Monday, April 27, 2009
Deauthorization Petition
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Very well said Lee, I hope you get through to all the people that you need support from. These are some tough times for newspapers, and all the extra cash going into your pockets is vital. To see it go to the union and then to see that nothing good has come from them "to date" makes anyone wonder "why" do we keep paying, or better yet why pay at all. You keep up the good work Lee, you have a good way with words. Your old buddy, The ex supervisor from 2005
If you do not pay dues will you then return the $1000 signing bonus, the 4% match that was put into your 401k last year and will you forgo the 2% lump sum raise we will be getting this June and next June. I do not think other non-uion departments are getting these.
Pressmen think hard about what you are committing to through this person who really does not give a damn about anyone but himself.
This guy has no concept of leadership or team. He supports no one; he only promotes himself. This is his opportunity, and being the opportunist that he is, he is pulling it in as hard and fast as he can. The result for you: wage cuts. The result for him: possible promotion OR having his name forever attached to removing the only barrier between you and the hatchet men; however, I doubt that he cares if you grow to resent him because he is used to carrying that load around with him anyway.
He will enjoy supervising you while you are cleaning units and making less money per hour while busting your hump for the whole seven hours. He has little to lose; you have much more to lose.
Mendacious personal attacks. BS. He deserves and has earned every invective and pejorative word used to describe his character and behavior on the job. So does the other one, too.
Don't take the fake. The union leadership may not be the best, but it is the wall between you and a VP who revels in his past victories and punishment of union pressmen.
Well pro union while the pressroom got a signing bonus the other departments got an actual raise. Speaking of the 4percent match where did that go?? where did the shift differential go? Other non union departments got their severance package, what did our 63 people get??
Moe if you have not figured it out yet Russ got everything he wanted from us in the contract and we got nothing in return. If Russ had wanted to cut our wages he would have as there was nothing to stop him. A strike?? yeah right. Other departments have had no pay cut so how can you say we would have a cut?? The upcoming vote should b e quite interesting as many many of the 94 people laid off since last april under our union watch were pro union. How come our contract is so poorly written yet the bylaws are quite well written??? Even if we deauthorize the union there will be no wage cuts as this only removes the forced unionism clause. Those that feel the union has done a good job are free to continue sending in their money. And if the union cannot get the 63 people the severance package you can bet your sweet ass anyone leaving in the next two years under the contract will get nothing also. SO anyone in the bottom 40 now should not want to pay dues as they may be next to go without any severance. Marty Keegan said if we could not get at least what we had before the union came in he would personally help us decertify the union. Well Marty where are you now??
Furthermore...
I can hardly believe that some of you non-operator pressmen are supporting these operators in their bid to de-authorize your union.
These are the same guys that have a history of stomping around the OC pressroom like little Napoleon primadonnas and making life miserable for common pressmen like yourselves. Operators, as we all know, have some kind of force field around them that allows them to act with impunity and protects them from the company's anti-harassment policies. Not all operators have taken advantage of this strange benefit of their position, but the two that are pushing for de-authorization certainly have and are widely know for sticking it to the people under them every chance they get.
Think about it. Two operators who love to harass and intimidate the workers under them are now claiming to be doing what is best for the common pressmen. Doesn't make much sense does it?
Make no mistake about it. These two operators are doing what is best for themselves. They have no interest in you. They both have high seniority number that will get them through any future crisis.
Again, don't take the fake. In the past, these two men have done everything in their power to drive a wedge between operators and the common pressmen. Now they want to be thought of as saviors. They are simply men who have no moral compass and who have a history of abusing their position. They should have been fired for their behavior and actions long, long ago.
You have a union. Make it work for you. Instead of getting rid of the union, install better leadership.
From every editorial that this Moe person has written, it seems more evident that he/she is more concerned with these 2 operators than the bigger picture. Maybe one of these 2 operators has had this Moe on their crew and has to stay on him/her all shift just to get a little work out of him/her (we sure know how those press people are to have on a crew) The other comments (from morethanubrgn4) about what all the non union people got and the union people didn't get is right on the money. Having better leadership is not going to change a thing. The current leadership in the office is, and will be the same until the plant closes (you can bet on that) they have their hands full dealing with people like Moe. The best part of your pressroom personal will vote this union out, it is just a matter of time. Once again look at your union reps (what is left of them) they have no control or say in what takes place. You all should focus on what you will do when the OC plant closes (that is a big concern) the job market is not good right, just ask the 63 most recent press people. Or ask any of the past few hundred that have been given their pink slips in the last 3-4 years.
This is a no-brainer! The contract was laughable, union reps are crooks and press people are supposed to pay for this if they have a choice? Come on.
One quick thank you to Ed P. and his blog. Wish he was a union rep!
For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, one or more of the comments posted here were written by a former machine shop supervisor who is still fighting the "no unions" fight for the company. And since we aren't naming names it will suffice to say that this person's former handle on this blog was "Eddo" before he went underground.
OK, so you think that the union managers are crooked. And, you think that the contract is lousy. And, you don't want to pay union dues. Maybe you are right about all those things; HOWEVER, I'd rather have the union and pay the dues than be forced to kiss the ring of a man who stood before several employees of the OC machine shop and said:
"These $70,000 a year pressmen should be making $40,000 per year."
And, I'd pay twice the dues before I'd hand my nuts over to those two inbred operators who are most likely stooges for the aforementioned hatchet man.
It's going to be a tough road either way, but you can either get involved with the union and have some say about what is left of your future, or you can just give up and put your neck on the block.
morethanubrgn4
No one received a raise in January, due to the restructuring bankruptcy in Dec. The 4% match was lost two years ago to everyone but the pressroom due to the freeze for negotiations; therefore we got an extra year. No other department has shift differential that I am aware of. (And) the reason 63 of our fellow press people did not get a severence package was due to the fact the production manager "did not want to negotiate" as he has told many on the floor. Since your dues have basically been paid for you (and you are ahead) why don't you work with the union, maybe even look at the pension plan the teamsters have, that is where money can be made.
Two cents I was referring to last year 2008 as far as the other departments getting a raise in April and we got the "signing" bonus. Yes we did get the 401k 4 percent match for an extra year. The other depts went onto the new ESOP which I will agree with anyone here is worthless. I was just pointing out we had something that is now gone.As far as shift differential in other depts they did have it before and have not heard that it was taken away. The 63 people didn't get a severance package because the union failed to get a "me too" clause that would have provided for whatever the other departments got. So walking away with nothing verse say $30,000 dollars amounts to gross negligence as far as I am concerned. The union rushed us into signing a contract that was not in our best interest and used the bankruptcy filing as a reason to scare us. They did not even reject one company offer and said that was their last best and final offer. Maybe they were afraid of " posted working conditions" by the company and that would have resulted in no dues being collected. The sad thing is now that the 63 are not getting any severance nobody after them will either during the life of the contract because if they did the 63 people let go before would have solid legal ground for a lawsuit. The best way to resolve the current dilemma would be for the union to go ahead and agree to allow an open shop. This could avoid a costly battle for the union with dues money and possibly be a face saving measure because it would not look good if the union loses by a wide margin. Like I said before out of the 94 people let go in the last year many were pro union ---- I would guess about 70 out of the 94. If the company cuts too deep again I too will be gone without severance so I have no desire to pay anything as I will be leaving with 30,000 less than if I had been non union in another department.
WOW!....
Moe you have got some serious anger issues!
If you actually presented some real facts to support your position you might make a difference. How about a little math? We did not get the 3% raise everyone else did...which equals at least $2100.00 a year (and has a cumulative effect - which 1X bonuses do not), so after your 3 year "save us from the evil empire" contract expires it will have cost us $6300.00! Along with the $1000.00 a year in shift differential that the "braintrust" neglected to include in the "contract", which comes to another $3000.00 over 3 years. The newly implemented overtime policies = more lost $$$. A severance clause would have also been a nice addition ($30-40,000 dollars worth) for the "63".
So, lets look at some facts, we will lose more than $10,000 over the course of the "contract" in exchange for the union contracts $1000.00 signing bonus and $4200.00 in 2% 1X bonuses. Then the best part, you want us to pay $2200.00 for this loss of wages!! The irony is that the unions biggest "scare tactic" was that the company was (or might) cut our wages. The company didn't have to cut our wages after the union negotiating team bargained and conceded away about 5-10% of our wages! Who took the "fake" Moe?
Do you think this is the reason the other departments and editorial aren't calling up the union for "help" against the company?
If you want someone fired look at your union reps....how about nonperformance? They are at their best when it comes to trying to collect dues.
Thinking you have control of your future because you have this "contract" is laughable!
To best protect your future try educating yourself, knowing your job and working hard! AND, lay off the Kool-Aide Moe!!
You can still sign the petition...
Spurious logic, at best.
You are asserting that you would have kept all that and been given a raise if the union hadn't been voted in. And, you are implying that you will get it back if the union is de-authorized. I don't think so.
My opinion is that everyone in production would have taken a pay cut if the union wasn't in place. The company wasn't going to make it look as though they were punishing non-union employees by cutting their pay, so they punished the union employees.
If the union leaves, the pay cuts will come - eventually.
And, yes I'm angry. Aren't you? What a shit sandwich this is. And it keeps getting worse. There are no reasonable particulars involved on either side of this issue. On top of that is the downward slide of the newspaper business. On top of that is the downward slide of the US economy.
There is no winning side here, folks. I'm taking my stand for the reasons stated because it makes me feel good. That's it and that's all. The ship is sinking and the rats are duking it out for the last spots on the crow's nest. The smart ones left on the lifeboats long ago...
Moe, it's a F**K meat sandwich! The lucky did leave; some even found jobs with a 45% pay cut. Even with WHATEVER's "5%" loss of pay, as journeymen, we are making more than a lot of working press managers out there. Sure we have the scramblers looking for the "[feathered] crows nest", but that is a natural reaction. However, to laud a guy who was an Operator/Supervisor/(whining to get his spot back-- and did)Operator is something I question, his motives are suspect. And, as for the SVP of Ops... on his first day he was quoted as saying, "...you guys make way too much money for doing this job." He has changed that.
Post a Comment