Independent Unions and Union Organizing

This post was inspired by a session that I attended on independent union organizing during the Labor Research and Action Network (LRAN) conference that was held in Portland, Oregon on June 20 and 21. Speaking in that session were Nat Glitsch of ILWU Local 5, Hans Heintze of the New Seasons Labor Union, Mark Medina of Portland Jobs with Justice, Prachi Goyal of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee, and Eric Blanc of the Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations.

I have put two other posts up on this blog on co-eneforcement strategies and tactics which were inspired by another workshop that I attended at the LRAN conference. Readers can go here and here to read those posts.

Defining independent unionism and independent union organizing can be tricky. Most of us probably think of independent unions as unions that are not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). The AFL-CIO was founded in 1955 and can be described as the mainstream of the labor movement in the United States. The Federation unites trade, craft, public worker, and industrial unions into local, state and regional, and occupational bodies and carries the positions taken by unions working through these bodies into politics, policy-making, organizing, and advocacy.

As a federation the AFL-CIO is limited to working with the positions commonly shared by its affiliates, which means in practical terms that the Federation's abilities to advocate for positions taken by particular unions and to act quickly on the positions that the Federations has adopted are often limited. On the other hand, the AFL-CIO and its constituent unions are the only organizations in the United States that have a steady dues base and resources and that unite critical numbers of  working-class people across racial, ethnic, gender and gender-preference, religious, and sectional lines and behind what are most often liberal political and social concepts. 

But defining independent unionism by what it isn't carries with it some problems. The Teamsters, Carpenters, National Education Association, and Service Employees unions are not affiliated with the AFL-CIO but are very much a part of the mainstream of the labor movement. They are not usually thought of as being independent unions given their histories and their cooperation with the AFL-CIO. The local unions that are affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World seem to operate more-or-less independently but exist within the framework of a unitary organization, however decentralized that is. The United Electrical Workers (UE) and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union are both on their own but now organize workers outside of their original jurisdictions. The UE in particular is having tremendous growth just now, thanks in part to its rightful claim to being a member-run union and in part to its strategic alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America and the Emergency Workplace OrganizingCommittee. The UE and the ILWU share a comon progressive history. Some independent unions are worker centers or non-profits that do worker organizing and engage in forms of worker representation and legal enforcement but that don't negotiate union contracts or become collective bargaining agents.There are also some independent unions that are barely unions at all, and some that are the tools of employers and attorneys. Non-profits and attorneys that do some forms of what many of us consider to be forms of organizing and representation work look like the next big thing coming.

In the moment that we're in right now it may be best to think of independent unionism as being driven in great part by workers in the food, grocery, retail, preschool and childcare, logistics, non-profit, sex work, and freelancing areas of the economy. These are workers who are employed in occupations that mainstream and other unions do not have a strong record representing, or these workers likely do not identify with mainstream unions. A significant number of these workers have not had positive experiences with unions in their pasts. These workers may want things that fall outside of wages, hours, and working conditions, the three areas that most unions are legally limited to negotiating over. 

Certain points emerged in most of the presentations that I heard at the LRAN conference workshop. These were:

1. These are unions with few or no staff and little or no money. Some of these unions do not collect dues.

2. There were questions raised about who is a leader and how influential leadership should be. Are leading activists, educators, and the people who make connections between workers as they organize also leaders, and how important are they?

3. Workers have "learned hopelessness" and helplessness in mainstream unions, and pro-union workers in these unions are regarded as having access to power that others don't.

4. There was much talk about "worker-led organizing," "centering" workers during organizing, "worker-empowering models," and "popular education models." The optimistic slogan "When workers lead, workers win" was popular. A dominant idea was the dogmatic notions that the only good ideas about organizing will be those that come from workers and that "The revolution will not be led by organizations with staff." 

5. There were questions about capacity. Can independent unions take on large corporations? Can they exist and survive outside of places like Portland? What about strike and defense funds and research costs?

6. There was a recognition that we have to meet the moment that we're in---a moment characterized by an increase in working-class organizing to meet the crises of the times---and that people want democracy and organization, but that there is also the belief that people do not want to join existing organizations.

7. "Worker self-organizing" brings democracy and teaches lessons that will last a lifetime.

8. Some of these unions are winning elections without having majorities of workers signing union authorization cards.

9. Members of the independent unions that were represented in the workshop only see their unions as a means of fighting the boss and fighting for power.

10. Representing workers and winning union fights in small and under-resourced workplaces takes time, money, and people power that an independent union may not have. Legal compliance is also costly.  

On the one hand, these ideas and perceptions are valid if large nubers of workers believe that they are and if they are willing to take action to back these ideas and perceptions up. Many of these ideas and perceptions are not wrong by themselves, and some spring from the lived experiences of large numbers of workers. On the other hand, much of what was being said invites reactions and further discussion.

It is reasonable to believe that an independent worker organization without funds and resources is always vulnerable. One lawsuit, unfair labor practice, badly-timed job action or strike, or arbitration case can cost large sums of money and cost workers their jobs and savings. Individual workers may be held liable under certain cirumstances and pay for the mistakes of others.

The emphasis on "class-struggle unionism," "worker-led organizing," "centering" workers during organizing, and "worker-empowering models" assumes that mainstream unionism is not, in the first place, able to understand the elements of class struggle. It seems to assume that the workers who organize within other models and with other ideas either do not or cannot understand that there is an "us" (the workers) and there is a "them" (the bosses) and that a struggle goes on between us and them daily. Most all unionism is "class-struggle unionism," or can be transformed to be more struggle-oriented through the daily push-and-pull that goes on at work and through good organizing and leadership. Whatever the mistakes and shortcomings present in mainstream labor and the UE and ILWU and union locals that were purged from the CIO for their progressive policies, there is accessible institutional knowledge and there are resources there that have not formed and been gathered in vain.

There has also been a long-standing trend in the labor movement in the United States towards what looks and feels like a radical unionism based on worker self-reliance but that has turned out to be quite conservative. This unionism understands quite well the Leftist arguments that labor, or labor power, is a commodity like any other and that wages represent the cost of labor embodied in the means of production and the cost of  reproducing labor power daily. But this unionism has also taken working-class self-reliance to another level with apprenticeship programs, credit unions, apprentice and journeyperson and traveling cards, and union hiring halls. If the radicals who spoke in favor of independent unionism as a form of struggle-oriented self-reliance at the conference maintain their views they could well become tomorrow's conservative craft or "business" unionists. 

Peter J. McGuire, United Brotherhood of Carpenters

If workers cannot be leaders, or if working-class leadership is not important or is inherently bureaucratic and problematic, then workers are, almost by nature, running backwards and are doomed. Every other class in society has leadership and uses leadership to gain what they want and to either fight for power or hold power. You cannot win power without organization, and you cannot have organization without leadership. The alternatives are undemocratic and depend on spontaneity. What happens when worker militancy is depleted, spontaneity leads to defeat and demoralization, and a strategic or tactical retreat is needed?

There are dogmatic and ideological matters at work here. It can't really be true that workers win every fight that they lead and initiate and that only workers who are the forefront of their workplace struggles produce good and right ideas. Does one's class identity or relationship to working-class struggle necessarily change for the worse when one becomes a leader or a union staffperson? Is it true that masses of workers want democracy and organization but are rejecting all existing organizations, or is this a dogmatic overlay suggested by anarchists, or what only seems to be true in a system that is rigged to delay and then torpedo union elections and union contract negotiations? Where is the responsibility for class-conscious workers to struggle against the idea that existing organizations are hopeless or useless and their responsibility to lead people into existing organizations and cause these organizations to reform?

It does seem doubtful to me that lasting independent unionism of the kind described at the LRAN conference can survive for long outside of places like Portland. One of the elements intrinsic to the survival of mass unionism is homogeneity, and a kind of homogeneity does exist in places like Portland. This can be foundational to anarchist-inspired workplace organization. Just so, other forms of independent unionism could take root in the Black Belt South or in parts of this country that are particularly under-served or that have been left high and dry by the industries that developed these areas. I think that SEIU shows a remarkable sense of this with its attempt to build the Union of Southern Service Workers, and that the UE contnues to lead in some of these areas, but we can't count on other independent unions to be as progressive as they are. Think of the old Southern Labor Union or the Christian Labor Association here. 

Finally, are fighting the boss and fighting for power always linked to one another, and is that all there is to our lives? Is the dogmatic formulation that the working-class and the employing class never have anything in common true in a time when fascism is threatening the existence of society and ecological destruction is well underway? Are we limited to class-against-class at all times and under all circumstances or are politicized and principled united fronts and popular fronts in defense of democratic rights and for the survival of species possible and necessary? 

Co-enforcement, Worker Power, and Re-thinking Labor and Social Movements (Part Two)

Harlan County, Kentucky mine workers take collective action in 1939

(Please see the first post in this two-part series here.) 

It would certainly help matters if all of us came to a new understanding of politics based in our collective working-class experience and a new understanding of solidarity and supporting one another as well. Imagine a powerful pro-worker and pro-union set of laws and rules, a fair legal system, and government agencies, unions and allied organizations partnering on inclusive research and enforcement and penalizing wayward employers. One necessary component of that would be workers running for office and taking positions in government agencies. That day seems far away. We are not yet at a point where we are about the business of building the kinds of solidarity and union growth that directly involves people in taking collective control of our destinies. We have an immediate challenge of impressing on people that when we vote for governors and labor commissioners in Oregon we are voting either for or against co-enforcement and explaining the positives and negatives involved in making that choice.

In the meantime, we struggle with seemingly mundane questions like what constitutes evidence in a wage and hour complaint or in a grievance, what is and isn’t just cause for discipline at work, and how do you know if piece rate pay is being done correctly or not. The questions may seem tedious, but the answers to them can make qualitative differences in worker’s lives. And from how these questions are understood and dealt with come more questions about how workers organize and fight for our rights and what form these fights take and where they might lead. Our challenge is to politicize what seems mundane. The strongest and most experienced advocates for co-partnering between unions and union-supportive organizations fighting for workers’ rights at the conference put forward a few case studies and preliminary responses to how these types of questions can be taken up. Most of these were success stories of one kind or another. All of them raised many questions in my mind.

The Pilipino Workers Center in Los Angeles is engaged in organizing some homecare workers and using legal enforcement mechanisms and co-enforcement and partnerships with other organizations to win gains with these workers. Their work was described as an attempt to “build a whole new kind of brain trust” and it sounded to me as if they are a kind of hybrid non-profit and union. Here in Oregon, we have Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN) doing a service center that refers workers to the Northwest Workers Justice Project (NWJP) and state agencies. The NWJP has also partnered with the Carpenters union and BOLI and other state agencies to pursue claims against carpentry contractors working in the underground economy and this work has been particularly successful. The Carpenters union, PCUN, NWJP and the state agencies that are working together deal with language barriers, worker’s fears of retaliation and deportation, and worker pessimism as well as weak laws and employer opposition.

There are hopes that cooperation will develop between the worker organizations, more state agencies, and federal agencies and that targeted enforcement and an inter-agency task force model will develop. There are also hopes that penalties against bad employers will be increased, that enforcement will go deeper and be more effective, and that employers will be forced to pay for trainings by worker advocates that will then lead to deeper labor organizing. Some portion of public funds dedicated to infrastructure could be used to facilitate these changes, and local, state, and federal bodies should not be contracting with companies and their contractors who violate labor laws. These violators should lose their business licenses and registrations and should be shut down. Companies should be held responsible for the behavior of the contractors that they do business with.

State’s attorneys general could be given the power to enforce wage and hour law, as is done in Massachusetts, and union representatives could be deputized, as happens in the construction industry in Multnomah County and the Los Angeles school district. Legal cases brought forward by pro-worker non-profits could be expedited. Companies could be forced to disclose all their locations, contractors and sub-contractors and unions and allied organizations could use this information to map and chart industries and carry organizing forward. Wage theft ordinances might be won, and these might contain liability clauses that go up the chain from the sub-contractors to the responsible employer. Protections for reporting violations can be strengthened and reporters can be anonymous and still have their complaints acted upon. Perhaps one of the most radical hopes or proposals is that there be an established presumption that wage claims and other complaints signal a widespread problem in an industry and that these complaints should lead to selective industrial investigations and co-enforcement tactics and strategies.

Opposition to this comes from several quarters. Employers will claim that they should not be targeted for investigation because certain competitors are bad actors. Employers are making California the center of their efforts to oppose partnerships between government agencies, unions, and worker advocacy organizations. Among their strongest allies are city attorneys and local mayors who won’t take on bad employers and who want exceptions made where and when certain violations occur. The employers and certain government agencies also often resist recognizing the non-profit worker organizations with the claim that they need to protect the confidentiality of workers making complaints (there are legal ways around this) or employers may take a demand by a pro-worker non-profit as a legal demand for union recognition and argue for a union election before the National Labor Relations Board knowing that the workers will not vote for a union. There are continuing fights over the rights and protections that should be accessible to whistleblowers.

Small companies and companies owned by employers of color cannot afford the trainings that corporations have access to. Oregon’s safe staffing law (HB 2697) is already being violated and tested by employers. BOLI wants changes in laws, rules and enforcement that will benefit workers while our Department of Justice is resisting that, making our Attorney General a key decider. Some unions agree not to disclose or be publicly critical of employers after violations have been settled, and some unions will protect industries and employers where strong bargaining relationships prevail and where apprenticeship programs, joint trusts, project labor agreements and arbitration boards protect union-employer mutual interests.

There is a push for increasing workers’ rights and there is pushback from those in power and this process is the fabric of class struggle, but in the daily grind of things there are gray areas and moments when there are moments went separate interests coincide and conflict. It was mentioned at the conference that some workplace organizations have shifted to becoming 501(c)(3) organizations, enabling them to accept money from foundations. Perhaps this gives or will give labor-friendly non-profits and unions the same or similar immediate goals but different long-term interests. Few of us in the labor movement doubt that intensive union organizing that reaches millions of workers and wins working-class battles is needed, but there are different levels of commitment to this within labor, disagreements over if and how this can be done, and different visions over what should follow successful organizing campaigns. If unions come to depend more on allied non-profits to do some of the heavy lifting and help build union density, these will have to be membership-based non-profits, and some kinds of understandings about resource- and power-sharing will have to be agreed to. Labor and pro-worker and social movement-based non-profits will have to restructure and reorient themselves if they’re going to partner with one another and with government agencies to guide union organizing and if the emphasis is going to shift from collective bargaining to extending workers’ rights through law.

The changes suggested above, most of which were advocated for by some conference participants, all require changes in how working-class organizations see themselves and how we conceive of and use political power. The state itself---government---will also have to be transformed if it is to be used to build worker power. Something deeper than the New Deal and the historic Protocols of Peace will have to be enacted, but how to do this in ways that build working-class power and provide openings for further political and economic struggles led by workers isn’t clear. Many of the strongest advocates for co-enforcement make their case by referring to the Progressives of the early 20th century and the New Deal, both cited in the first post here discussing co-enforcement, but it should be said that these programs were used in part to manage and deter labor militancy. How do we use co-enforcement to build worker power without worker militancy? Many of the speakers and those attending the conference would probably reject historic Progressivism.    

It is difficult to imagine the Democratic Party as presently constituted agreeing to support and committing to win the changes needed to establish workers’ power locally and regionally, and it's impossible to believe that this could be a bipartisan project. Changing laws, making new rules, increasing enforcement of pro-worker laws, and raising up a generation of researchers, activists, inspectors, and enforcement personnel will require having a worker-friendly and anti-austerity political party in power for decades to come and still having a politically independent labor movement.

Co-enforcement, Worker Power, and Re-thinking Labor and Social Movements (Part One)

Photo from LRAN.

This post is inspired by a plenary session and a workshop that I attended at the Labor Research and Action Network (LRAN) conference that was held in Portland on June 20-21.

The plenary session took up the matter of how labor can use co-enforcement strategies in Oregon. That session featured the following presenters and presentations:

• Jessica Giannettino Villatoro, Deputy Commissioner, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI)
• Why the Agency Embraced Co-Enforcement, Big Changes: Laura van Enckevort, Wage and Hour Division Administrator, OR BOLI
• Transforming Day to Day Practices, Setting Sectoral Tables: Kate Suisman, Attorney, Northwest Workers' Justice Project and Liz Marquez, Policy Associate, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN)

• Co-enforcement in Practice:

- Adam Jeffries, Proactive Investigations and Enforcement Unit, OR BOLI
- Construction: Trampas Simmons, Special Representative and Jesus Saucedo, Organizer, Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, taking on multiple subcontracting entities
- Childcare: Nat Glitsch, Organizer, ILWU Local 5 organizing in childcare centers

Progress, Challenges and Lessons:

• Moderator: Janice Fine, Professor, Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations

The workshop that inspired this post dealt with defining co-enforcement, how to use co-enforcement locally, and how to use enforcement as a means for building worker power. That workshop was led by the following researchers and analysts:

• Janice Fine, Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations
• Jeremy Simer, Researcher, SEIU Local 49
• Janet Bauer, Research Associate, Oregon LERC
• Jillian Cruickshank, Policy Analyst, Jobs with Justice
• Tia Koonse, Legal and Policy Research Manager, UCLA Labor Center

This post is a mash-up of what I understood the speakers listed above and certain audience members to say and some of my thinking.

I think that the key underlying assumption shared by most of the speakers was that the strategic use of laws, regulations, and public institutions by unions and pro-labor and pro-worker non-profits can build worker power. There was an optimistic belief that government---the state---can be democratic and user-friendly by workers and our organizations and a more realistic assessment that pro-worker policies often pass through legislative action and rule-making processes without enough thought being given to who is going to do enforcement and what enforcement of these laws and regulations looks like. This lack of foresight and planning is not sustainable and eventually creates working-class distrust and cynicism. These understandings led most of the speakers to support strategic enforcement of laws and rules by unions and allied organizations, better and more research, and alliances between unions and likely partners.

“Co-enforcement” simply refers to unions and union-friendly organizations partnering to enforce the laws and rules that are on the books, and perhaps stretching them in practice to meet their intended purposes. The problem here is that the dominant understanding of government today is that state institutions are supposed to be neutral while workers need laws, policies and enforcement that are not neutral and that help us. It helps to remember that many local, state, and federal agencies were set up in response to working-class demands for protection and redress and that conservatives (with help from many liberals) have been successful in weakening these agencies and redirecting their missions. I think that on this point several of the speakers exaggerated the relative strength of the Progressives who were in power in the early years of the 20^th century and the good work done for working-class people under the New Deal of the 1930s, downplayed or were silent on the advances we made under the Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon administrations, and did not address the austerity measures that we saw under the Carter and Clinton and Obama administrations.

Perhaps it is that in many regions of the world, including the United States, many traditional functions of government have either been taken over by corporations or abandoned. The rising corporate model is not the traditional one of reinvesting some profits in producing goods and services but of moving away from direct ownership of production and distribution and instead holding onto profits and banking them, causing a dangerous expansion of the financial sector. More companies connect consumers to services and service providers and charge fees and make profits from doing that rather than through production and distributing goods and services that they own. Under such new conditions enforcement and co-enforcement come up against special challenges.

Whether I’m right or wrong here, I agreed with the speakers who made it clear that we need to go beyond umpires and adjudicators and get into real enforcement. Oregon is unique in that we are one of only 5 states where commissioners of labor are elected. Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries has a wage and hour division, a civil rights division and apprenticeship programs oversight. Workers’ comp and insurance, workplace safety and health, the Employment Department, business licensing and oversight, and the Construction Contractors Board are separate from BOLI.

Frontline state and agency staff dealing with workers’ rights and benefits need up-to-date training and support to meet today’s demand. So do union staff and members and the folks working in organizations allied with unions. Still, the problems these people face go beyond training. The will to fight hard for workers’ rights requires in the first place an understanding of the contours of class struggle and resources. Jessica Giannettino Villatoro pointed out that we have under-resourced wage and hour investigators here in Oregon handling over 200 claims a year when they should be handling 85 or fewer. They are trained in laws, policies, and enforcement, and they benefit from their contact with people working in pro-worker non-profits, but they and their non-profit activist colleagues do not learn the fundamentals of class struggle as a cohort.

Other conference speakers pointed out that complaints, by themselves, don’t empower workers or our organizations. The policy analysts, investigators and enforcement agents work in a fragmented and underfunded system that cannot bring lasting justice as it is. The system that we have now---including workplace inspections and enforcement, passing worker-friendly laws and doing good rule-making, and even union organizing and contract negotiations and grievance handling---is weak or broken. We need to think of this as one system and not as separate silos to understand what is going on around us and make real change.

When conference speakers spoke about labor winning more of our fights these days and an upsurge in the number of strikes I wondered why it doesn’t feel like we’re winning much of the time. Why are the strikes that are taking place not more politicized and why don’t they seem to be helping to give us a ride into a victory at the polls in November? Working-class cynicism is fed by weak laws and policies and under-resourced enforcement, laws and standards that hamper union enforcement, and at least 30 years of concessions-based bargaining by unions and related losses in union power.

This cynicism is not unreasonable, but many workers still maintain a fundamental but fragile hope in the system despite their pessimism. What happens when these hopes are dashed? Can unions and social movements grow quickly enough and win enough fights to disprove the cynical arguments that unions lack power and presence in worker’s lives? Will there be a more-or-less unified working-class vote in November, and which way will that vote go? Graham Trainor, President of the Oregon AFL-CIO, said in his address to the conference that one in five or one in six workers in our region are union members, that unions are winning our battles, and that “We can’t be afraid to lead with a progressive agenda.” These remarks show that the labor is making quantitative and qualitative advances. But what are the practical connections between relatively high union density and progressive politics under current conditions? How do we define winning our battles under these changing conditions? And whose progressive agenda makes the cut?

Employers know all of this and don’t have much reason to fear penalties or repercussions for their inevitable bad behavior or condemnation for intervening in the political process and the courts. They may be frustrated by sometimes having to work with so many different agencies and deal with a system that tends to be one-size-fits-all, but in the long run the faults in the system and the top-heavy nature of the system works in favor the worst actors among the employers and provides incentives for employers to cross the line.

Combining state resources that affect workers’ salaries, working conditions, and benefits under one umbrella might help create real enforcement of pro-worker and pro-labor laws and rules. It might also lead to strategic enforcement in certain areas and leave workers not covered by the decisions on strategic enforcement out in the cold. Imagine a situation where, say, farmworkers get justifiable strategic attention from state agencies, unions, and union allies but home construction workers or university workers are not included in strategic planning and enforcement. That would be divisive in the first place, but I believe that we would then see corporate money and financing go into areas of the economy where enforcement is weak or non-existent and a new crop of corporate bottom feeders arise.

Photo from Northwest Public Broadcasting

Solidarity with Auto Workers and striking Teamsters and a great conference in Portland!

Since 2018, Daimler Truck has seen a 90% increase in profits while its workers have fallen further and further behind. Work by UAW members at Daimler factories, including Freightliner, Western Star Brand, and Thomas Built Bus is driving record company profits, but working at Daimler isn't what it used to be.

UAW members across the country are ready to stand up for a record contract at Daimler!

Join the Global Day of Solidarity to stand with UAW members doing what it takes to win Tuesday, April 23rd TBD! uaw.org/Daimler

The Coors family, executives, and stockholders are living the high life while refusing to negotiate a fair contract with workers who make the beer. Teamsters Local 997 in Fort Worth, the workers behind the Molson-Coors brand beverages and record profits, were forced onto the picket line Feb. 17 after the company refused to offer more than 99 cents an hour in new wages.

Support the Teamsters who are holding the line for a strong contract. Boycott Molson Coors until workers get the job protections and wage increases they deserve! Take part in a bit of history, renewed by Texas Teamsters, and join us in supporting the long-running Boycott!

Teamsters Local 223 members in Eugene kicked off a Day of Action by flyering customers and supermarkets about the Boycott. Here in Portland, members circulated flyers and promoted the Boycott at recent actions! Support the Boycott and circulate the flier, here!

Registration for the Labor Research Action Network Conference is now open!

The conference will run from Thursday June 20th 8am to Friday June 21st 5pm PDT.

The 2024 LRAN conference is co-hosted by the University of Oregon Labor Education and Research Center (LERC) and will be held at Portland State University. The theme of this year’s conference is “How labor can confront a rapidly changing landscape," and plenary sessions will focus on exciting efforts at strengthening and co-enforcing worker protection laws in Oregon and the rise of independent union organizing. Workshops and trainings will be held on a range of issues, including AI, climate jobs, and worker co-ops. The agenda will be available in April.

The early bird rate for admission is $130. The rate will go up to $150 on May 1st. Register here.

If you need a hotel room, there is a room block at the University Place Hotel & Conference Center Portland (union hotel). The rate is $114/night and includes breakfast. To book a room, call the hotel directly at 503-221-0140 and mention the LRAN conference.

The information above was taken from Portland Jobs with Justice. Please support them.

Registration for the Labor Research Action Network Conference is now open!

Registration for the Labor Research Action Network Conference is now open!
The conference will run from Thursday June 20th 8am to Friday June 21st 5pm PDT.

The 2024 LRAN conference is co-hosted by the University of Oregon Labor Education and Research Center (LERC) and will be held at Portland State University. The theme of this year’s conference is “How labor can confront a rapidly changing landscape," and plenary sessions will focus on exciting efforts at strengthening and co-enforcing worker protection laws in Oregon and the rise of independent union organizing. Workshops and trainings will be held on a range of issues, including AI, climate jobs, and worker co-ops. The agenda will be available in April.

The early bird rate for admission is $130. The rate will go up to $150 on May 1st. Register here.

If you need a hotel room, there is a room block at the University Place Hotel & Conference Center Portland (union hotel). The rate is $114/night and includes breakfast. To book a room, call the hotel directly at 503-221-0140 and mention the LRAN conference.