LA Times Printing Press Workers Slap Teamster Union Bosses with Federal Charges
Teamster union hierarchy continues three-year-long campaign of harassment and intimidation
Los Angeles, CA (January 18, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, two Los Angeles Times newspaper printing press operators have filed federal charges against a local Teamster union for violating their rights.
Leon Carey, Jr. and James Clayton filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last Wednesday.
Recently, Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (GCC/IBT) Local 140-N union and company officials entered into a contract which purports to require all employees to be full-dues-paying union members, even though full membership cannot be enforced under federal law. Moreover, union officials failed to inform workers of their rights, including their right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Foundation-won Communications Workers v. Beck case.
Instead, Teamster Local 140-N union officials sent the workers a letter ordering them to join the union and pay full dues or face termination while ignoring the workers' previous letters informing union officials that they were refraining from union membership.
Because California is not a Right to Work state, employees can be forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment. However, employees cannot be legally compelled to join a union against their will and cannot be compelled to pay union dues used for union politics and member-only events.
"Teamster union officials have conducted an illegal campaign to extract full union dues from these workers wanting to exercise their rights to refrain from formal union membership, even though union officials can still force these workers under their control regardless of their union membership status," said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Making union membership and dues-payment completely voluntary is the only way to prevent this type of abuse in the future, which is why California desperately needs a Right to Work law."
Workers in 22 states enjoy the protections of a state Right to Work law and 80 percent of Americans, including 80 percent of union members, support the Right to Work principle.
Comments
right to work
the largest union in the united states afgw ( american federation of government workers ) voted 95 % to become right to work . a volentary due was addopted and membership went up .
What?
It's not voted in or our by a union. It's either enacted in congress through bills or it is voted on by an entire state (citizens). Do you even understand what RTW at all?
80 percent my A@@!
Dear Mark "the shark" Mixer, you must be completely brainless if you think 80% of union members support the RTW principle. 95% are totally against it, and the other 5% are clueless to the name game you lobbyist come up with. Kinda like the "death tax". Why would someone be fine with paying dues to gain representation, while others recieved the same representation at no cost to them? Simple they wouldn't.
Thank You American Unions!
Dear Roofer and American union members,
Thank you so great for you support. China could never become the world's economic mirakle without American unions bringing us their industry.
All Great Thanks,
-Chin Ro Chang
VP, China Industry-Day Magazine
Give credit where credit is due.
Hmm that would be a corporate decision to move operations overseas. You would have to thank people like Mitt Romney and Bain capital. Unions and myself have no part in that decision.
If it were up to me I would raise the taxes on importing goods, and if were up to the unions everyone have an equal oppurtunity to make fair wages under fair working conditions.
Fair wages- An income that is sufficient to live on. Not minimum wage.
Here's the poll regarding
Here's the poll regarding union members OVERWHELMING SUPPORT of Right to Work (voluntary union membership and dues payment).
http://www.nrtw.org/en/press/2010/11/luntz-union-member-poll-11012010
Why wouldn't members want voluntary dues? It lets them keep union officials accountable. If they can't get them a good contract, they pull their $ support.
Here's Why.
"Why wouldn't members want voluntary dues?" A union has to oversea the trust funds established for it's members. In order to oversea the funds you must hire someone. Well that cost money and that's why dues are needed. If you allow people to join the union and not pay dues than the pension funds, healthcare, apprenticeship programs, retiree supplements, safety training, and not to mention community service projects would have no funding for operations. Which eventually would destroy the union. By law union officials in a RTW state have to allow non-members to join their healthcare plans, benefits, wages, and also must represent them in any disputes with their employer, but they cannot by forced to pay dues. That will not work, the one's left paying dues will finally drop out of the union because their dues would increase to fund the non-members. So I don't think any union member that actually knows what RTW means would be for it.
Wow 760 people polled.
Like I stated before, union members are not fine with new employees obtaining the representation they pay for to be given to someone not willing to pay their share.
Whoever thinks that a poll of 760 people can achieve an accurate viewpoint on a national level are brainless fools. My tiny little local has more than 500 members alone, and not one member has stated they thought RTW was a good thing.
So Indiana Chump this would mean by your reasoning that 100% of union members oppose RTW, all private by the way.
2 whole guys?
These 2 individuals still have the freedom to work somewhere that is not union. It's America. What they probably realize is that if they work at a non-union shop they will be working for minimum wage and no benefits.
In a RTW mind set, then I can go to an elite country club and enjoy all of the lush greens w/o paying dues. Remember this a Right to Play state. Sounds good but will not work.
freedom to work somewhere that is not union
really ? in cally , what a stupid statment , unless you are from south of the border .
Born and raised USA
Truth is hard to swallow, huh. Right to work for less. I live in a city split by RTW and non-RTW. Kansas (RTW) vs. Missouri (RTW) and in my occupation we make 2x annually more than Kansas roofers.
RTW
Hey roofer, do your roofs last twice as long, take twice as long to complete (of course, they're union roofs)or just cost twice as much?
"Brown" Beard
The life of the roof depends on the application and material. Older styles asphalt, coal tar pitch, modified roofs last around 20-25 yrs. In today's market they only last 10. The new "white" roofs generally only carry a 10 yr warranty. If we took twice as long our contractors could not compete, our union has been around for over 100 yrs. I can't think of one non-union company that has even made it 25 yrs. If you did any research instead of listening to blatant lies you would find, jobs done with PLA's or under Prevailing wage come in under budget and on time. O wait unions do most all PLA's and PW. No I don't claim to be better than my counter-part, we are the same, we are roofers. I just get paid a more "fair" wage, and in return work my "ass" off to keep it.