Cleveland area district. In last August's Democratic primary, Brown defeated Turner with the help of funding from big corporate, Republican and hawkishly pro-Israel donors--as well as support from Republicans who voted for Brown in Ohio's open primary. (Brown's two most notable national endorsers were Hillary Clinton and Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.).
Brown is such an establishment politician that she didn't just join the Progressive Caucus--she also quickly joined the rival New Democrat Coalition, an alliance of the most corporate Democrats in the House.
By siding with Brown against Turner, the Progressive Caucus appears to be operating like much of official Washington does--as an incumbent protection racket.
And the endorsement brought questions to the surface that have been festering for a long time. Such as:
Does the Progressive Caucus represent the interests of progressive constituencies to the establishment? Or does the Progressive Caucus represent the interests of the establishment to progressives? And if the answer is "both," then how does that work?
Unless such questions are answered with clarity, illusions will undermine the efforts of grassroots progressives to assess situations accurately and organize effectively.
While the endorsement of Brown is a bellwether event, it is not an isolated incident. After a long history of backing down rather than using its leverage (as when it abandoned its demand in 2009 that a "public option" be part of the Affordable Care Act), the Progressive Caucus appeared to wield some real clout during the early months of the Biden presidency. Most importantly, its leadership insisted that it would not back last year's bipartisan infrastructure bill unless it moved through Congress in tandem with the Build Back Better legislation proposed by President Biden with major input from Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Build Back Better was crucial for economic and social justice as well as for substantively addressing the climate emergency. And for a time, it seemed that the Progressive Caucus, under the leadership of Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), was holding firm onto the necessity of passing Build Back Better along with the infrastructure measure. Simultaneity was crucial because Senate obstructionist Joe Manchin of West Virginia badly wanted the infrastructure bill signed into law but was hostile to Build Back Better.
The Progressive Caucus leadership vowed to not back down. And then it caved, opting to wave the infrastructure bill through the House. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was concise when she said: "I'm a No. This is bullshit."
Other members of the expanded Squad--including Reps. Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, and Ayanna Pressley--also voted against the stand-alone infrastructure measure (and took plenty of abuse as a result).
Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Bush, Tlaib, Bowman, and Pressley saw what was coming, as a result of the Progressive Caucus's surrender. The infrastructure bill got through Congress, and Biden signed it on November 15. Progressives immediately lost their leverage for Build Back Better. It died.
In December, RootsAction.org (which we co-founded) published an in-depth report on the Congressional Progressive Caucus, documenting that many of its members fail to support the CPC's main priorities (like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal) and that some in the caucus are just PINOs ("Progressive In Name Only"). Those lawmakers obviously believe the "progressive" label helps them with activists and constituents back in their districts, but in Washington they tend to legislate on behalf of the corporate status quo.
The PINO report found that "16 CPC members are also part of the ideologically corporatist New Democrat Coalition"--a "moderate" caucus that advocates "market-oriented" and "fiscally responsible" policies to solve the big economic and environmental crises of our time. Add Rep. Shontel Brown to this list of dual members. (When the CPC's PAC endorsed Brown this month, it also announced its endorsement of several of the worst PINOs running for re-election, including Rep. Jimmy Panetta of California.)
The report analyzed the lack of cohesion in the Progressive Caucus and cited that deficiency in asking how one of Congress' biggest caucuses did not muster the power to get Build Back Better across the finish line.
The Progressive Caucus leadership approach that gave up leverage for Build Back Better is akin to the one that just endorsed Shontel Brown against Nina Turner. Progressives around the country should take note and not forget: We can't depend on the Congressional Progressive Caucus to provide the kind of leadership we need. It must come from the grassroots.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular