Micro Units – A Toe Hold for Organized Labor

Sandulli Grace Staff November 23, 2015

The NLRB ruled this week that a group of 162 skilled machine maintenance workers assigned to Volkswagen’s Tennessee Facility should be allowed to vote on whether they want to be represented by the United Auto Workers. This election comes on the heels of the UAW’s loss in the representation vote for all hourly employees in that same facility and VW’s diesel emissions scandal.

Within this shift of strategy, a valuable lesson of intelligent persistence can be found. Rather than become mired, the UAW keeps deliberately pushing to expand organized labor in the South. In a week that marked the hundred year anniversary of the death of Joe Hill, their efforts should be celebrated.

Find the UAW’s press release here.

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

BMC Judge Reinstates Tom Finneran’s Pension Benefits

Sandulli Grace Staff November 6, 2015

In a fairly surprising turn of events, on October 9, 2015, the Honorable Serge Georges of the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court ordered the State Retirement Board to pay former Speaker of the House Tom Finneran what the media has reported to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension benefits retroactive to January of 2007 and activate his benefits prospectively.

Previously, the State Retirement Board had ceased to pay Mr. Finneran his M.G.L. c. 32 superannuation benefits. According to the decision, this occurred after Mr. Finneran pled guilty to willfully making misleading and false statements under oath while testifying in his capacity as Speaker in Federal Court regarding a voting rights action that challenged election redistricting at the start of the century.

The State Retirement Board had ruled that this conduct violated M.G.L. c. 32 § 15(4) which states:

(4) Forfeiture of pension upon misconduct. In no event shall any member after final conviction of a criminal offense involving violation of the laws applicable to his office or position, be entitled to receive a retirement allowance under the provisions of section one to twenty-eight, inclusive, nor shall any beneficiary be entitled to receive any benefits under such provisions on account of such member. The said member or his beneficiary shall receive, unless otherwise prohibited by law, a return of his accumulated total deductions; provided, however, that the rate of regular interest for the purpose of calculating accumulated total deductions shall be zero.

In applying this statute and applicable case law to Mr. Finneran’s guilty plea, Judge Georges stated in summary that:

Turning to the issue whether the Board’s decision that Finneran must forfeit his pension is legally tenable, I conclude that it is not. Although the record indicates that Finneran’s conviction referenced his public employment, inasmuch as the position Finneran held at the time of his perjured testimony and at all times relevant thereto, there is no substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that Finneran’s conviction bore a direct factual link to his position as a House member and/or Speaker. Additionally, there is also no substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that Finneran’s conviction violated a core function of his position as a House member and/or Speaker because there is no evidence in the record of any code, rule or law applicable to Finneran’s public position that connects his conviction to his office. Accordingly, the Boards decision must be reversed.

The State Retirement Board has appealed the decision. Given the profile of the case and the malleable language of the statute, it is likely that higher courts will be keenly interested. For those interested in a broader explanation, please find the BMC decision below or feel free to send me an e-mail.

Read the decision here.

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

U.S. Department Of Labor About To Issue New Regulations Expanding Overtime Coverage To Over 5 Million Workers

Alan Shapiro November 2, 2015

Sometimes, I start thinking there isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans, since a lot of them remind me of the kids in high school who were running for student council president. But then, when I look at some federal regulations, I am reminded that who is in the White House can make a real difference for millions of people. The recent overtime rules issued by the U.S. Department of Labor show that there can be a clear difference between the political parties.

In the private sector, workers must be paid time and a half for all hours worked beyond 40 in a week. Passed in the 1930’s, this law was designed to encourage employers to hire more workers, since millions were thrown into unemployment by the Great Depression[1]. The statute exempted from the overtime laws “executive, administrative and professional” employees, but left government regulators to enact rules distinguishing employees exempt from overtime from non-exempt ones.

In 2004, the Bush Administration passed rules which “updated” these regulations in a way that left millions of workers without overtime protection. A salaried employee who spent 99% of her time performing manual labor could still be exempt from overtime as long as she made over $455/week. See In Re: Family Dollar FLSA Litigation.

Under the new regulations in the process of becoming law, not only does an “executive” really have to work as one, but s/he must make at least $50,440/year. Regardless of what title or job duties the employer gives the employee, unless s/he makes at least $50,440/year, s/he must receive overtime pay after working 40 hours in a week.

The new regulations, however, are not a panacea, since many companies have reacted by either reducing wages or reducing the hours of employees about to become eligible for overtime for the first time. Since virtually all of these employees are not covered by union contracts, they are powerless to do anything about it. Nevertheless, some formerly exempt employees will receive a raise, and, in some instances, more employees will be hired to fill in for the unlimited hours employers were formerly able to require of their supposed “managers” without any increased cost. As one economist said, “Trust me on this: you’d be very hard pressed to come up with [another] rule change or executive order to lift the pay of this many middle-wage workers.”

[1] In 1933, the U.S. unemployment rate was 25%.

Great Moments In Labor History, In Our Opinion...

The Best Labor Union Movies Of All Time

John Becker October 23, 2015

I’m a big fan of “Best of” lists, so it was only a matter of time until I compiled a list of the best movies related to unions and the workplace. I scoured the Internet for lists of films related to unions or workers and made sure to include my personal favorites. Here, in chronological order, are the results:

How Green Was My Valley (US, 1941)

John Ford’s epic story of a family of Welsh coal miners (with Walter Pidgeon and Maureen O’Hara playing the parents) contains at its heart a debate about unionizing. While Ford keeps the focus on the family dynamics and the issue of worker safety, he weaves throughout the film the various pro- and anti-union arguments, leaving the final word for the local minister: “First, have your union. You need it. Alone you are weak. Together you are strong.”

Salt of the Earth (US, 1954)

Directed by Herbert Biberman, Salt of the Earth is famous in film history because nearly everyone involved in making the movie was blacklisted by Hollywood as part of the Red Scare of the 1950s, also known as the McCarthy Era for Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. The film tells the story of a 1951 strike in New Mexico against a zinc mining company. The story is unusual for the time in that most of the workers are Mexican immigrants; in addition, a major aspect of the story is the struggle between the male workers and their wives. The striking male workers want their wives to stay at home, cook and take care of the children. The women want to help the men win the strike. Guess who wins that argument? When the mine owner obtains an injunction against the striking workers, the women step up and maintain the picket lines.

On the Waterfront (US, 1954)

For many people of a certain age, Elia Kazan’s movie of conflict on the docks between a brutal union leader (Johnny Friendly, played by Lee J. Cobb) and a disillusioned dockworker (Marlon Brando) was their first introduction to the idea of a union and it was not a positive image. Kazan, who had just testified before the Un-American Activities Committee, where he named names of possible Communists, was clearly trying to make a point about the heroism of standing up for what you believe against overwhelming odds. But union workers know that the power of a Johnny Friendly pales in comparison to the power of the people that run the companies that ultimately pay the workers. Perhaps it would have helped to know that Johnny Friendly was based on an actual ILA leader who severely disciplined by the American Federation of Labor for his violent tactics.

The Pajama Game (US, 1957)

At first glance, The Pajama Game is just another Hollywood musical based, in this case, on the play of the same name and featuring the song “Steam Heat.” But upon closer examination, The Pajama Game turns out to be a story about a labor-management struggle. Doris Day plays the union steward in a pajama-making factory who has been pushing for a raise. John Raitt is a superintendent. These representatives of labor and management begin a love affair, but their work roles drive them apart, and after Day damages some machinery during a slowdown, Superintendent Raitt fires her. But then (through the magic of movies), Raitt discovers nefarious doings in management and manages to bring Doris back (to work and to him), get everyone the raise and they all live happily after. OK, it’s not Schindler’s List, but there is a message beneath the singing and dancing. Co-directed by George Abbott (also a co-writer) and Stanley Donen.

I’m All Right, Jack (UK, 1959)

John Boulting directed this satirical British film about the plot of a sinister company owner to drive the price of his product up by inciting the workers to strike, and then having the business transferred to a rival company, which he also secretly owns. The whole thing is played for broad laughs, most of them generated by Peter Sellers as the union boss with Bolshevik sympathies and a Hitler mustache. A cynical look at union leaders and management both, in the end it is clear who has the real power.

The Molly Maguires (US, 1970)

Martin Ritt directed this tale of coal miners in Northeastern Pennsylvania in the 1870s, which is based on a true story. The Molly Maguires, led by Jack Kehoe (Sean Connery), is a sort of proto-union that is at war with the mine owners in pursuit of better pay and working conditions. The differences between the Molly Maguires and a true union are significant: Connery’s group is a secret organization, and they are comfortable with using violence to achieve their ends. A Pinkerton Detective (Richard Harris) infiltrates the group and attempts to uncover its secrets, with tragic results. Ritt would revisit the union theme in 1979 with Norma Rae.

Harlan County, USA (US, 1976)

Director Barbara Kopple won an Oscar for Best Documentary for her on-the-spot reporting of a 1972 Kentucky miners’ strike in Harlan County, USA. Confrontations between striking workers and hired strikebreakers quickly became violent, and even Kopple and her cameraman were beaten. The film reminds audiences that, even in the 1970s, management tactics such as these were commonplace and the dream of a workplace where management and labor lived in perfect harmony was still far off.

F.I.S.T. (US, 1978) / Hoffa (US, 1992)

Hoffa is a well-made but ambivalent biopic of the Teamsters leader, with a pitch-perfect performance by Jack Nicholson, directed by co-star Danny DeVito. We get the good, the bad and the ugly of the controversial union leader, both his tireless dedication to the workers he represented as well as some of the poor choices he made while in power. Made 14 years earlier, F.I.S.T., directed by Norman Jewison and starring Sylvester Stallone, takes the basic outlines of Hoffa’s biography and fictionalizes them. The result is not great moviemaking and Stallone proves that he should keep to the boxing ring. Neither movie has an answer to the question, Where is Jimmy Hoffa’s body?

Blue Collar (US, 1978)

Paul Schrader, the man who wrote Taxi Driver, wrote and directed this crime drama, which places itself squarely in the “unions are corrupt” camp. Richard Pryor, Yaphet Kotto and Harvey Keitel are Detroit auto workers who are so angry at mistreatment by management and their union that they decide to rob the union. In the safe, they find evidence of corruption and links to organized crime. As in On the Waterfront, the theme is little guys vs. big organizations, but the assumption that all unions are corrupt was by that point a stereotype, not an accurate assessment based on the facts. At the same time, the movie fails to explore the vast power differential between the two purported “enemies” of the little guys – as always, management holds most of the cards.

Norma Rae (US, 1979)

If On the Waterfront established the prototype of unions for one generation, Norma Rae reversed the impression for the next. Directed by Martin Ritt and starring Oscar-winner Sally Field and Ron Liebman, the film focuses on a union organizing campaign in a southern textile mill. Along the way, we get a “two different worlds” love story between Field and Liebman, a look at family life and coping on the low wages of textile work, and a view of what working in a textile mill actually looks and sounds like. The movie ends optimistically, but in real life (as is often the case, especially in right to work states), the pro-union vote was only the beginning of the struggle.

Silkwood (US, 1983)

Mike Nichols directed Meryl Streep in this taut thriller about an employee of a plutonium company who stumbles on to some serious safety defects in the radioactive products. Streep plays a union steward at Kerr-McGee and it is clearly her association with the union that underlies much of her activity in the second half of the movie, although the script keeps union references to a minimum. The film is very effective at showing how union stewards communicate with other workers at work and at home. Ultimately, Silkwood decides to blow the whistle and give the information to a reporter, but is killed in a mysterious car accident on the way to the meeting. The movie suggests that the “accident” may have been murder, but the case has never been solved.

Matewan (US, 1987)

Chris Cooper, James Earl Jones and Mary McConnell star in this fictionalized recreation of a 1920 struggle between West Virginia coal miners trying to improve their lot by organizing a union and the owners (and their hired thugs) who want to continue to exploit. John Sayles, who wrote and directed Matewan, explores not just the willingness of the owners to use all means necessary to regain control, but also tensions between black and white workers, between men and women, and between the outsider (Cooper, playing a UMW organizer) and the natives. Somehow, Sayles completed the project, with its massive cast and spectacular battle scenes, for under $4 million.

Roger & Me (US, 1989)

Michael Moore, documentarian and propagandist, had his first hit with this wry tale of his attempts to meet with General Motors CEO Roger Smith (presumably to tell him off). Along the way, Moore guides us through a few decades of history (mostly accurately), focusing on the men and women employed by GM over the years, especially those in Moore’s hometown of Flint, Michigan. While Moore has his critics, and his throw-it-all-up-there-and-see-what-sticks approach can be annoying, his central point is sound: that the big companies who decide to lay off workers and close plants or move plants overseas are not controlled by the economy – they are the economy. The best evidence of this is the fact that no matter how badly the workers and former workers are doing (to the point of selling rabbits “for pets or meat”), people like Roger Smith do just fine.

Newsies! (US, 1992)

Another labor musical – this time from Disney. Based on the 1899 New York City newsboys strike, this dancing and singing extravaganza stars a young Christian Bale, with support from Bill Pullman, Ann-Margret and Robert Duvall. More than just Annie with newspapers, the film shows the desperate poverty that newsboys lived in, although it doesn’t explain how they can sing and dance so well on such a meagre diet.

Germinal (France, 1993)

Claude Berri directed this film version of the 19^th Century novel by Émile Zola that relates French coal miners’ attempts to organize a union in the 1860s. Gerard Depardieu stars as the leader of a strike that begins well but collapses into a riot. Depardieu is blamed for the failure, leading his arch-enemy, an anarchist miner, to attempt to kill him in the mine. I won’t spoil the ending.

Office Space (US, 1999)

Mike Judge’s contemporary comedy doesn’t really have anything to do with unions, but it does say a lot about the absurdity of the modern workplace, particularly the business office setting. Though the concept and characters are better than the actual plot, there are enough knowing laughs (TPS reports, flair, etc.) to sustain the viewer though to the end. For some reason, Jennifer Anniston is in it. And would someone please give me back my stapler? You know the one, red, Trimline…

Bread and Roses (UK, 2000)

British filmmaker and chronicler of the working class Ken Loach went to California to tell the fictionalized story of two Central American immigrants who become involved in a janitors strike in Los Angeles. The film is based on SEIU’s April 1990 Justice for Janitors strike and also deals with issues of race, class and immigration. Adrian Brody plays a union lawyer.

Made in Dagenham (UK, 2010)

Underrated British actress Sally Hawkins turns in a subtle and convincing performance as a unionized sewing machinist, one of many women who sewed upholstery for cars at a Ford plant in England. Eventually, Hawkins and her union lead the women on a strike based on unequal pay between male and female workers. The movie is based on actual events in the Dagenham Ford plant in 1968. Nigel Cole directed. Co-stars include Bob Hoskins, Miranda Richardson and Rosamund Pike.

Labor In The News

Is the Tide Turning for Organized Labor?

Jennifer Smith October 12, 2015

Although union membership continues to decline (only about 7% of private sector workers are union members and 36% of public sector employees are union members according to the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics), in the face of growing income inequality, and stagnant wages, it appears that organized labor may soon be facing a resurgence.

Union advocates have long known and promoted the fact that belonging to a union makes a powerful difference in people’s lives, for example, unionized workers have median weekly earnings of $970 compared with $763 for workers not in a union. Nevertheless, the clear utility of unions in narrowing income inequality has gone unheeded for decades, but the tide may be turning. A new poll by the National Employment Law Project, reports that 72% or workers who make less than $15 an hour support unions. Remarkably a recent Gallup poll that found that 58% of the general population support unions. Majority support for organized labor might seem far-fetched – but an incredible 42% of ALL workers in the United States make less than $15 an hour.

The 78% of workers making less than $15 an hour who support organized labor aren’t just paying lip service to collective action, they’re looking to make their voices heard in Massachusetts. On October 13, 2015, a coalition organized by Raise Up Massachusetts and #WageAction are sponsoring a day of Action at the Massachusetts State House. While the legislature begins hearings on a number of bills protecting and promoting workers, the workers will be agitating and lobbying in support of their goals. Will you join them?

More information about the day of action can be found here: http://wageaction.org/fight-for-15-at-the-massachusetts-state-house/#.VhwP8vlVhBd

#wageaction

Labor In The News, Sandulli Grace In The News

Employer Cannot Install GPS on Vehicles Without First Bargaining with the Union

Sandulli Grace Staff October 7, 2015

On June 30, 2015, public sector workers across Massachusetts won an important victory at the Department of Labor (‘DLR’). In the case of City of Springfield and AFSCME, MUP-12-2466, the DLR held that the city of Springfield could not install GPS tracking devices on employee vehicles without first bargaining with the employees’ union—the AFSCME, Council 93. You can read the full decision here: http://www.mass.gov/lwd/labor-relations/recent-decisions/2015-decisions/june-2015/mup-12-2466-cerb-decision.pdf. Moving forward, this decision will help unions to better protect employees on how GPS information is used and what circumstances GPS information will be accessed.

This dispute began in 2012, when the city of Springfield began secretly installing GPS tracking devices on public utility vehicles. These devices allowed the city to determine employees’ work locations, idle time, speed, distances driven, and number of stops—all in real time. Before these devices were installed, the city had no way of gathering this information and did not require employees to report it.

The DLR held that these devices were illegal because they altered an existing condition of employment without first bargaining with the employees’ union. These devices altered an existing condition of employment because they “plainly changed the type and amount of information” available to the city. On these grounds, the DLR distinguished this case from two previous cases: City of Worcester, MUP-05-4409 (2007) and Duxbury School Committee, 25 MLC 22 (1998).

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly interviewed Jennifer Rubin, a partner at Sandulli Grace, about the case. She explained that this decision is a “big deal”. It is the first time that a case in Massachusetts has held that the decision to implement GPS devices, and the impacts of that decision is something that unions must be given the opportunity to bargain. Attorney Rubin also added even if a public employer had previously monitored employees in some manner, unions should still demand to bargain if the employer considers installing GPS devices “because the decision says if the type or amount of information tracked by the GPS is different from before, that could form the basis for a bargaining obligation.”

This case represents an important victory about the employer’s bargaining obligations. As new technology continues to alter the employer-employee relationship, we should always remember the importance of protecting the employee’s privacy and how that information that is produced by that new technology is used.

Labor In The News

Facebook Content Admissible

Sandulli Grace Staff October 5, 2015

Facebook content is becoming more and more prevalent in court proceedings. An article in American Police Beat highlights how Facebook posts have been used by the government to challenge disability claims (i.e., online photos of claimants engaged in activities like water sports and karate while claiming to be disabled) and attack credibility. This story is a good reminder that everyone (including, and especially officers) should be careful about posting anything on Facebook or any other social media. The original story can be found here: https://apbweb.com/facebook-content-admissible/

Labor In The News, Uncategorized

Healey Wants To Expand Scope Of Wiretap Law

Sandulli Grace Staff October 2, 2015

Attorney General Maura Healey testified before the Judiciary Committee to expand the scope of the wiretap law because, as she put it “right now you can’t use a wire in a human trafficking case or a gun trafficking case.” Healey did not back any particular bill, but the current wiretap law has a prerequisite that the target of the wire be involved in “organized crime” which many advocates for change argue do not fit well with current street gangs. The original article can be found here:
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/weddings/ci_28827396/healey-wants-expand-scope-wiretap-law

In Our Opinion...

Kind-Hearted Ohio Police Officer Sees Homeless Family Sleeping In Lobby And Pays For Their Hotel

Sandulli Grace Staff September 30, 2015

I want to highlight a story of kindness and empathy of a police officer – something that is not seen often in the current news feed. Ohio police officer Brian Bussell, a 25-year veteran, saw a homeless mother and her two children sleeping on chairs in Butler County Jail’s lobby. After he was unsuccessful at getting the family into a shelter, he paid for a ten-day stay at a hotel for them out of his own pocket. He also took the family shopping for clothes, shoes, and food. This officer did not tell anyone at work he had done this, but the mother posted what he had done on Facebook. The original story can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3246970/I-don-t-know-ve-Ohio-police-officer-pays-homeless-family-stay-hotel-spotting-sleeping-jail-lobby.html#ixzz3miWdMkfF

In Our Opinion...

Writing Tips for Unions and Employees

John Becker September 28, 2015

The lawyers at Sandulli Grace, P.C. often have occasion to work with our clients on various writing projects. Employees are often asked to write reports, statements and memoranda or fill out forms regarding incidents that may affect their employment conditions or lead to disciplinary action. In reviewing these documents, we have noticed that our clients, like most people, will occasionally make mistakes of grammar, spelling and usage that reduce the effectiveness of their writing. While we cannot guarantee that a well-written report will ensure that you will achieve your desired goal, we are certain that a document riddled with spelling or syntax errors will distract the reader from what you are trying to say and focus his or her attention on the way you are saying it.

In the hopes of improving our clients’ writing skills (and reminding ourselves – because lawyers make these mistakes too), we have developed a brief list of common writing errors for you to refer to when writing something that your employer may read.

To, Two and Too
Let’s start with an easy one, but one I see all the time. “Too” means also or excessively. “Two” means the number after one and before three. Any other meaning, spell it “to.” “He was driving too fast.” “Can I go too?” “This is too much food for one person.” “I saw two men in a two-door Chevy Malibu at two o’clock.” “Take me out to the ballgame.” “Give that to the Principal.” “Is this the way to the fair?” “I don’t know what to say.” “I have too many reports to write.” “To tell the truth, even two is too many.”

It’s and Its
If I had to pick the most common confusion between words, among all English-language writers, it has to be “it’s” and “its.” Yet the solution, once you memorize it, couldn’t be simpler. “It’s” is a contraction for “it is”, so if you can substitute “it is” without changing the meaning of the sentence, then ‘it’s’ is correct; if not, then ‘its’ is correct. Also remember that ‘its’ is a possessive adjective, which means it always modifies a noun. Examples: “The monster was so huge that it’s body blotted out the sun.” WRONG! Substituting “it is” gives us, “The monster was so huge that it is body blotted out the sun”, which makes no sense. “The monster was so huge that its body blotted out the sun” is correct. Other correct examples: “The monster is so huge that it’s impossible for me to see the sun”, “It’s too late baby, now it’s too late”, “The School Committee hasn’t released its budget yet” and “It’s obvious that your situation has its problems.”

Their, There and They’re
1. “Their” is a possessive adjective meaning ‘belonging to them” that always modifies a noun and refers to more than one person. “Their stereo is turned up too loud.” “Are you going to their party, too? “Has their daughter come home yet?”
2a. “There” is sometimes an adverb referring to a place: “I was there in February.” “Did you see the gun there under the car?” “The resource room is over there next to the auditorium.”

2b. “There” is sometimes used with the verb “to be” to indicate that something exists. “There is a mosquito on your nose.” “I heard there was a fight at the bar last night.” Here are both uses: “There is no way I’m going in there.”
2c. “There” is also used to say things like “Hi there!”, “There, there, don’t worry”, and “There – I told you I wasn’t lying!”
3. “They’re” is a contraction that is short for “they are.” “They’re coming – everybody hide!” “I’m trying to figure out what they’re doing in there.”

Affect and Effect
This one confuses even the best writers. The best way to understand them is to treat each word’s noun and verb forms separately.

Affect (verb): To change or have an impact on something. “That song always affects my mood.” “Spicy foods affect my digestion – and not in a good way.” “Trauma in his childhood has affected his ability to communicate.” “The bad economy really affected the value of my house.” (Secondary meaning: to pretend or put on airs: “Madonna sounds so affected when she uses a British accent.”)
2. Affect (noun): This rarely-used word comes from psychology and refers to one’s emotional or behavioral state. “The child presented a flat affect – no expression of emotion at all.”
Effect (verb): To bring about, often with ‘change’. “In his speech, the Governor claimed the new program will effect real change in our state.”
4. Effect (noun): A result or consequence. “The discipline had the effect of ruining morale in the workplace.” “The effects of the storm were visible everywhere we went.” “In effect, he told us to go jump in a lake.” “The law of cause and effect doesn’t always apply in this department.”
NOTE: A sentence using the verb “affect” can usually be converted to a sentence using the phrase “have an effect on” and vice versa. Ex. “That thing really affected me” = “That thing really had an effect on me.”

Conscious and Conscience
1. ‘Conscious’ means you’re not in a coma.

‘Conscience’ is your sense of right and wrong.
Accept, Except and Expect
1. Accept (verb): “I accept your apology.”
Except (preposition): “I understand everything except why you didn’t tell me sooner.”
Expect (verb): “I don’t expect you to understand.”
Alot, A lot and Allot
1. ‘Alot’ is not a word. Ever. Always write ‘a lot’ instead.
2. ‘Allot’ is a word meaning to give out or distribute. “We allotted five minutes for each candidate to speak.”

Cite, Sight and Site
1. ‘Cite’ means to quote or provide a reference. “The Union president cited Robert’s Rules of Order.” “Did you cite your sources on this paper?” Special meaning: To give a traffic citation: “You can see that I’ve cited you for having a broken taillight.”
‘Sight’ means the ability to see; something seen. “You are a sight for sore eyes.” “I went to Italy and saw all the sights.” “The child experienced a temporary loss of sight.”
‘Site’ refers to a specific location. “I visited the site of the shooting.” “They need a detail at the construction site.”
Lead and Led
I often see writers using ‘lead’ when they mean ‘led.’
1. ‘Lead’ (noun): “Get the lead out.” “This heavy object must be made of lead.”
‘Lead’ (verb, present tense) “She took the lead early in the race.” “If you lead, I will follow.”
‘Led’ (verb, past tense) “I think you led us down the garden path.” “What led you to believe I was following you?”

Lose and Loose

‘Lose’: To misplace; to fail to win: “With you on our team, how can we lose?” “I tend to lose things if they’re not nailed down.”
’Loose’: Not tight (adj.); let go (v): “Loose lips sink ships.” “I let the dogs loose and I haven’t seen them since.” “I have a loose tooth.”
Breath and Breathe
1. ‘Breath’ (noun): “He took his last breath.” “Don’t waste your breath.” “How long can you hold your breath?”
2. ‘Breathe’ (verb): “All I need is the air that I breathe.” “Breathe deep the gathering gloom.”

Council and Counsel
1. ‘Council’: “I am meeting with the City Council next week.”

‘Counsel’: “Attorney Jones is the new Town counsel; she will be counseling the town on legal matters.”
Complement and Compliment
1. ‘Complement’: something that fits with something else: “This rug complements the décor nicely – it really pulls the room together.” “The yin and yang symbols truly complement one another.”
‘Compliment’: a flattering statement: “Thanks for the compliment!” “Compliments of the chef.”

Active and Passive Voice
Every writing instructor will tell you that you should write in the active voice unless there is a good reason to use the passive voice. What’s the difference? In the active voice, the verb normally identifies an action that the subject is performing; in the passive voice, the verb indicates an action that is being performed by someone or something on the subject.
Active (better): The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. (Subject: Fox; Verb: Jumped Over)

Passive: The lazy dog was jumped over by the quick brown fox. (Subject: Dog: Verb: Was Jumped Over)

Passive: John Q. Public was arrested by Officer Jones and Officer Smith.

Active (better): Officers Smith and Jones arrested John Q. Public.

Passive: Over 10,000 students were educated in the District’s schools over the past decade.

Active (better): The District’s schools educated over 10,000 students over the past decade.

Sometimes you need to reword the sentence, adding and subtracting, in order to make a passive into an active sentence:

Passive: Large numbers of aliens were seen in the vicinity of Grover’s Mills, New Jersey.

Active (better): Residents reported seeing large numbers of aliens in the vicinity of Grover’s Mills, New Jersey (adding the words “Residents reported”).

Sometimes it is appropriate to use the passive voice, such as when your emphasis is on the recipient or product of an action, you want to avoid vague attributions or rewriting it into active voice muddies your meaning. “My car was stolen” (passive) sounds better than “Someone stole my car” (active). “The building was renovated in 1997” (passive) sounds better than “The J&M Construction Company renovated the building in 1997” (active) (unless you are writing for the Construction Company’s website). “Following the ceremony, refreshments will be served in the church basement” (passive). Unfortunately, many bureaucracies and large organizations of all kinds have propagated a mind-numbing writing style for annual reports and other documents that relies heavily on the passive voice. Many of us are so used to reading and hearing such turgid prose that it now sounds normal to us. Please try to resist this impulse in your writing. The active voice is usually the best choice for clear, well-organized prose, no matter what the document.