|
|
Saturday, October 31
Deja Vu All Over Again! Cereal, Sugar, and Iowa Kids
by
cathy lafrenz
on Sat 31 Oct 2009 05:00 AM CDT
Deja Vu All Over Again! Cereal, Sugar, and Kids
 by Cathy Lafrenz
Does this really surprise you?
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I was a young mother. I (like lots of Baby Boomers) was a rebellious mother and did such subversive things as nursed my daughter and made my own baby food. I was a radical. I found highly processed baby food and childrens' cereals unacceptable for my growing daughter.
But when we complained about high salt and sugar levels in baby food - the companies changed. And although, I still encourage mothers to make their own baby food - at least, the options are much much better than they were 30 years ago.
Thirty years ago .... we didn't talk much about nutrition. The slogan of the day was "Better Living through Chemistry". We thought the food industry had our best interest at heart. After all, we were certain Betty really did make all those cake mixes.
But there were people that spoke about nutrition and the connections between feeding our family and health issues. One of my "go-to" authors was a wise, well-balanced mother named Vicki Lansky. Lansky wrote the book "The Taming of the C.A.N.D.Y.* Monster"
* Continuously Advertised Nutritionally Deficient Yummies
I was shocked as a young mom to see breakfast cereals on the grocery store shelves that contained over 25% sugar. Not one - not two - but over and over again. According to Lansky and the Journal of Dentistry for Children in 1974 - Cap'n Crunch contained 43.3% sucrose content. Trix, Froot Loops and Honeycomb were all over 46% sugar. And Lucky Charms and Apple Jacks were 50 and 55% sugar.
It was with that knowledge I suddenly became the meanest mother alive and limited my daughter to 5 cereals - Shredded Wheat, Cheerios, Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran and Rice Krispies which had 10% sugar content. I thought I was being generous with that one!
If the name contained the word "frosted" "coco" or "super" - it wasn't coming home with me! Cuz as soon as I served it for breakfast, I would have a "souped-up" two-year-old on my hands. And let's not even talk about a cereal that was inspired by a toy or the Saturday morning television line-up!!!!
So I hit the grocery store and the cereal aisle to see how things have changed in the last 30 years.
As that very Daughter would say .... Not so much, Mom!!!!
I checked out the nutritional information for Froot Loops. Froot Loops had been named a Smart Choice cereal due to the addition of fiber. Fortunately, the FDA may be coming to their senses. Remember in 1974, the Journal of Dentistry for Children stated that they contained 47.4% sugar? Ok - calorie count doesn't look too bad. 110 calories for a 1 cup serving.... but then go down to the sugar content. 12 grams. Hmmmm?
This is where it gets tough for the average American. Teaspoons... I understand. Calories .... I understand. Grams ... Not so much!!!
Well - here's the scoop. There is 4.2 grams in a teaspoon of sugar. So 12 grams of sugar is the equivalent of 1 tablespoon of sugar. And one tablespoon of sugar is 46 calories.
So in that 110 calories of Froot Loops, there are10 calories from fat and 46 calories from sugar.
Let's compare that to cereals directed at adults. Let's look at my personal favorite ... Cheerios. Cheerios is being marketed to adults to help lower cholesterol levels because of its soluble oat fiber.
A 1 cup serving of Cheerios has 110 calories ... 15 calories come from fat and 6 come from sugar.
Almost 25% of the 9-12th graders in Iowa are overweight or obese. Don't our children deserve better cereals?????
What can you do?? First of all, you can take control of the shopping cart and avoid buying overly-sweetened cereals. Speak with your dollars.... look for cereals that have 5 or less grams of sugar. And don't be fooled by fancy labeling on the front of the box. Learn to read those labels and understand what they mean.
And write your Congressman demanding clear and concise labeling that show the calories from sugar in all foods. We have fat calories clearly listed..... it is time to have sugar calories listed.
It is a new day. Let's start it right.
Cathy Lafrenz is a regular contributor for Blog for Iowa on the topic of food. She serves on the board of the Quad-Cities chapter of Buy Fresh-Buy Local. She raises hens for egg production and is Animal Welfare Approved. In
her spare time she advocates for health care reform, spins yarn, and
knits every pair of socks she wears. Check out her blog, Miss Effie's Diary
Friday, October 30
Learning from the 1999 Vote on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Part 3
by
paul deaton
on Fri 30 Oct 2009 05:00 AM CDT
Learning from the 1999 Vote on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Part 3
 by Daryl Kimball
This article is re-printed with permission of the author.Opposition Tinged With Regret
Even as they prepared to vote against the CTBT, many Republicans were clearly disturbed by the politically charged nature of the debate and frustrated with the situation presented to them by the leadership.
As Hagel observed on the opening morning of the Senate floor debate, “We are trapped in a political swamp as we attempt to compress a very important debate on a very important issue. My goodness, is that any way to responsibly deal with what may, in fact, be the most critical and important vote any of us in this chamber ever make? It is not.”
Even as he outlined his reasons for voting against the treaty, an anguished Lugar acknowledged that, “under the current agreement, a process that normally would take many months has been reduced to a few days. Many senators know little about this treaty. Even for those of us on national security committees, this has been an issue floating on the periphery of our concerns.”
Recognizing that the opportunity for give-and-take was absent and that the votes needed for ratification were not there, 62 senators wrote to the leadership on October 12 “in support of putting off final consideration until the next Congress.” Prominent Republicans, including Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, argued that “if the Senate cannot bring itself to do the right thing and approve the treaty, then senators should do the next best thing and pull it off the table.”
Agreeing to postpone the vote required the same kind of “unanimous consent” agreement needed to schedule the vote, and some CTBT opponents had publicly said they opposed any such agreement. On the eve of the vote, Lott and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) were on the verge of an agreement to postpone the vote; but Senators Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), Helms, James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Kyl, and Bob Smith (R-N.H.) reportedly raced to the majority leader’s office to tell him that they were prepared to block any new agreement that would postpone the vote. These senators appear to have been motivated as much by their political instincts as their discomfort with the CTBT.
Smith argued in an October 12 floor speech, “Postponing a vote on the CTBT will allow the White House to claim victory in saving the treaty, and will allow the White House to continue to spin the American people by blaming opponents for not ratifying the treaty. There is no conservative victory in that.” In the end, Lott was either unwilling or unable to persuade this small group of hard-liners to delay the vote.
By taking up the treaty in what Lugar called “an abrupt and truncated manner that is so highly politicized,” the Senate was unable to sort out the many issues relating to treaty ratification. Unlike previous Senate deliberations on arms control treaties, there was no negotiation or exchange of views concerning possible conditions that might assuage concerns and win the support of skeptical senators, such as Clinton’s proposed set of six CTBT “safeguards” (see sidebar). Without the time necessary to achieve clarity and political consensus, the doubts and questions raised about the CTBT effectively undercut potential support for the treaty.
Looking Forward
It will never be known whether it might have been possible to win the Senate’s approval with greater presidential leadership, a more collegial Senate culture, and a more effective presentation of the case for the treaty. The future of the CTBT, however, may well depend on the lessons that decision-makers and the public draw from the 1997-1999 period and how they apply those lessons in the coming year or two.
Although the outcome of any arms control treaty debate depends on politics as much as on hard-headed national security considerations, a first step toward repairing the damage from the October 1999 debate and building support for the CTBT should be a more thorough and substantive exchange of views between the executive branch and Congress on core technical issues concerning the treaty.
Winning over new, uncommitted senators and changing the minds of some who voted no in 1999 will require some time and new evidence that gives them reason to support the CTBT. Most importantly, the administration must address lingering Republican concerns about the verifiability of the CTBT by documenting how and why the International Monitoring System (IMS), on-site inspections, and transparency measures specified in the CTBT, combined with U.S. intelligence capabilities, can effectively detect and deter militarily significant cheating.
Advances in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) nuclear weapons Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) over the past decade have significantly increased confidence in the reliability of the existing U.S. arsenal. A 2002 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel, which included three former nuclear weapons laboratory directors, found that the current SSP provides the technical capabilities that are necessary to maintain confidence in the safety and reliability of the existing seven types of nuclear warheads in the active stockpile, “provided that adequate resources are made available...and are properly focused on this task.” According to the NAS panel, age-related defects, mainly related to non-nuclear components, can be expected, “but nuclear testing is not needed to discover these problems and is not likely to be needed to address them.”
Although the U.S. nuclear arsenal is aging, the aging process is better understood today than ever before, and confidence in the ability to maintain the warheads is increasing at a faster rate than the uncertainties. For example, in 2006 the Department of Energy announced that studies by Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories showed that the plutonium primaries, or pits, of most U.S. nuclear weapons “will have minimum lifetimes of at least 85 years,” which is about twice as long as previous official estimates.
Contrary to the allegations of some CTBT opponents in 1999, the cessation of nuclear explosion testing has not caused the laboratories to lose technical competence. Rather, significant advances have been achieved as researchers were able to study the physics underlying weapons performance in greater depth, undistracted by the demands of a nuclear weapons test explosion program.
According to weapons physicist Richard Garwin, the new evidence on the longevity of weapons plutonium “has removed any urgency to engineer and manufacture new design replacement warheads.” Garwin says the continued performance of legacy warheads can be more reliably certified than new ones.
Test ban monitoring and verification capabilities have also improved. As the July 2002 NAS panel report documents, with the combined capabilities of the IMS, national technical means, and civilian seismic networks, no potential CTBT violator can be confident that a nuclear explosion of any military utility could escape detection. The IMS itself has more than doubled since 1999, with approximately 280 of the planned 321 global monitoring stations now built, including a new array of highly capable noble-gas monitoring stations that can detect minute amounts of the radioactive gases emitted by underground explosions into the atmosphere.
The developments over the past decade led George Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, to say at an April 17 press briefing in Rome that his fellow Republicans “might have been right voting against it some years ago, but they would be right voting for it now, based on these new facts.”
Unlike the Clinton administration, which failed to commission a blue-ribbon review of technical issues before the 1999 vote, the Obama administration has already put into motion the studies and reviews necessary to establish the technical and policy basis for the Senate’s reconsideration and approval. These include a new intelligence community monitoring assessment of test ban monitoring capabilities, as well as an updated version of the 2002 NAS report. Both of these reviews are scheduled to be completed by early 2010.
In the final analysis, undecided senators will have to make a net benefit analysis. Given that the United States will need to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal for some time to come, given U.S. interest in detecting and deterring surreptitious nuclear test explosions, and given the importance of strengthening the beleaguered nuclear nonproliferation regime, is the United States more secure ratifying a treaty that bans an activity that is unnecessary for U.S. security but would help others improve their nuclear capabilities, or is it in the U.S. interest to stand outside the treaty?
Political Changes
The political environment has changed significantly since 1999. Most obviously, the Democrats will hold about 15 more seats for the upcoming CTBT vote than the 45 they had 10 years ago. Because they are in the majority now, the Democrats also have much greater control over the Senate calendar than they did before. Under Senate rules, however, the minority party and even individual senators can exert considerable influence over the chamber’s business.
Also, even though a base of 60 is far better than a base of 45, it still means that the Obama administration will need to win the support of at least seven Republicans, a difficult but attainable goal. There are some encouraging signs. A growing array of Republican and Democratic national security opinion leaders recognizes the value of the CTBT and is calling for reconsideration. In 2007, former Republican Secretaries of State Shultz and Henry Kissinger, along with two Democrats, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn (Ga.), called on the Senate to initiate a bipartisan process “to achieve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking advantage of recent technical advances, and working to secure ratification by other key states.” President George H. W. Bush’s national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, and former NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks have also recently endorsed U.S. ratification of the CTBT. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Senator John McCain (Ariz.), who voted against the treaty in 1999, outlined a policy that included “taking another look” at the CTBT. He made similar comments earlier this year. Lugar also has indicated that he might vote differently this time.
Avoiding Political Ambushes
In spite of the changes since 1999, some of the potential pitfalls are similar. For example, the Obama administration must not allow CTBT opponents to sap support before the formal debate on the treaty even begins. The White House and the Department of State are now laying the groundwork in advance of formal reconsideration of the treaty, but opponents are also preparing.
One potential advantage CTBT opponents will have is that the Senate is expected to debate the forthcoming START follow-on agreement some time in the first quarter of 2010 and prior to the CTBT. Senate opponents of the CTBT, such as Kyl, have already declared their intent to condition their support for the START follow-on on the acceptance of a set of conditions that would shape and direct the administration’s future policies and budgets for support and “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and stockpile. The administration and Senate CTBT supporters may need to provide such assurances about their commitment to maintain the stockpile to win the support of some Republicans for the CTBT.
If the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request includes major additional funding for weapons complex infrastructure investments and new-design warheads or if it allows nuclear weapons “modernization” conditions to be attached to the resolution of ratification for the START follow-on agreement, some potential Senate supporters of the CTBT may pocket that and fail to provide their support when the time comes to vote for the treaty itself.
Some senior administration officials are clearly alert to the challenge. “I think there are a lot of people that still hope for the return” of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, “and they are going to be sadly disappointed,” Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen O. Tauscher said in a recent interview.
Tauscher has correctly noted that new-design warhead approaches, such as the RRW plan advanced by the Bush administration and rejected by Congress, are less attractive than other measures, such as refurbishing existing warheads to maintain and modernize the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Although some Republicans will push for new-design warheads, Tauscher said the administration would hold firm and would instead put forward a more robust stockpile management plan that increases the confidence in existing warheads and “negates the need” for the RRW program.
Conclusion
The next 12 to 18 months may represent the best opportunity for U.S. ratification of the CTBT in a generation. Moving forward and gaining the necessary 67 Senate votes in support of ratification will be a difficult but attainable task requiring favorable political conditions and a well-executed ratification campaign that draws on the lessons of the failed CTBT ratification effort in 1999. With sustained presidential leadership, bipartisan support from key senators and former test ban skeptics, and a realistic assessment of the significant improvements in the ability to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal and detect nuclear test explosions, the outcome of the Senate’s second vote on the CTBT can be different from the one 10 years ago. A Senate vote for the CTBT would repair the damage of 1999 and advance the global effort to reduce nuclear dangers.
Daryl G. Kimball has served as executive director of the Arms Control
Association since 2001. He previously was security programs director
for Physicians for Social Responsibility, where he helped lobby for the
U.S.
nuclear test moratorium legislation of 1992 and negotiation of a
zero-yield Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Kimball was also
executive director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, where he
led a group of nongovernmental organizations in their efforts to win
support for U.S. CTBT ratification.
Thursday, October 29
Local Community Radio Bill Now in House of Representatives
by
Trish Nelson
on Thu 29 Oct 2009 05:00 AM CDT
Local Community Radio Bill Now in House of Representatives
 The Local Community Radio Act is a bill currently in the House of Representatives that will allow local communities non-commercial access to the publicly owned airwaves.
Cory Fischer-Hoffman, Campaign Director of the Prometheus Radio Project, and Mike Doyle (D-PA) spoke about the Local Community Radio Act on Democracy Now! this morning
Doyle stated that the bill is popular, bipartisan, and has a broad base of support. The opposition (primarily National Association of Broadcasters, whose technical concerns have been proven unfounded, allowing the bill to move forward) has so far been silent, and they expect the bill to pass, but they remain cautious. Doyle stated that they have been working with National Public Radio on changes to the bill that will address its concerns.
Rep. Doyle said there is a companion bill in the Senate [S.592]. They would like to get the bill passed by the end of the year. Co-sponsors of the Senate version are: Durbin, Feingold, Leahy, McCain, Merkley, Sanders, Schumer.
Congressmen Loebsack (D-IA-2) and Latham (R-IA-4) have signed on as co-sponsors of this bill. Congressman Braley (D-IA-1) supports the bill and is on the committee that passed it earlier this month. Rep. Boswell and Sen. Grassley are on record opposing net neutrality, so who knows what they're thinking about local community radio.
There are 86 cosponsors of the House bill. Democrat Leonard Boswell is not one of them, so he definitely needs to be contacted. Steve King is not a co-sponsor either. If conservative GOP congressman Tom Latham and progressive Democrat Dave Loebsack can be in bipartisan agreement about passage of this important bill, there is no reason Boswell, King, Harkin and Grassley cannot also support it.
Fischer-Hoffman and Doyle emphasized that it is of utmost importance for citizens to contact their members of congress this month and make sure they support the bill.
**BFIA Action Alert**
Call your congressman and senators to make sure they vote for the passage of the Local Community Radio Act because the radio waves belong to the people and community radio will serve the "public interest, convenience & necessity."
Boswell: DC - 202-225-3806 / Des Moines: Iowa Toll Free: 1-888-432-1984
King: DC - 202-225-4426 / Creston 641-782-2495 / Council Bluffs 712-325-1404 / Spencer 712-580-7754 / Sioux City 712-224-4692 / Storm Lake 712-732-4197
Grassley: DC - (202) 224-3744 /Cedar Rapids 319-363-6832/Council Bluffs 712-322-7103/Davenport 319-322-4331/Des Moines 515-288-1145/Sioux City 712-233-1860/Waterloo 319-232-6657
Harkin: DC - 202-224-3254 / Sioux City: 712-252-1550 / Dubuque 563-582-2130 / Des Moines 284-4574 / Davenport 563-322-1338/ Cedar Rapids (319) 365-4504/
Wednesday, October 28
Grassley Challenger Calls for Expansion of High Speed Internet for Rural Iowa
by
Trish Nelson
on Wed 28 Oct 2009 12:00 PM CDT
Grassley Challenger Calls for Expansion of High Speed Internet for Rural Iowa
 "Small town businesses as well as farmers should be able to take advantage of this and expand their markets" ~
Krauseforiowa.com
Bob Krause, Democratic Candidate for the U. S. Senate, said today that he would work for expanded internet access for rural American when elected to the United States Senate. "We need to sustain the rural life style and make it competitive with urban America if we are to halt the long, slow collapse of rural Iowa," said Krause.
Iowa has pockets of territory in the northwestern part of the state with relatively high internet access, said Krause. However, eastern Iowa has large areas with very little access to high speed internet, as shown on the map in this map
“If we want to have a vibrant, sustainable rural America, instead of the hollowing out that we see today, we need to make high quality internet broadband service a priority,” said Krause. “The slow growth in rural broadband in the face of the current recession indicates a real need that must to be met," he added.
According to the USDA Census of Agriculture, the percentage of U.S. farms with high speed Internet access varies considerably....Iowa is above the national average with approximately 4 in 10 farmers having access to the new technology.
Over 2.2 million farms were included in the census. Growth in broadband to rural America has been slow.... Of all farms in the U. S., only 33% now have broadband.
Krause added that expansion of internet service is a prime stimulus project that would add jobs while creating a rural economic infrastructure suitable for the rural economy in the 21st century.
"Small town businesses as well as farmers should be able to take advantage of this and expand their markets," stated Krause.
Krause referred to a recent report by the Knight Commission on Community Information Needs in a Democracy. The report equates the national broadband project to the creation of the transcontinental railroad or the creation of the interstate highway system as a building block for a better America.
"This is a project that has broad national support,” he said. “We just need to do it!”
Public Supports Moving Forward on Climate Change
by
Trish Nelson
on Wed 28 Oct 2009 05:00 AM CDT
Public Supports Moving Forward on Climate Change
 Americanprogress.org
Found this link on Iowa Policy Project's Twitter feed...
Health care reform is occupying almost everyone’s attention these days, which is understandable given its level of importance and how close we are to big decisions in Congress. But other critical issues remain on Congress’s agenda and will be taken up once the health care situation is resolved. On the top of that list is climate change. Just-released data from the Pew Research Center suggests the public is ready to move forward in this area.
First, the public rejects the idea that the United States should go alone in addressing climate change. By 56-32, they say that the United States “should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change” rather than “set its own standards to address global climate change.”
Second, the public gives 50-39 support to “setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if it may mean higher energy prices” (emphasis added).
(click here to read the entire article)
Tuesday, October 27
Health Care Reform Update: This Thing Is Going To Work (Or, Woot!)
by
Alta Price
on Tue 27 Oct 2009 05:00 AM CDT
Health Care Reform Update: This Thing Is Going To Work (Or, Woot!)
 By Alta Price, M.D.
I just heard on the tee vee Harry Reid’s announcement that the health care reform bill in the Senate will include a public plan option, even if it is one with a state level opt out. I felt like titling this post “Woot!” – a term I first learned blogging at DeanforAmerica.com (and still use when Beryllos, my level 80 Night Elf Hunter in World of Warcraft (WoW) wins a major victory). But I decided I probably had to say a little more than woot! So here is a nice article by Paul Krugman, “After Reform Passes”. He starts out this way:
So, how well will health reform work after it passes?
There’s a part of me that can’t believe I’m asking that question. After all, serious health reform has long seemed like an impossible dream. And it could yet go all wrong.
But the teabaggers have come and gone, as have the cries of “death panels” and the demonstrations by Medicare recipients demanding that the government stay out of health care. And reform is still on track. Right now it looks highly likely that Congress will, indeed, send a health care bill to the president’s desk. Then what?
I agree with Krugman – I can’t believe what we have accomplished. And to get a Senate bill including the public option, passing with 60 votes no less, going into conference committee with the House is icing on the cake. Thanks for making all those phone calls last week, everyone! Please give yourself a pat on the back, or join me in a joyous “woot!”
We progressives just love to worry, so now we are getting concerned about what happens after the bill passes. Krugman draws upon the Massachusetts experience with health care reform to assure us that our national level bill will indeed help people and be popular. This is not to say there won’t be problems, or that we can just play WoW once the bill passes. We are going to have to stay engaged at the state level until the reforms are fully implemented and will still have work to do on improving access, lowering costs, and fixing the myriads of problems we will still have in our health care system. But this bill we have worked so hard to pass brings us much closer to our goal of quality affordable health care for all. As Krugman says at the end of his column:
This thing is going to work. (Alta shouts: WOOT!)
Alta
Price is a physician practicing Pathology in Davenport, Iowa. One of
the original Deaniacs, she stays involved with Democracy for America,
Iowa, and the Quad Cities. She advocates for quality, affordable health
care for all, primarily as a volunteer with Progressive Action for the
Common Good (Health Care Reform Issue Forum). Watch for Dr. Price's Health Care Reform Update every Tuesday here on Blog for Iowa. E-Mail Alta Price
Monday, October 26
Iowans Play Prominent Role at Showdown in Chicago
by
Trish Nelson
on Mon 26 Oct 2009 01:00 PM CDT
Iowans Play Prominent Role at Showdown in Chicago
 Larry Ginter of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI.Org) was featured on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! this morning, shown on video rallying the crowd of protesters at the American Bankers Association convention in Chicago. Watch the video on YouTube.
Here are Larry's remarks to a packed room:
"If you've seen your pensions or retirement take a hit, stand up!
"If you are tired of sky high credit card rates, stand up!
"If you are tired of outrageous overdraft fees, stand up!
"If you are tired of more people being forced out of work, stand up!
"If you are tired of people losing their homes, stand up!
"If you are tired of pay day lenders exploiting people in tough situations, stand up!
"If you are from rural America and tired of bank greed, stand up!
"If you are from urban America and you're tired of bank greed, stand up!
"If you think it is time to put people first, stand up!
Thanks to Larry, ICCI, and every Iowan who made the pilgrimmage to Chicago to take a stand on behalf of the rest of us.
For more information: showdowninchicago.org seiu.org/bigbanks
Union Holds Rally for Hundreds of Locked Out Workers in Muscatine, Iowa
by
Tracy Kurowski
on Mon 26 Oct 2009 05:00 AM CDT
Union Holds Rally for Hundreds of Locked Out Workers in Muscatine
 by Tracy Kurowski
Photo:
The rat is a prop used at picket lines for various reasons, usually a
strike, lockout, or when unfair labor practices are being committed.
On Saturday, October 24, 2009, more than one hundred people came out for a rally in support of the locked out workers at the Grain Processing Corporation in Muscatine, Iowa. Grain Processing Corporation is a leading manufacturer of corn-based products ranging from food items to pet care products.
The Back to Work Rally, held by UFCW Local 86D, the union that represents the workers, was held to keep the spotlight on the hundreds of workers who have remained locked out since last August 22, 2008.
Workers had anticipated that when their five-year contract expired at midnight more than a year and two months ago they would continue to work under the terms of the existing contract as is the standard practice when a contract expires during negotiations.
However, at 7 p.m., GPC pushed them out and has continued to operate with replacement workers – unfair certainly, but unfortunately, perfectly legal under current labor law.
The lockout has had dire consequences on the faltering economy in Muscatine County, Iowa, whose unemployment rate, at seven percent, is twenty-three percent higher than the rest of the state.
“We want to work,” said Local 86D President William Poggemiller. “We wanted to work while settling our contract differences, but GPC locked us out.”
The union has set up a hardship fund to help the workers, but there hasn’t been enough to cover everyone’s bills for such a long period of time. Some workers have reported that they have lost their cars and others are close to losing their homes. In addition to losing their jobs, the workers' health care benefits were cut, effective the day of the lockout. Though eligible for COBRA benefits, at $350 a month they remain unaffordable for many families, whose sole source of income is unemployment benefits.
Despite the economic downturn, the initial cause of the lockout was not wages or benefits, but language concerning outsourcing and job security. GPC wanted to alter contract language to be able to outsource any portion of its workforce at any time and for any reason. The union objected to that risk. The locked out workers average close to twenty years of service to the company.
"It’s really about keeping good jobs here in Muscatine,” said Bob Weatherman, one of 86D’s vice presidents. “We need to stand up for job security – for our families and for Muscatine’s economy.”
The two sides last negotiated with each other in early June 2009. The union has also expressed concerns about safety due to inadequate training of replacement workers.
Click here for more info and updates:
Ten Questions about the GPC Lock out
1. Q Were the 300 Union employees of GPC, locked out or out on strike?
A They've been locked out.
2. Q What is the difference?
A A strike occurs when the Union votes down a company's contract offer and VOTES to Strike. A lock out is the result of a company refusing to let their hourly employees work. The Union has no vote or choice.
3. Q Did GPC lock out their employees due to sabotage?
A Sabotage, accident, or excuse. We may never know for sure; they have offered no proof of their claim.
4. Q GPC claims the lock out was due to economics.
A One month after the lock out Gage Kent donated $150,000 to Washington, Indiana for an aquatic center. They also had funds to buy insert land and a road on the south end of town. Yet at the same time, they have frozen salaried workers' wages and lowered the company's profit sharing contributions from 15% to 3%. The hourly workers for GPC get a contribution of 2%.
5. Q Has GPC put an outsourcing clause in the proposed contract?
A Yes, which means seniority means nothing. ZERO! The company could use outside contractors to replace hourly employees at ANY time.
6. Q Why hasn't GPC and the Union board met in months to negotiate?
A The company asked the Union board not to call unless they are willing to buckle under and give the company a proposal.
7. Q Does GPC offer sick leave to it's hourly employees?
A NO, GPC is the only food-grade plant that does not give it's workers sick leave without prior approval.
8. Q Has GPC denied prior earned vacation to the locked out workers?
A Yes, they have denied the employees requests for vacation days that they have previously earned. The company has also denied funds from the employees 401K profit sharing accounts.
9. Q Do the locked out Union members have medical insurance?
A NO, GPC had the right to let these people keep their insurance or take it away. Sadly, they chose to take it away.
10. Q Union workers make good money; why should I support you?
A Because we're fighting the very fight that EVERY working class American needs to support. We're telling big businesses they can't give away our jobs, that our seniority IS important, that blue-collar workers deserve to be compensated, too. Not just the CEO's and upper management. This entire country rests on the backs of the working class. Ask yourself this; what happens to this nation when those backs break and there is nothing left to give.
Tracy Kurowski is currently AFL-CIO Community Services Liaison at the United Way of the Quad City Area. She has been active in the labor movement for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when she taught adult education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She moved to the Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political coordinator with the Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker for Congressman Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.
Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every Monday on Blog for Iowa
|
|
