Friday, September 29, 2006

September 26, 2006

Dear Mr. Pineda:

Thank you for contacting me about the "Employee
Free Choice Act" (EFCA). I appreciate hearing from you
and welcome this opportunity to respond.

I am pleased to inform you that I am a co-sponsor
of S. 842, the "Employee Free Choice Act". Like you, I
believe it is important that American workers have the
right to unionize. In addition, American workers should
also have the opportunity to obtain affordable health care
and work in safe conditions. Furthermore, I believe
companies must be held accountable for any unlawful
actions taken against workers who participate in unions
and should work with employees to improve all working

On April 19, 2005 Senator Edward Kennedy
reintroduced EFCA. This legislation would enhance
workers' ability to organize in the workplace by
increasing penalties against unions and companies that
violate labor laws during organizing efforts. This bill
certifies a union if the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) finds that a majority of employees have
designated the union as its' bargaining representative.

EFCA would ensure several other priorities for

? Guarantees workers will not be penalized by
their employers for taking part in organizing
? Ensures union workers will have a contract for
protection of employment;
? Increases the amount an employer is required to
pay to the employee for discrimination; and
? Increases civil fines of up to $20,000 per
violation against employers.

EFCA has been referred to the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).
Although I am not a member of the HELP Committee,
please know that I will continue to closely monitor this
situation as it unfolds. Additionally, I will be sure to
keep your suggestions in mind should this legislation
come before the Senate.

Once again, thank you for writing. I hope you will
continue to keep in touch on issues of importance to you.
If you have any additional questions or comments, please
do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at
(202) 224-3841 or visit my website at

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Scabs for hire!
This appears to be another attempt to undermine the Union Campaign effort. First of all, why don't they disclose the location of the newspaper that they are trying to recruit SCABS for?

How would you like to have someone come and take away your work and income, You wouldn't. Greed is very motivating and this Company knows that very well. Do any of the individuals who are signing up really need the money? If so, couldn't they get it some other way than to take it from another presspersons family?
They are trying to make a living just like the rest of us and deserve to negotiate with their employer without interference or intimidation.

Show some compassion for the people they are trying to defeat and put yourself in their shoes. Let them resolve their differences without doing their companys dirty work.
Tribune, L.A. Times should be shunned for this kind of behavior and don't think that they wouldn't do the same thing to us!

Sunday, September 24, 2006

We've all heard what has happened with our former drivers and Ryder. It appears that this is an effort by the Company and Ryder to de-stabilize the union and use this to undermine our efforts to organize our shops. The timing of this decision should be considered very suspect. The fact of the matter is that The Teamster drivers negotiate with Ryder not The Times or Tribune. So they determine just how much work is allocated to Ryder.
The former drivers have been victims of Tribunes cost cutting measures and several are again victims. The fact that they are Represented by The Teamsters has insured that they will be able to retain employment elsewhere.
This is another reason why we need to accomplish our mission and become Union Represented Teamsters, then and only then will we be able to support one another when The L.A. Times and Tribune come looking for fast cash.
The Drivers have expressed their support for our effort and in light of these recent events, they are encouraging you even more so to not fail.
The Company is jeopardizing our security and the security of our property by allowing a criminal element onto the property. The drivers they have hired to deliver the loads they referred to have been witnessed using marijuana in the parking lots in O.C. and I have heard of lockers being broken into. In Los Angeles there was a rash of lockers being broken into shortly after the Company began to allow non-Times employees into the building.
So once again we are put at risk in their effort to save a buck.
Safety is one of the major concerns of ours in our shops. Staffing levels have increased our risks of injury. The increased workload has resulted in shoulder,wrist and hand injuries. Safety bingo apparently is not preventing these problems. How do you feel about the way The Los Angeles Times and Tribune view our safety and their effort to insure it?

Friday, September 22, 2006

"Employment at will"
While it is hoped that your employment with the Company will be mutually rewarding, your employment relationship with the Company is at-will.
This means that either you or the company may terminate this relationship at any time,
for reason, with or without cause or notice.
At-will employment also means that the Company may make decisions regarding other terms and conditions of employment at any time with or without cause or notice including but not limited to demotion, dicipline, promotion, transfer, compensation, benefits, duties and location of work. Any agreement for employment for any specified period of time or for any promises or commitments contrary to the foregoing can only be made by a company officer. Any such agreement that changes your at-will employment status must be explicit, in writing, and signed by both you and the Publisher of the Company to be enforcable.

Source: Los Angeles Times Employee Handbook

This is why you need to sign a card and vote yes!

ADD This