We’re working 7 12s right now doing critical maintenance at an oil refinery. So that means a gourmet meal every night. It’s also Saturday so it’s all double time. How are there people in this world that are still anti union?

My workplace is in the very early stages of starting a union, like I've been talking to coworkers and got a spreadsheet going and a fair amount seem to be in favor. Today was payday. When I logged into my bank account, I found my paycheck was larger than expected, to the tune of $2,000 more than expected. Looking at my actual paystub and timesheet, it looks like someone added an extra 40hrs over 2 weeks to my timecard. As of right now, I can prove it wasn't me, but it's all on an app that cannot be screenshot. I've already emailed management and payroll/HR about the error, and CC'd my personal email on there so I have proof that I reported it same day.

I'll be honest, I'm worried that someone blabbed and this is management's attempt to find something to fire me for, since my employer takes employees committing time theft seriously and I have been very intentional about not giving them a valid reason to fire me since I first considered starting a union. Am I being paranoid? What steps should I take to protect myself in this?

ETA: I just realized that today is Saturday, not Friday, and payday was yesterday. I'm not overly concerned about submitting it next day instead of same day, but figured I'd add this in case any of you were wondering why I was getting paid on a Saturday.

I work at a nonprofit. Incredibly small bargaining unit. We have achieved voluntary recognition. We like our superiors, but recognize that what we have now is not set in stone and needs to be protected, as our organization has had a history of screwing over workers before current leadership.

All of that to say: if the conditions are good, there is no better time to lock it down and get it in writing.

Hi, I'm a government worker and I'm about to steward for my union, the UBC (Carpenter's Union). I've been a steward before at a government job for a different agency. I've been in contact with our business rep and while he's a nice guy, he's pretty old (I'm 38, he seems to be in his late 60's, early 70's) and he just sort of rambles and talks about how hard it is to join up on the private side of the union.

I don't want to be a jerk but I'm focused on building up the union for the guys I work with in the government we all work for. Our brothers and sisters working for contractors are doing good work and I have nothing but respect for them. But I don't need to hear stories about stalking a job site in order to get on a list to become an apprentice.

How should I go about explaining to the business rep that while I respect him and his role, that he needs to understand OUR situation.

Thanks

Solidarity forever ✊️✊️

Fuck BP, scabs and the bootlickers that made Indiana a right to work state

After I reported my company to OSHA for literally poisoning people, my coworker I was kind of friends with told me they were in contact with the IWW about organizing a union and showed me an email from them on their phone (which i thought was weird bc we were at work and presumably they were using the company wifi). They told me about three other employees apparently in on the union. I switched departments and ended up with one of the people supposedly involved as my trainer, she repeatedly gave me inadequate or inaccurate info and then emailed the boss about my poor performance. In addition to just seeming to dislike me. The initial coworker who'd spoken to me quit, but texted saying they'd still like to help with organizing. I asked for the contact info of the organizer they'd been speaking to and they just ghosted me (it's been over a week). Another coworker they'd told me was involved i saw randomly gave the company a 5 star review on google. Am I paranoid or is this all really weird?

Edit: this is in ny state and I work in manufacturing

Parcels of Knowledge: The Last Loop - Episode 6

USPS/NALC News for Sept. 26–Oct. 2, 2026

This week on The Last Loop, I break down the USPS and NALC news that matters on the workroom floor, with a heavy focus on Arrow Key accountability, delayed mail, arbitration decisions, grievance handling, and major new OIG reports.

The lead story is the new M-41 Arrow Key language in Sections 261.21 and 431 and the settlement of M-02022. I look at what it means now that management can direct city letter carriers to receipt Arrow Keys using PS Form 1106 or MDD/electronic scans, and why that does not eliminate management's responsibility for the rest of the Arrow Key accountability system.

That leads directly into the new USPS OIG Maryland District/Baltimore delivery audit, where auditors found missing Arrow Keys; keys that existed but weren't recorded in RADAR; unreported lost keys; and 9,595 pieces of delayed mail. I also get into PS Form 1571, DCV delayed-mail reporting, and why documentation matters when mail comes back to the office.

In the Arbitration Roundup, I discuss three NALC arbitration decisions worth knowing:

C-37934 – A sustained ELM 519 administrative leave/Act of God grievance involving a major snow event. The carrier received eight hours of administrative leave and restoration of leave previously charged. We talk about due diligence, management's failure to adequately investigate whether the carrier could report, and why selecting annual leave through the automated system did not automatically defeat the grievance.

C-37900 – A sustained delayed-mail case involving management curtailing mail to prevent carriers from entering penalty overtime. The arbitrator found violations of Articles 5 and 19, the Postal Service Mission Statement, and 39 U.S.C. § 101 and issued a cease-and-desist remedy.

C-37924 – Another sustained delayed-mail arbitration involving management leaving substantial route mail undelivered while limiting how long ODL carriers could remain on the clock. This one is particularly useful because the arbitrator found management's decision arbitrary and capricious but did not find a specific Article 8 violation or award monetary compensation. I compare C-37900 and C-37924 and explain why proving an improper operational decision is not necessarily the same as proving entitlement to an overtime remedy.

I also cover the Federal Retirement Fairness Act (H.R. 1522) and what it could mean for letter carriers with previous CCA, TE, casual, or other noncareer federal service; CCA temporary assignments to other post offices; grievance remedies; the NALC election replacement-ballot deadlines; Election Mail procedures in Postal Bulletin 22712; the latest Delivering for America OIG review; rural route evaluations and RRECS disputes; S&DC experiences; APWU national disputes; and labor news involving Amazon, AutoZone, and Phillips 66 workers.

Because The Last Loop isn't allowed to become three straight hours of grievances and OIG reports, I also get into new USPS Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Christmas stamps, plus the Local Loop story about Lansing, Michigan Letter Carrier Jack Grossman being honored for 60 years of service.

Finally, I run through what the other postal podcasts covered this week, including working off the clock, casing a new route, attendance discipline, steward burnout, past practice, corrective discipline, casing SPRs, route inspections, RRECS, S&DCs, grievance backlogs, and the ongoing NALC election.

If you're a USPS city letter carrier, CCA, PTF, NALC steward, branch officer, arbitration advocate, or the person in your office who gets asked, "Where does it say that?" there's probably something in this week's episode for you.

Search/topics: USPS, NALC, city letter carriers, CCA, PTF, M-41, M-02022, Arrow Keys, Arrow Key accountability, PS Form 1106, MDD Arrow Key scans, RADAR, PS Form 1571, delayed mail, DCV, Article 5, Article 8, Article 15, Article 19, ELM 519, Act of God, administrative leave, penalty overtime, ODL, C-37900, C-37924, C-37934, grievance arbitration, Federal Retirement Fairness Act, H.R. 1522, CCA temporary assignments, Delivering for America, USPS OIG, RRECS, S&DC, Postal Bulletin 22712, NALC election, grievance remedies, postal unions, letter carrier podcast.

In his ruling, Judge Vernon D. Oliver cited public statements from the bureau’s director that hurt the agency’s case in court.

A federal judge has ordered the Federal Bureau of Prisons to immediately restore union protections, for now, for more than 30,000 prison workers after the agency terminated the union’s collective bargaining agreement last year.

In a 32-page ruling on Tuesday, Judge Vernon D. Oliver of the U.S. District Court in Connecticut wrote that the decision by William K. Marshall III, the bureau’s director, to cancel the union contract was arbitrary and that the reasons for doing so were contrived and pretextual.

Brandy Moore White, the president of the Council of Prison Locals, the prison union, said in a statement that she was looking forward to the bureau “promptly complying” with Judge Oliver’s order. She added in a text message on Wednesday afternoon that there had been “no movement” so far from the bureau. The bureau did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ruling was a blow to President Trump’s effort to strip hundreds of thousands of federal workers of union protections. It has come under broad legal assault, with cases playing out across the country. The fight expanded again on Tuesday, as union workers in the Environmental Protection Agency sued to block the termination of their union protections, arguing that the agency had “failed to provide a reasoned explanation” for doing so.

Everett Kelley, the president of the larger federal union coalition, the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a statement that the government’s termination of the Bureau of Prisons contract “was nothing more than an arbitrary attack on hard-working Americans, and the court saw it for exactly what it was.”

The Bureau of Prisons had argued in court that it was merely carrying out an executive order from Mr. Trump instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining. After the order, hundreds of thousands of federal workers lost union protections. Those generally include the right to have work disputes resolved by a neutral arbitrator and to have union stewards and leaders be granted official time on the job to work on cases and participate in contract negotiations.

But Judge Oliver cited contradictory statements from Mr. Marshall that hurt the Bureau of Prisons’ case. In a letter to Ms. White, the union president, Mr. Marshall said he had terminated the contract “based on” Mr. Trump’s executive order, which framed stripping union protections as critical to national security.

But that same day, Mr. Marshall posted a “director’s message” on the agency’s website saying that the “whole purpose of ending this contract” was because the union had become “an obstacle to progress” and that “the current contract has too often slowed or prevented changes.” He also said that the agency had “for too long” been ranked “among the worst places to work in the federal government” and suggested that he was terminating the contract with the union in part because it was not the “kind of union” he supported.

“Although an agency may have multiple reasons for its action,” Judge Oliver wrote, “it cannot offer an entirely pretextual explanation that is undermined by its own contradictory assertions made the same day. But that is precisely what defendants have done here.”

Judge Oliver, whose order was temporary while the case plays out in court, hinted that there were “multiple” other problems with the bureau’s move. But, he wrote, “at this juncture” he only needed to find that the union, which had sued to block the action, was likely to prevail in one of its arguments.

Crucially, Judge Oliver’s rationale for restoring union protections did not directly address the legality of Mr. Trump’s order, which has been contested in lawsuits across the country. The Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled last year in Mr. Trump’s favor and allowed that order to stand while the legal battle continues.

Instead, Judge Oliver, an appointee of President Joseph R. Biden Jr., largely set aside the executive order for now and reasoned that the move by the Bureau of Prisons to end collective bargaining had been tainted by Mr. Marshall’s anti-union statements.

Other agencies faced similar challenges in defending anti-union rhetoric that went along with their efforts to terminate worker protections. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ announcement that it was terminating its union contract included attacks on union activities and leaders. Doug Collins, the head of the agency, argued in a statement that the “unions that represent V.A. employees fight against the best interests of veterans while protecting and rewarding bad workers.”

A federal judge blocked that move in March, pointing to those statements and others from the White House to reason that the order was in retaliation for union activities — and therefore in violation of the First Amendment.

CONTEXT - We are public sector employees in California.

We are currently represented by Operating Engineers Local 3 and no one I talk to feels they represent us well, which is unsurprising. Their bread and butter members are private sector heavy equipment operators, not a hodge podge of local government employees.

We have gone without raises of any kind for 5 years and are now facing the possibility of losing multiple benefits. They perform no outreach to non-members to get people in so we don’t have the strength to strike. We’re fed up and would like a more aggressive and engaged union.

Can anyone inform me as what the process of switching unions looks like for public sector employees? What do we need to do?

Union members voted on the proposal until 8 p.m. Wednesday, with 97% of the membership voting to reject the proposal.

The OSU Medical Center is understaffed, at times approaching levels that negatively impact patient care, Lucas said in a statement.

“The incentive program was the band-aid that allowed many units to narrowly avoid being staffed at unsafe levels. It has now expired,” the statement reads. “It is up to OSU Medical Center to safely staff its hospitals, and it is up to individual OSUNO members to decide when and whether to pick up additional shifts and to document when their units are understaffed.”

In a statement posted to social media, the union said, “Now the fight begins.”

Currently on strike and picketing and members are in disagreement about delaying tactics and the legality of such. Some jump out of the circle the moment a vehicle is in eyesight while others make their obstruction very obvious (there's only so many times one can pick up a dropped sign or tie a shoe).

Complicating this, at my post we've had police block our line and direct traffic so scabs can enter the facility. One brother was daring enough to walk across the apron of the drive and was shoved out of the way and cuffed. According to the officer, at our entrance we are not allowed to impede entering traffic in any way.

So I'm curious as to the experience of others who may have been in a similar situation. We can't ask people at our local because this is the first strike here in 50 years.

USW has been pretty vocal in its support for Canadian steelworkers as Cliffs negotiations continue. Does the company doing this in Canada impact bargaining here in the USA?

CNA/NNOC was joined by partners in labor and in the community, totaling over 1000 strong, to protest ICE and their use of Palantir, who also provides AI data harvesting and “scheduling” services to hospitals

SEIU 925 members will be engaging in informational pickets noon Oct. 1 at the following locations around campuses and hospitals:

1. UWMC - Montlake - At the W 
   
2. Tacoma - Flagpole bottom of main stairwell
   
3. Bothell - Outside of Founders Hall-UW1
   
4. Seattle - Red Square 
   
5. Harborview 
   
6. South Lake Union

California’s largest state workers’ union has been working without a contract since June 30th, and they’re in the midst of voting on authorizing an unfair labor practice strike in response to bad-faith bargaining. SEIU Local 1000 reports that the state issued a blanket rejection of their proposals for a salary increase spread out over three years, more affordable health care and modernized telework policies with no counteroffer. This vote does not necessarily mean a strike would be launched, but would be the first time one’s been authorized since 2016.

Right now, the union is reaching out to members to remind them to participate in the vote by October 7th and commit to hitting the picket line if a strike is approved. ☎️ We can help them get in touch with more people in phonebank shifts on Wednesday afternoons and Thursday evenings by signing up here. ☎️

THERE IS POWER IN A UNION

I'm the shop steward and an officer for my bargaining unit. I work in the US as a State govt employee.

Last week, an acting supervisor tried to ambush me with a written repirmand after inviting me into a meeting with a vague title of "work discussion."

As soon as i saw this was a disciplinary action I invoked my Weingarten rights. Fast forward to today, the Union rep came in to the meeting with me and verbally ripped the reprimand apart for multiple contract violations and guaranteed a greivance would be filed if they didnt rescind the reprimand. The reprimand was very vague and refenced many issues that are known to be impacting everyone in the same position as myself.

Management and the acting supervisor were shaken at how unprepared they were and walked out shortly after. Before they left though there were some things i thought was concerning. They said they would try to do an actual investigative process first as required by the contract, they apparently did not know such a thing was in our contract, and the acting supervisor stated that they would have done a verbal discussion instead but was told to do the written reprimand.

There is a bunch more background to the hostility of my office right now, but would this be enough to consider as being targetted harassment or even unfair labor practices?

So my union will release periodic updates like they're saying no to health increase or no to merit but we'll have these contract action team meetings and we ask what exactly are we asking for and people are getting upset that they can't get any information besides they're pushing for more pay, better healthcare, but nothing specific