By Joe Uehlein, Labor Notes

"There are no jobs on a dead planet." That's how one union leader
answered those who say that unions should be concerned only about jobs,
and leave the planet to someone else to take care of.

Many unions and both labor federations hailed Barack Obama's bold
talk about solving America's jobs crisis by putting millions of people
to work in "green jobs" that would solve the climate crisis by
transforming America to a low-carbon economy. Obama's stimulus bill
emphasized renewable energy and energy conservation; many unions and
state labor departments have added "green" programs to their job
training.

But many workers feared that the transition to a low-carbon economy
would destroy existing jobs, and they wondered if anything would be done
to protect the workers who held them. Some union leaders, meanwhile,
worried that green jobs might be lousy jobs that would only accelerate
the deterioration of wages and conditions.

If America is to find the political support for a green transition,
these concerns must be answered.BAD GREEN JOBS?

Unions are right to fear that green jobs may be terrible jobs.
Consider the case of General Electric. In 2005 GE launched its "EcoMagination" campaign, a marketing effort to sell products that help
solve environmental problems and create green jobs. CEO Jeffery Immelt
claims it's created tens of thousands of jobs.

But what kind of jobs? Sixty-two African American employees at a GE
subsidiary recently filed a racial discrimination suit over their
working conditions. Their job is cleaning out "baghouses" where, under
an EPA Clean Air Act mandate, cloth or synthetic filters or "bags"
capture toxic particulates such as lime, coal black, lead, arsenic, and
mercury.

Workers were forced to work up to 12 hours a day, often with only one
half-hour break for lunch, and denied bathroom and rest breaks. Workers
say they were refused requests for water or a chance to leave the
100-degree bag house and were denied adequate protection from the
dangerous chemicals. Is GE offering us 250,000 jobs like that?

Green jobs programs at all levels should include requirements for
labor rights and standards, with monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
Corporations that are repeat violators should be banned from green job
funding.

But the most important way to protect workers is for them to protect
themselves through organization. A robust version of labor rights,
including employer neutrality when workers try to unionize, should be
incorporated into all government contracts for green jobs. Workers
alleging violations should have access to an independent tribunal that
can order correction or, if violations are frequent, termination of the
contract.

There are Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements for the green jobs
in the stimulus bill, but so far only very limited ones in the major
climate bills that are pending. Such provisions can nonetheless be
introduced through Project Labor Agreements (PLAs).

The Port of Oakland, California, which recently went through a major
green reorganization, introduced a PLA which requires 50 percent local
hiring, prevailing wages and benefits, and safety standards; recognizes
unions as the sole collective bargaining representatives; and
establishes a Social Justice Committee and Labor/Management Committee to
administer the contract terms.

In Massachusetts, the Green Justice Coalition, which includes the
Laborers, Painters, and Carpenters, is negotiating agreements with
utility companies for weatherization pilot projects in several cities.

The process was set in motion in 2008 after the legislature mandated
dramatic reductions in the state's greenhouse gas emissions. The law
established an advisory council to work out the details, and the Green
Justice Coalition successfully pressured the council to try out a new
model for home energy efficiency.

The model hires trusted community-based organizations to canvass
their own neighborhoods and sign up dozens or hundreds of residents for
home energy retrofits. With large numbers of jobs bundled together,
responsible contractors can afford to bid, hire local residents, provide
quality training, pay living wages with benefits, and provide safe
worksites. The coalition, utility companies, unions, and contractors are
negotiating agreements that will include wages above the prevailing
local weatherization wage of $11 to $17 an hour.

In Portland, Oregon, the city council has endorsed a Community
Workforce Agreement for a clean energy pilot program. It requires
contractors to recruit from disadvantaged local communities.LOST JOBS

Often forgotten in the climate debate is the devastating effect on
jobs that failure to halt global warming will bring. The British
government's definitive Stern Review warns of economic disruption on the
scale of the Great Depression and the great wars that devastated the
world in the 20th century. Many of those effects are already under way,
including floods and droughts, ocean acidification, forced migrations,
forest fires, crop pests, and rapid spread of epidemics.

But is it fair to put the cost of preventing such devastation on
those workers who happen to find themselves in the fossil-fuel economy?

Many studies indicate that climate protection legislation will create
many more new jobs than the old ones it destroys. That is little
comfort for those who stand to lose the jobs they have now. As Carl Wood
of the Utility Workers put it, "Workers are used to being ground up and
spat out by any change in society. In the U.S. there is no safety net
for the victims."A JUST TRANSITION

Most of the climate protection bills currently before Congress
include worker transition programs modeled on the Trade Adjustment Act
program that purports to protect workers from the effects of
globalization.

They provide short-term work, often at poverty-level wages, training
for jobs that in many cases simply do not exist, and incentives for
workers to "solve" high local unemployment by migrating elsewhere.

An effective program would address both individual workers and
impacted communities and regions:

• Displaced workers should receive real transition assistance,
including GI Bill-style education benefits that allow them to establish
new careers.

• Communities hard hit by climate protection measures should get
grants for reconstruction for 25 years.

• The federal government should plan "Green TVAs" to transition
entire regions from fossil to green energy.

• The government should guarantee that no worker or retiree will lose
pension or health care benefits as a result of the climate protection
bill, period.

A Senate bill introduced by Bob Casey and co-sponsored by Sherrod
Brown includes some of these approaches. And it goes beyond the House
and Senate climate bills by helping adversely affected communities
develop strategic plans to rebuild their economies.IT'S THE SCIENCE

While many unions and both labor federations have embraced green
jobs, they have been far more reluctant to support the actual reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions that climate science says are necessary to
prevent catastrophe. Yet specific, legally binding targets are essential
not only to protect the planet but also to ensure that green jobs are
actually created.

A recent statement by the Service Employees and the Laborers
explains: "A clear science-based target will drive a massive increase in
the generation of green jobs, public mass transit, renewable energy,
green manufacturing, energy-efficient construction and building
retrofits."Without binding targets, there will be few green jobs and a lot of hot
air.

Joe Uehlein is founder and director of the Labor Network for
Sustainability. He was formerly secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO's
Industrial Union Department and director of the AFL-CIO Center for
Strategic Campaigns.

(Photo of coal miner from the Library of Virginia.)