IAM

Reminder: Time is Running Out for Rebates for Employees Under the IAM and Washington State Teacher Union

Anthony Riedel — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:04:10 -0500

Recently, Foundation attorneys notified employees represented by the Machinists union (IAM) and Washington Education Association union (WEA) nonmembers of their opportunity to reclaim a portion of their forced union dues from supporting the union officials' politics as determined by law and Foundation-won court precedent.

Employees Represented by IAM

In the National Right to Work Foundation's "Special Legal Notice to Employees Represented by the Machinists union", it states that:

Quick Hits - June 30, 2008

Will Collins — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:53:09 -0400

A few Right to Work-related updates from over the weekend:

1.) Does the AFL-CIO owe $14 million in back taxes? Perhaps an IRS audit will reveal other problems with the AFL-CIO's overtly partisan and massive campaign expenditures. The author overstates the good that comes from oversight of union finances by the Office of Labor Management Standards, but he does point out the amusing fact that Democrats are in favor of "smaller government" in this one instance:

IAM Union's Sham Elections: Kim Jong-il Would Be Proud

Will Collins — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:26:24 -0400

The International Association of Machinists (IAM) has a long and troubled relationship with true workplace representation. In fact, the union bosses' authoritarian nature of governance more closely resembles communist North Korea.

Section B-2 of the IAM's "Official Circular No. 813 - Strike Sanctions and Benefits" (pdf) lays out the organization's procedures for accepting a renegotiated contract or rejecting a new offer from management and going on strike:

". . . a secret ballot vote by the membership present and voting must carry by a two-thirds (2/3) majority in order to declare a strike."

read more

When Union Militants Attack!

John Powell — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:46:56 -0500

The threat of union violence continues to plague hard-working Americans across the country.

A story published in Alabama’s Times Daily highlights a rare instance where a judge actually issued a restraining order against a union. This recent incident involves North Alabama Building and Construction Trades Council and International Association of Machinists (IAM) union militants who targeted employees (and members of the Steelworkers union) who returned to work during a strike. At least one union militant dove onto a car entering the Wise Alloy worksite:

“…the employees attempted to return to their jobs Tuesday morning. Wise officials said Steelworkers union employees were being intimidated at the employee entrance to the plant by employees who are still on strike.”

“Wise officials also reported, however, that a former employee, who was demonstrating in the picket line, dived onto the hood of a vehicle that was entering the plant.”

Of course, it is common for union militants to ignore restraining orders in the rare instances they are issued.

If you or someone in your family has been a victim of union violence or intimidation, call the Foundation toll-free at 1-800-336-3600 or write to legal@nrtw.org and ask to speak with an attorney.

Union Officials Use Annual Objection Schemes to Hamstring Employees

John Powell — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:49:24 -0400

When hard-working employees object to paying forced dues for politics, they mean it.

But despite such opposition, union officials will try to find every way possible to demoralize and hamstring employees so that their forced dues money continues to follow into union political coffers.

Take a look at Robert Prime from Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Prime works at the Naval Air Station. In December 2003, he filed charges with help from attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation after IAM union officials told him he had to object every single year to paying for union political advocacy.

IAM union officials refused to acknowledge that his objection should apply continuously. And while Mr. Prime fights for his objection to be honored, he and his coworkers are forced to oblige to a burdensome and discriminatory policy until a decision is issued after a hearing scheduled for the end of this year.

It took nearly four years for him just to get that far. But Mr. Prime and his coworkers in Florida are not alone.

Just months ago, the NLRB delayed another ruling where George Gally, a 40-year veteran at Colt Firearms, requested that the federal board rule on his case under similar circumstances.

Right to Work attorneys helped Mr. Gally of Connecticut originally file unfair labor practice charges in 2003. His charges challenged the United Auto Worker (UAW) union’s nationwide policy of requiring employees to object annually in order to receive refunds of forced union dues spent for union political activities.

But the NLRB, with its reputation for dragging its feet, refused to rule on Mr. Gally’s precedent-setting case and punted the decision back to a Regional Director for further review.

As a result, Mr. Gally has no choice, like Mr. Prime, to wait longer for a ruling as union officials continue to enforce bogus hurdles designed solely to keep rank-and-file workers in line.

Union officials do not require the same of their members. So why do they require those employees – who do not want to pay for union political activities – to object every year?

The answer can surely be heard in the “cha-ching” of union bosses’ coffers.