Response to Union President

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Response to Union President:
In reference to “No Threats, Abundance of Lies, ” Severance Agreement and Deauthorization:

The last paragraph of the latest “notification requesting remittance” from GCC/IBT Local 140N dated May 11th, 2009 states:

“Your continued failure to pay your required dues and fees will cause the Union to take legal action against you, including all legal fees, in an appropriate court of law to enforce the agreement entered into between the LA Times and the Union that all bargaining unit members will become members of the Union or pay the equivalent amount of dues and fees paid by members of the Union as a condition of employment at the LA Times. We hope that such action will be unnecessary.”

My question is what part of this statement and letter is not a threat? It simply says give me money or I will take you to court. It sounds like extortion to me.
The union president says that he would “not have a problem with him (Lee Carey) ever joining the Local” which works out perfectly, because that is exactly what I and many others want to do – never join the Local or pay dues! The problem is the union wants our money even if we are not formally union members. They feign attempts at being the caring protector, but their actions say, “give me the money or else I will take you to court!” So, I have done what most individuals do when they are threatened with court actions: I have retained legal counsel from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. According to their letter head, the Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. “has been defending America’s workers from the abuses of compulsory unionism since 1968.” The unfair labor charges (below), detail the grounds on which the current union security clause will be proven to be unlawful.

The union continues to do two things very well: attempting to collect (or extort) dues from co-workers, who do not want to pay dues or be a part of the union, and creating an environment of fear and anxiety in the pressroom.

Without the collection of dues and the creation of fear, the union couldn’t exist.
If we didn’t have a union, we wouldn’t have had negotiotions. If we hadn’t had negotiations we would still have shift differential, severance pay, better overtime policies/pay and a few other things conceded by the negotiating team – but as the president states, “at least these agreements/concessions are binding.” The other departments continue to have everything we had – plus a 3% raise, without representation! I don’t see the rest of the company departments lining up for union protection. With all the great things the union is (supposedly) doing and protection they provide, wouldn’t all employees of the LA Times want to be represented?

If you don’t believe in the union position you are characterized as not being “your brother’s keeper,” as having a “me mentality,” as being “selfish at best.”
The union president’s latest cry that “management has waged war on ALL pressroom employees” is a little dramatic, but adds to the fear mongering. (Working conditions are tough, and definitely a lot worse since the union contract, but “war?”)

Telling union employees to “reveal my deeds” and “motives” and “convince others to remove their signatures” from the deauthorization petition is just another personal attack against a fellow pressman, who is exercising his right (and 70+ other co-workers’ right), to a deauthorization vote. The numerous libelous accusations you have written about me (and other co-workers) are nothing more than personal attacks to discredit a threat to the union president’s position.

Insinuating that I am working in concert with management and couldn’t have known about a decertification or a deauthorization process is insulting and another testament to the union’s desperate declarations. The rumor that management writes all my correspondence is a compliment, but untrue. However, the internet is a wealth of information to people who want to educate themselves and protect their rights provided to them under the National Labor Relations Act. We all have access to free legal counsel from lawyers who are willing to help in forced-unionism situations such as ours. Individual rights are the foundation of this country and should not be taken away by the union.

The recent handling of the severance package for our 63 colleagues is an example of why I (and many others) don’t want to pay dues or be a part of the union. The only reason 63 of our colleagues didn’t have the same (up to) 6-month severance package, which the rest of the L.A. Times had, was that the union neglected to put a severance clause in the contract. (They did get their dues check off and union security clause, unlawful as it is.) Did the union withdraw their board charges in exchange for the severance because the charges were about to be dismissed anyway? Or, because the president was one of the individuals receiving the severance? Conflict of interest? How many bargaining unit employees voted on this recent decision?

Why is the union so afraid of a deauthorization vote? The many petitioners and non-dues paying pressman don’t see the union as a value or a benefit and are excercising their right to due process under the law. The National Labor Relations Act was created to further democracy in the work place and protect our individual rights as well as our collective rights.

In closing, all of us (that still work) at the LA Times realize these are trying, difficult and changing times. The current union actions of fear mongering, half-truths, distortions, and a “contract” that has left us with worse pay, worse working conditions, and worse relations with management than before the union contract, is not making these trying times any easier.

I consider the $1,400.00 bonus as partial remuneration for the concessions the union negligently made in the contract (the 3% raise we lost would have been yearly, meaning that we are losing $2,000 per year every year henceforth).

Below is a copy of the unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB by NRTW against the union and the L.A. Times.

A copy of the appeal filed with the NLRB (in Washington D.C.) pertaining to the deauthorization petition will be available this week.

Lee Carey
LA Times Pressman

Editor note: The document would not copy to Blogger, if you would like to view the copy email your requests to Edward and I will send it your way.
edpadgett1@verizon.net