Monday, April 27th, 2009
Re: Deauthorization Petition:
On April 8, 2009, approximiately 70 fellow pressmen/women signed and filed
a “deauthorization petition" with the NLRB. This procedure is spelled out
in the National Labor Relations Act which gives us, as employees, the right
to call for a deauthorization election at any time. Since 30% or more of us
have (legally, without coersion or deception) signed the deauthorization
petition, the National Labor Relations Board will conduct a secret ballot
election (after the current union “blocking actions/ULP’s/challenges” are
investigated and ruled on by the NLRB) to determine if a majority of us
wish to throw out the forced-unionism clause (also called “security clause”,
Article XV, in the union’s forced contract) and thus, we will have the
freedom to decide whether to join and/or pay dues to the union. According to
the National Labor Relations Act, “If the petitioning employees win that
election, then employees cannot be compelled to pay any dues or fees to the
union, and their bargaining unit becomes an ‘open shop’ “.
There are many of us that prefer a workplace where membership and the
payment of dues is voluntary, as it forces the union hierarchy to be more
accountable to the rank-and-file workers. Instead of relying on threats,
intimidation and scare tactics to gain financial support, union officials
have to sell the benefits of union membership.
Since the beginning of the union drive we have been an almost equally
divided shop: 49% against the union and 51% for the union. We are in a
“forced-unionism” work environment. Deauthorization is the process to free
us from being subject to this “forced-unionism” work environment. It’s been
stated by the unions Conference Representative that we want to be
“represented without paying dues”- this is untrue, we don’t want to be
represented or pay dues.
Re: “Rumor/Damage Control”
I encourage all co-workers to read the recently drafted constitution and
by-laws of the GCC/IBT Local 140-N. The executive board has granted
themselves a huge amount of power and latitude with which to govern by,
hence the need for the recent blog entry by the union’s president in
defense of his “reputation and integrity.” Whenever anyone uses the
expression “at this time” (as stated in the president’s blog entry when he
talks about executive board wages and dues being paid by union members for
executive board perks) it really means “not at this time but in the future.”
The union is currently presided over by an individual that no longer works
for the LA Times. This leaves questions of conflict of interest and motive.
Re: GCC/IBT Conference Representative
It is unfortunate that legal counsel didn’t create a more specific binding
contract with the L.A. Times management, so that union dues wouldn’t have
to be used, after the fact, to rectify short-comings in the (aptly
described by conference representative) “it may not be the best union
contract, but it’s a start” contract. Our recently laid off “brothers and
sisters” would probably agree that legal counsel should have spent more time
on a severance clause in the union’s contract and less time on the “dues
check-off” (Article XVI ).
Our remaining LAT co-workers in other departments seem to be doing fairly
well without union representation.
Re: Motives
I, Lee Carey, and 49% of the L.A. Times work force (if not more, after the
ineptitude of the union leadership) have never wanted to be represented by
a union or be forced to join, support, or pay dues to a group we don’t
believe in. I/we have no reason to lie, deceive, distort facts, mislead or
resort to personal attacts. It's an insult and disrespectful to pressroom
employees as a whole to be subjected to such tactics. We are simply
exercising our legal rights and due process under the National Labor
Relations Act.
My personal motivation is simple: I don’t want to be or need to be subject
to third party representation (or resorted to mendacious personal attacks
from the aforementioned).
Thanks for your support,
Lee Carey
LAT OC Pressman
Editors Message: I’m certain most readers of this blog understand I’m pro-union and a member of the executive board of GCC/IBT Local 140N. I do respect my colleagues that feel the union is not needed within the two pressrooms at the Los Angeles Times, and opt to disagree with them. The purpose of this blog is to communicate as much information as possible to all pressroom employees, which I’m certain will anger a few. Please feel free to comment, BUT omit names or your comment will not be published.
