Monday, February 13

Doctor Groups Flex Muscle In Capitol: $2.3 Million in Campaign Cash to Influence Health-Care Reform

News The State Capitol has been abuzz the last couple of days because of a hot list (PDF) circulating in ... More

Feb 10, 2012 06:00 pm by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 3
 

Nonsense Knows No State Boundary: Washington Legislators Get Bogus Job Claims on CRC

News Up north of here, Washington legislators in Olympia are debating whether or not they should authoriz... More

Feb 10, 2012 09:09 am  | Comments 1
 

Occupy Arrestees Win Their Right to Full Trials—Even Though They May Not Need It

News The estimated 160 people arrested during Occupy Portland protests in the past five months have won t... More

Feb 9, 2012 01:24 pm by HANNAH HOFFMAN  | Comments 2
 

Almost Live: Rockets at Blazers

News So I'm having a bit of trouble with the picture, which is coming from my phone (I drew it on my way ... More

Feb 8, 2012 07:09 pm by CASEY JARMAN  | Comments 0
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · Murmurs · Bush to Libby jury: I'll respect you in the morning.
July 4th, 2007 WW Editorial Staff | Murmurs
 

Bush to Libby jury: I'll respect you in the morning.

7 Comments
     
Tags:
DINGFELDER

Labor Ready, the temp agency that started supplying workers to Del Monte Fresh Produce after the June 12 immigration raid at the St. Johns plant, has been replaced. The new agency is Remedy Intelligent Staffing, which has an office on Hayden Island. Del Monte didn't respond by press time to questions about the change to Remedy, which is now offering hourly wages slightly above Oregon's $7.80-an-hour minimum wage. But sources say the agency is charging workers $5 for mandatory Kevlar gloves to wear while chopping produce in the near-freezing warehouse. Before the raid, American Staffing Resources had offered Del Monte workers starting salaries of $7.80 an hour and charged them 75 cents for protective gloves. The firm that Labor Ready had replaced—American Staffing Resources—is accused by the feds of assisting immigrant workers in securing phony Social Security numbers.

One small visible outward change in The Oregonian and one bigger one coming inside the newsroom. The small change on the paper's front page is the daily celebration above the fold of its 2007 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news. The more substantive news comes Friday. That's when all reporters learn which beats they'll get in a reshuffle that had them list their top three choices, including spots on something called the "How We Live" team.

Here's more proof that computers run our lives, and not for the better: This fall, Portland Public Schools will have a one-day window to juggle students who want to change schools under the federal No Child Left Behind law because of, you guessed it, computer glitches. The law requires school districts to give students in so-called failing schools new choices. But widespread problems surfaced this year with the state computerized tests given to students in elementary, middle and high schools. The result: state ed officials won't be able to tell districts what schools are under sanction until right before Labor Day Weekend, right before school begins Sept. 5. In anticipation of the shortened deadline, the Portland district plans to inform families who may be affected by the news in early August of the changes in order to prepare them to transfer their children if they wish.

State Sen. Avel Gordly's announcement that she won't seek re-election next year has set off a chain-reaction fire alarm in the independent's Northeast Portland district. Although nothing is official yet, Democratic Rep. Jackie Dingfelder is expected to run for Gordly's Senate seat. And that would open a House seat for several wannabes. Included in that mix of possibles are the Bus Project's Jefferson Smith; Chris Garrett, a lawyer at Perkins Coie and former aide to Senate President Peter Courtney; Portland Community College English instructor Michael Dembrow; and Cyreena Boston, who's worked as the constituency director for the Democratic Party of Oregon.

One of the landmark laws produced by the 2007 Legislature is running into market realities. Senate Bill 838 requires Oregon utilities to get 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Currently, wind power is the best option. But windmills are scarce, as indicated by a PGE filing last month. "The market for wind turbines is very tight, with some manufacturing capacity sold out two years in advance," a PGE official wrote the Public Utility Commission in requesting the right for PGE to earn interest on the deposits they must put down for the devices. Normally, utilities only get compensated for assets actually in use, which leaves the PUC staff grappling with an unusual question. Says PUC spokesman Bob Valdez: "Should the utility be allowed to earn a return on assets that do not yet exist?"

The battle escalates over efforts by Joe DiNicola, president of Oregon's second-largest union, to get $110,000 in compensation for two-plus years of OT work (see "Rogue of the Week," WW, June 27, 2007). DiNicola had planned to speak at a rally last Friday, June 29, of Service Employees International Union Local 503. That prompted some members to promise they would publicly denounce his actions at the rally at Oregon State University. But local member Deborra Low says no one showed up to protest after Maggie Neel, the local's district director for Linn and Benton counties, "threatened and intimidated" members with unspecified disciplinary action. Neel was unavailable for comment.

In the final hour of its final day June 28, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 111, which gives counties money and a blueprint to deal with cases in which police use deadly force. But in a study in political compromise, the bill's chief backer, Rep. Chip Shields (D-Southeast Portland), had to drop a key provision that would have made public the grand jury testimony in killings by police. To gain prosecutors' support, Shields had already watered down the bill to make such testimony public only when district attorneys agreed. But to gain the support of police necessary to pass the bill, Shields says he was forced to drop the provision altogether and keep grand jury testimony secret.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
07.18.2007 at 10:06 Reply
For the record I want to elaborate, with a few more details, on the paragraph published in yesterday's edition of the Willamette Week as a follow-up to the "Rogue of the Week" article written about Joe DiNicola and published on June 27th, 2007:

While it is true that Joe DiNicola was scheduled to speak at the OSU contract bargaining rally back on June 29th, it was not known that he would not be attending until the day of the rally. My guess is, when it became known that members might protest Mr. DiNicola's presence on the OSU campus, a last minute decision was made for Mr. DiNicola to back out and attend another rally happening in Salem on the same day. It seems to have been a last minute decision because his attendance was still expected and still listed on printed copies of the agenda the day before the rally. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, nor does it make any sense, that members on the OSU campus decided not to show up to the planned rally due to any implied threat or words of intimidation made by Local 083's President, Maggie Neel at an SEIU District meeting. In fact, it's highly unlikely that rank-and-file members (who did not attend the District meeting) would even have known about Ms. Neel's comments.

Basically, Maggie's harsh statements were in response to a question posed by one member at the District meeting. This person claimed to have heard rumors of a protest action against Mr. DiNicola, and the member was concerned that Mr. DiNicola's presence at the rally might impede the overall goal of the rally itself - to show solidarity for our bargaining team and to help us win a fair contract. For this reason, the member asked if it wouldn't be more prudent if Joe DiNicola did not to attend the rally.

On hearing this question, Maggie was visibly angry about the mention of a possible protest against Mr. DiNicola. She said she had personally invited Joe to speak at the rally and a demonstration by workers against Mr. DiNicola would be extremely disrespectful to our sitting President, and she fully intended to make sure this did not happen on "her campus" or on "her watch". Maggie warned us that we needed to report to her anyone we had overheard planning a protest against Joe because she had to ensure Joe would not feel unwelcomed on the OSU campus and she also had to make sure that any plans for a protest could be thwarted. Maggie also sternly warned us that this was not the time or the place for a demonstration against our President. Some of us wondered what Maggie planned to do if workers protested Joe's presence at the rally. I personally had no intentions to take names or report workers even if I had information about a planned protest, and I did not know of any such plan.

I can only speculate that this exchange of words at the District meeting was then quickly communicated to Mr. DiNicola, and Joe must have decided it wasn't in his best interests to attend the OSU rally. Actually, I would guess that anyone who had planned a protest against Joe was probably delighted he didn't show up. In fact, Joe's absence was a win-win situation for all of us. We had a successful rally and Joe was able to avoid one more day of not having to face angry workers irate about his push for a $100K windfall paid out of their hard-earned Union dues.

 

07.21.2007 at 07:12 Reply
From Coast to Coast

Nick's story on Overtime Joe has shown up on a webpage for a Virginia public employees union -- apparently a "Right to Work for Less" state where collective bargaining is not even a right. The union is called "The Virginia Public Service Workers Union, UE Local 160", and their slogan apparently is "The Members Run This Union" They titled their reprint: "One reason UE is different than SEIU". You can see it at [url]http://www.vaue160.org/union/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=21[/url]

 

07.21.2007 at 07:24 Reply
Is it not possible to conclude that Joe decided not to attend in the best interests of the members, rather than himself?

You know, when I've seen recall efforts in past years, there has been some ongoing problem that the recall addresses. This is the first one I can remember based on a single issue, especially when there is no allegation of wrongdoing other than filing a claim.

No one alleges that the claim is false, that there has been any type of criminal activity, etc.

It is also unfortunate to see that the person collecting the petitions for recall happens to be the same person that was trounced by Joe DiNicola in the last election for President. What was it, like 90% to 10% for Joe?

Why is his political opponent the go-to person for recall? Not to hard to connect those dots.

 

07.23.2007 at 09:46 Reply
Again, you sound as if you haven't got the facts that are available. And that you're not interested in them. And that you have no problem slandering an excellent and dedicated union leader, Rosalie Pedroza without the courage to use your name or the sense to apologize for it. Shameful.

 

08.02.2007 at 01:05 Reply
and you, Craig Chadwick, have tried to cause SEIU 503 lose the ODOT workforce, replacing it with a union of your own creation. And now you don't skip a single breath in your efforts to destablize our union by fanning the flames in the attack on our President. Whatever the outcome of Joes legal action, you are finished in any meaningful influence you might have had in SEIU. The embarrasing thing is, you are the only one who doesn't realize it. That's ok, just pay your dues and prattle on. There's a few of you in every worksite. We've learned just letting you say your piece without interruption is the most expedient route to getting on about our business.

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close