Union Bosses Forced to Drop $200,000 Lawsuit against Unemployed Carpenter
Union officials failed to find work for carpenter, then retaliated against him for working to support his family without paying tribute to union bosses
Chicago, IL (December 10, 2010) – Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (CRCC) union bosses have dropped a lawsuit against an unemployed carpenter for working to provide for himself and his family after union officials had no work for him.
After he lost his full-time job, Richard Crenshaw – who specializes in door carpentry – was hired by a friend who was a contractor. Up until then, Crenshaw was working as a handyman to make ends meet.
A CRCC union official discovered Crenshaw was working at his friend’s jobsite and union officials initiated internal disciplinary proceedings against him. The union hierarchy levied a fine of $201,250 and filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
CRCC union bosses dropped the lawsuit after attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation took up the case for Crenshaw providing free legal representation.
“It is unconscionable for union bosses to attempt to drive unemployed workers into the poorhouse in vicious retaliation for providing for their families,” said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Confiscatory fines and kangaroo courts are just some of the disturbing, yet increasingly-used tactics of union boss intimidation that are all too common in states like Illinois where there is no Right to Work law on the books.”
Comments
how do you get rid of union bosses that are corrupt
thank you national right to work foundation for standing up for richard crenshaw in his time of need, you have my admiration and respect.
union carpenters are suffering the same abuse all over the country. we use to be able to complain to the aflcio, but our international in washington dc decided that the workers didn't need to have a enity to complain to about union corruption so the union bosses said it cost to much money to be members of the aflcio, then they droped our membership with them. without protection from corrupt union bosses our union brothers and sisters are at the mercy of the international union. our so called union represenitives only care about themselves and how much money they can make for the international in washington dc. they've taken all of our rights away by not allowing us to dicuss or rattify our contracts, we can't even vote for our own buissness represenitives to make sure work conditions are humane. instead they appoint the reps, so if the rep sides on the union members side all the bosses have to do is fire the rep for helping. we're stifled so we can't speek up about complaints that happen on a jobsite. we have a union constitusion that there suppose to be bound by, but if charges are filed they are immuned to any real pentalties. recently they closed most of our union halls even if they were self sufficent just so they could take all assets within the union halls. some assets were paid for by local union members that paid above and beyound the union dues which are paid to the international. it seems that would be illeagle for them to do such a thing, but according to the union bosses once they close a local union they get to take all assets. what about the members who paid for the property for recreation use by our local union members. they said they closed the local union halls to save money in our poor economic time, they say. then they opened a hall in an area that has been struggling because of lack of membership and work. this way they can insure the members can't complain against the union bosses since the vast majority of the members live to far from the local hall to voice there opinon at the meetings. like it would make any differance to the union bosses we pay 3.85% of our gross income just in working dues and also pay $40.00 a month over the counter dues. the union bosses make six figure incomes, get paid vacations, paid sick leave, two retirements, car allowance, perdium credit cards that are paid for by the working members. the members get retirement and medical, thats it. yet we aren't suppose to say anything about union bussness. the union bosses use attorneys that are paid for by the union members but the members have to hire attorneys out of there own pockets if they have to protect themselves from union bosses. what does it take for the attorney general to stand up for the rights of union workers that are being prayed upon by mob run unions.
i'd sign my name but the union would retaliate
Union Corruption
It sucks that the union would hammer a fellow like this, particularly in such a rough economy. But Mr. Crenshaw is far from innocent. He could have resigned his ticket with the local. But instead of abiding by the rules that he swore an oath to, he tried to play both sides of the fence. He went to work non-union to feed his family, which is admirable. But if a call at the hall had been available, he would have run back to it. He just wanted it both ways. If you join an organization and take an oath to obey the rules, then you need to fulfill you obligations. Otherwise, don't join.
to redg, that is just
to redg, that is just stupid, the union is an org. they are forcing good people away from union,s. i was in a union for many year,s and can tell you they rip the people off. everybody that belongs to a union should go to there meetings and see what they are spending on themselves,trip,s, phones, faxes,computers,etc. i was told or out voted on everything these crook,s wanted, go to meeting,s and you will see.
Union Corruption
The comment on obeying the rules and following your oath merits some consideration. However, did the carpenter in question VOLUNTARILY join the union and take the oath, or were these actions themselves taken under duress of not being able to work at his normal trade without being a union member?? (Hint to the uninformed - Illinois is NOT a right to work state.)
If the joining and the swearing were under duress, I would consider them void and of no effect.
He did....
Mr. Crenshaw did give up his ticket in order to work, but they still came after him.
Where did that carpenter get
Where did that carpenter get all of the skills and training to be able to provide for his family? All of his training came from the union that he was a member of. Unions are not against anyone providing for their family at all. But what is wrong is the fact that he took his Union training and skills and used those skills to work for a contractor that was undermining the wages that were negotiated for him with all of the union contractors he was working for. This is not the old days of the unions.
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right to work.' It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. It is supported by people who are trying to keep us from achieving our civil rights and our right of equal job opportunity. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone.Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote." Martin Luther King
Training and Unionism
Training does not have to come from Union training,some people can come up through ranks from the bottom up. It's called ON THE TRAINING,then after so many years of doing the job you become good enough to go out and perform the job at hand. You don't have to have union training to be able to perform a job. Like carpentry,plumbing,electrical or any such job. If unions can't stick to helping the man out with some of the Billions there trowing around in Washington it's a sad day in America,I should know I'm an organized 27 year electrician in the south and it's no better here. There is pro and cons to unionism, but sorry to say when the work is not there all the union is worried about is where the dues are,instead of helping you out of bad times. Also the IBEW was formed by organized hands because they were being screwed by companies that didn't want to pay,harsh work enviroments. One thing though is that your pay is better in the union but that's about it.
Keeping American's Free!
Labor Unions today are nothing more than goons looking for their next free meal at someone else's expense and effort. Their ranks are filled with individuals seeking nothing more than to exercise their rights to enslave the rights of all free American's.
Why else would their so-called membership ranks drop to some 7% in the private-employee sector today from a high of some 25% during their orgainizing heydays of the 1950's?
It's also the same reason why public-sector employee's account for some 90% membership in labor unions today and all at the expense of American taxpayers, who themselves are kept poor at the union's unbridled bidding.
As an individual worker, you have no rights in the labor union or in your workplace, other than those rights mostly referred to as "civil rights." In fact, when the union refers to you as "a member" that is a lie! You are nothing more than a slave to do their bidding. The only thing that you have and that they really need, is your individual right to vote in elections.
re: concerned
The unions were once again trying to intimidate and scare Mr. Crenshaw by filing a suit against him. The proof is when the NRTW Foundation stepped in to represent him, they dropped their case. There is no where in any contracts anywhere that states that a member of a union are not allowed to act as an independent contractor for a friend or other employer. So your argument is asinine. And I doubt that he learned all his skills from the union, but even if he did. so what? Totally irrelevant. As a graduate student specializing in unionization and labor relations, I've learned the laws. This would be an Unfair Labor Practice by the union, and he could actually turn around and file suit against them for trying to coerce and intimidate.
Concerned? More like Confused.
Concerned, I’m concerned about your sanity. Mr. Crenshaw was apparently under the impression that he lives in a free country where he has ability to provide for his family as he sees fit. (unless unions start running everything) Essentially, you are saying that it is his civil right to be forced to pay a union by having audacity to try and put food on his table all because the union taught him some job skills? Maybe he should pay his parents for teaching him how to take a shower.
As an educator in a forced unionism state (coming from a right-to-work state) there is no question that right-to-work states are clearly superior. Forced unionism states have much higher taxes because they are forced to pay outrageous pensions to union workers, and as a condition of employment in these states, employees are forced to pay high union dues. Therefore, Concerned, regardless of what my pay is now, I KEPT more of my money in the RTW state. Therefore your “improved” (improved? Does “improved wages” mean they are “improved” by having to pay union dues?) wages in unionized states argument is complete bunk. Real educators understand that education is an attempt at making the world a better place, not a profit. When you educate someone and you send them out into the world you wish them well, you don’t violate their civil and “job” rights by robbing from them the ability to live and work freely. Universities understand this, that’s why they ASK for money, not rape the paychecks of their graduates.
Being a slave to unions is not a civil right. Freedom to choose to be in a union or NOT to be in a union is a civil right. If the union that is threatening Mr. Carpenter wants so bad to profit from his work they should start their own company, but they probably don’t want to deal with all the whiny unionists that would work for them, so they don’t. Also, if this union was so good why didn’t Mr. Crenshaw have to find jobs on his own? Being inept at securing Mr. Crenshaw gainful employment is not worthy of any payment. You are attempting to defend the indefensible and should change your name from Concerned to Confused.