Teamsters Play Hardball with Darigold

[Dru]

[AlpineK]

I support your right to join a union and bargain with management no matter which way you go Dick.

[Bronco]

Thanks for verifying what kind of people ironworkers are

 

 

Most ironworkers are gay...not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

C'mon now, that's not nice, check out this ironworker, does he appear to be the least bit gay?

 

 

Dick:

 

I have no problem for any person "standing up" for fair pay. That's your right. But, if you think intimidation of other workers is accomplishing that, you're as big a coward as the ironworkers we dealt with. In my case, your noble efforts to "stand up for fair wages" accomplished forging a negative attitude toward unions and arrogant ironworkers I'll have the rest of my life. I have a couple friends who are in construction trade unions and they seem to think it's a joke when you guys call for a "wobble" or some such half day off. It isn't 1930 anymore.

 

To tell you the truth, I haven't hired any Union contractors since I've been in property management and construction management for the last seven years. I don't plan on it any time soon either. What is it you think you and your brothers grand methods are accomplishing again?

[catbirdseat]

I don't know much about unions, not ever having worked where there was one, but I sure have been enjoying this thread. My college economics professor's take on unions was that there will always be some who gain and others who lose. Those with the most seniority gain through higher wages at the expense of those with the least seniority who lose their jobs first in a downturn. Those who join a union are betting that they will gain enough seniority fast enough that they aren't the ones to go at recession time.

[TBay]

big news! industrialists are moving to places where labor regulations are lacking. is this supposed to convince anyone that unions are bad? funny logic if you ask me.

your right and wrong.

 

right-industrialist find no problem with enslaving 12-yr old kids to mass produce goods. pure immoral greed.

 

wrong-I've worked union jobs in WA, now i work in utah (RTW). i had no bad experiences with co-workers only a few crusties when i occasionally picked up speed), it was the unnecessary union politics that jaded me. i've seen no differnce in the basics; safe work conditions, labor regulations, and wages/benefits that provide me well beyond my means, between WA and UT. why deal with the added hassle of unions when one can move to an RTW state where the competition ensures quality products and where the individual is rewarded for high productivity, effectiveness, 'outshining', etc...?

it reminds me of Shark Week: the shark is doin' its business, and here you have these lampreys (unions) that do nothing but latch on and leach off the shark.

 

-what would you expect from an anti-union think tank?

just because someone attempts to understand why union controlled Michigan is at the bottom of the unempl. rate barrel, he's automatically anti-, the enemy.

anyhow, i give you props for calling me out Bennett work (2001) with Lawrence Mishel work (i wont bother to research his funding source (union?)).

 

Bennett (2001) being corrected by Mishel ( late 2001), is an example of how science in general works. modern-day research is based off of errors presented in historical study couple with accruing data. so therefore, i will present a rebuttal (up to 2004) to Mishel's research-

http://www.nilrr.org/Real%20Earnings%20PDF%20masterupdate%20Feb04.pdf

http://www.nilrr.org/

 

and as jim pointed out, there is the issue of the real standard of living in rtw states as shown by poverty levels. why would the cost of living be lower in rtw states? wouldn't it be because people are poorer ...

could be, but poverty is a beast that has many variables. US history tells us that the southern states economically suffered, especially when cotton went global. the economic powerhouse (manufacturing) has always been in the north. nowadays, (the greatest poverty variable) politician pander the southern poor with promises of increased welfare if they return the favor with just a vote. Even, before the 1935 Taft-Hartley admendment (RTW Act)unions did very little for the south. even if industrialists moved shop to the south, would you think they would give up the stellar welfare benie's for work...shahhh right!

 

on the otherhand, unemployment is a function of business- i.e., business sinks = unemployment, business moves = unemployment, business takes profit loss = unemployment.

i, along with others, are still curious as to the close relationship of high unemployment and union controlled states.

 

never trust anything you read on the internet.

[richard_noggin]

The new unions are more of a temp pool now that no one has the right to wildcat strike.

Some unions are for security so when you get caught hoz'n the boss's wife you still have a job.

I like the old kickass days myself.

Carefull what you say , Things might not be what you think they are.

Personaly I could give a $#!T, Bronco I'm sorry for your bad time and I should not have let you and alpinwanker run this far, but I think you two might be going someplace you will not want to be.

[marylou]

BLS data is generally not a good yardstick. In contract negotiations we often prefer to not use their data. The CPI numbers are particulary problematic. The weighting system that they use to determine CPI is not all that accurate. That said, there is not a good alternative either. Just don't expect any argument made on BLS numbers to be very accurate either.

 

TBay as I have explained before, twice now I think, no one has to join or pay money that will be used to promote the political agenda of the union.

 

On these so-called union fat cats.....well, I've known a ton of union reps, and not a one of them is getting rich or buying houses in Park City.

[rbw1966]

TBay as I have explained before, twice now I think, no one has to join or pay money that will be used to promote the political agenda of the union.

 

What do union dues pay for then? Do they raise money seperately to promote political agendas and politicians they endorse? I'm largely ignorant of this subject and curious. My only experience with unions was vicariously through my brother who was FORCED to join the union (he absolutely had no choice if he wanted to work there) when he got a job as a bag-boy at Fred Meyer in Oregon in the early 80's.

 

On these so-called union fat cats.....well, I've known a ton of union reps, and not a one of them is getting rich or buying houses in Park City.

 

This runs contrary to what I have learned through an aquaintance who is a retired FBI agent. He has tons of stories about union leaders getting rich off of kickbacks from pension fund investments.

[Bronco]

Carefull what you say , Things might not be what you think they are. Personaly I could give a $#!T, Bronco I'm sorry for your bad time and I should not have let you and alpinwanker run this far, but I think you two might be going someplace you will not want to be.

 

I've already been there pal. I think your threats are pathetic, but entertaining none the less and prove the point that unions operate like organized crime, the ironworkers filling the role of street level thugs. I guess you guys get off on it though, so carry on.

[marylou]

 

What do union dues pay for then? Do they raise money seperately to promote political agendas and politicians they endorse? I'm largely ignorant of this subject and curious.

....

 

This runs contrary to what I have learned through an aquaintance who is a retired FBI agent. He has tons of stories about union leaders getting rich off of kickbacks from pension fund investments.

 

Here's what my dues pay for:

 

Hiring hall/dispatch

Office rent

Wages of dispatchers, Business Reps, Office staff

Office supplies and overhead

 

Here’s what I get:

Representation for collective bargaining, grievance/termination

Collectivized health care and retirement

 

We are, as all unions are, required to figure out what percentage of our expenditures goes toward things other than the things listed above, e.g. donating money to a political candidate. Let’s say it came out to be .05% in a particular year. So if you were a worker somewhere who didn’t want to join the union, you would pay 99.5%, to my 100% as a full union member. As an objector, you are getting all of the benefits (collective bargaining, representation, health and retirement), but not paying for the union to contribute to political causes you may not agree with.

 

In the case of my local, we have a separate fund for charity donations so you won’t be paying into that either. Apprenticeship stands alone, as does the Defense Fund. I don't think Beck objectors have to pay into the Defense Fund.

 

Rob, I hope that’s enough information to make it make sense to you. There are intricacies to the Beck laws that I’m not familiar with, as I’ve never had to work on crunching the numbers to get that % determined. Apparently it’s a big pain in the butt though.

 

This whole thing with Business Reps and pension skimming is something I can in no way speak to. More and more unions, mine included, have 401(k) plans administered by the rules described in Taft/Hartley. I think the only people who could embezzle from one of those is perhaps the administrator. Besides the very public Enron thing, I’ve not heard of 401(k) plans being stolen from, and in the Enron case it was not some union rep doing it!

[rbw1966]

I didn't say anyone was stealing from pension funds. I said they were receiving kickbacks from investment managers for investing in their funds.

 

Thanks for the explanation on where dues go.

[marylou]

OK, I don't know how a defined benefit plan works in terms of managing the investments. In the case of a defined contribution plan (like a 401K), the investments are directed by the individual.

 

So what you are saying is in a defined benefit plan, the union reps determine where the funds are invested? That seems nutty. Wouldn't it be a board of Trustees? If so, is it these people who are getting kickbacks? That's pretty fucked if it's true. Can you give me an example or two of this happening?

[catbirdseat]

I didn't say anyone was stealing from pension funds. I said they were receiving kickbacks from investment managers for investing in their funds.

 

Thanks for the explanation on where dues go.

Clearly, the union members stand to lose from this as the managers are not investing in the funds that give the best return to the investors, but rather the ones with the greatest kickbacks.

[rbw1966]

OK, I don't know how a defined benefit plan works in terms of managing the investments. In the case of a defined contribution plan (like a 401K), the investments are directed by the individual.

 

But your choices are limited to who manages the 401K plan

 

So what you are saying is in a defined benefit plan, the union reps determine where the funds are invested? That seems nutty. Wouldn't it be a board of Trustees? If so, is it these people who are getting kickbacks? That's pretty fucked if it's true. Can you give me an example or two of this happening?

 

I'm merely relating war stories from a retired FBI agent who worked on RICO enforcement. He told me the big game in town was union officials receiving kickbacks over pension funds. I'll let you do the leg work in verifying it.

 

I'm not a big fan of unions now. I realize the benefits workers reap now from past union activities but they seem pretty stale and ineffective now. Just look at the Safeway strike.

[richard_noggin]

Ok let me spell it out

I'm not an ironworker so I don't care , if you trash a whole profession I wood be carefull, no threat just thinking of you. Some of them might read this , I ask around, I don't think this is the kind of people you wood want to piss off, but if want to go on and on making a ass of yourself... have at it , I personaly want no part of any because your ego got hurt long ago.

Dude just let it go!

[Bronco]

Dude just let it go!

 

NEVER!!!

[richard_noggin]

Dude just let it go!

 

NEVER!!!

 

Dude a wet match wood touch you off.

Are any of your xwifes still alive

Like to stay and play but gota go.

DICK

[Bronco]

[Wopper]

The Mafia has a well established track record in the unions. Read a book about any of the mob bosses(Gotti, Luciano, Genovese, etc, etc.) and they ran the unions, usually with made guys that were BA's and Presidents of the the local. I have worked with electricians(IBEW) that have stories about paying some guy in the back of a Lincoln Town Car for allowing them to work that week. Payday was on Thursday and the Town Car would be at the gates of the jobsite at quitting time on Friday.

Granted, most of the stories come from the east coast but organized crime and organized labor have a long history of working hand in hand.

That being said I have worked on the management side of construction(all union shops) in the Seattle area for the past 9 years and there are pros and cons on both sides.

[j_b]

just because someone attempts to understand why union controlled Michigan is at the bottom of the unempl. rate barrel, he's automatically anti-, the enemy.

 

anyone can do a web search and find their goal is to promote an anti-union pov

 

so therefore, i will present a rebuttal (up to 2004) to Mishel's research-

http://www.nilrr.org/Real%20Earnings%20PDF%20masterupdate%20Feb04.pdf

http://www.nilrr.org/

 

this is not a rebuttal. the piece does not address the main point made by mishel:"Unlike previous research by Bennett (2001), we find that, even after controlling for regional costs of living, workers in right-to-work states earn less per hour. Particularly interesting is the affect on workers living in cities that are stretch across state line, placing it in both a right-to-work state and a non-RTW state. Seventeen out of 433 metropolitan areas in our sample (nearly 4%) spill over from a right-to-work state to a non-RTW state. Our analysis indicates that, in areas where a pure RTW state effect exists (i.e., no spill-over effect), the right-to-work penalty is larger (see Table 3). In fact, we find that living near a non -RTW state helps raise workers' wages."

 

the piece you referred to essentially rehashes the argument made by bennett based on new data. but i should add, they apparently can't compute. 3 out of 4 averages i checked are wrong and by quite a bit. i don't have to tell you which pov the 'computing' errors favor .... interestingly i could spot the errors with the naked eye since they were so gross.

 

anyhow, cost of living is directly tied to the overall attractiveness/economic health of the places mentioned and minimally to union presence, so the entire argument seems ridiculous to me. and people usually do derive benefits from paying taxes, so i don't see why they should be deducted to compute real wage (you can live in the middle of nowhere and pay little taxes but you surely won't have the same services than if you lived in seattle for example).

 

"In a study of Colorado’s “modified” right-to-work statute published in the University of Colorado Law Review (1999, Wol. 70, pp. 871-952), we concluded that public policy does not support enactment of such legislation. Colorado’s law produced no measurable ben-efits in terms of economic growth or income, nor was it consistent with basic principles of democratic governance. Right-to-work states are more likely to have an anti-union climate than are union-security states, and they also have lower union membership density and lower per capita income. Although there is evidence to suggest right to work laws generate some growth in manufacturing employment, that growth does not result in higher wages for a state’s workers. Moreover, other research shows that the enactment of right-to-work legislation shifts the distribution of income from wages to profits.

On the whole, right-to-work legislation provides no discernible overall economic advantage to a state, but it does impose significant social costs. The role of unions in our economy is a matter of important policy debate. State right-to-work laws, however, are not an appropriate tool for regulating unions under the guise of economic development.

— RAYMOND HOGLER

STEVEN SHULMAN

STEPHAN WEILER

Ray Hogler is a professor of management at Colorado State University.

 

Steven J. Shulman is a professor of economics and Director of the Center for the Study of Colorado Labor

Market Policy at Colorado State University.

 

Stephan Weiler is an associate professor and regional economist in the Economics Department at Colorado

State University, and the co-director of the university’s Center for Research on the Colorado Economy

(CRCE).

 

 

"In this globalized economy, dependence on cheap labor as fuel for regional economic growth is foolish and shortsighted. Real and sustained economic growth is possible only by encouraging firms to invest more of their earnings in new capital and training. Government can help by identifying and supporting firms and industries that opt to take a high-road, long-term approach. Public policies like the right-to-work initiative have nothing to do with economic development. The right-to-work referendum is a right-to-profit referendum designed to maintain corporate profits by undermining workers and their families. The irony is that, not only will workers lose, but in the absence of groups like unions—who are able to pressure firms to invest more in their employees—profits and productivity also will eventually fall victim."

— MARK CASSELL

Mark Cassell teaches courses in public policy and political economy.

[marylou]

But your choices are limited to who manages the 401K plan

 

Yep. I actually was the one who put together our 401(k) plan. What's your point/question/issue? This is how I did ours: did some research, made some decisions, discussed it with the membership, signed the paper. Our decision was based on a number of factors.

 

I'm merely relating war stories from a retired FBI agent who worked on RICO enforcement. He told me the big game in town was union officials receiving kickbacks over pension funds. I'll let you do the leg work in verifying it.

 

Now why on earth would I be interested in verifying/proving your claim for you?

 

If you're going to trash unions, try to do it based on factual information.

[rbw1966]

Yep. I actually was the one who put together our 401(k) plan. What's your point/question/issue?

 

I was replying to your earlier comment re how plans are managed. Contributions may be directed by the individual but the very choices presented are controlled by whomever is directing the plan.

 

Now why on earth would I be interested in verifying/proving your claim for you?

 

As I pointed out a few times, I was relating a story told to me. You wanted ME to provide examples. I would argue that if you want something go get it yourself. I made no claims on accuracy although I doubt he'd have any reason to lie to me. At any rate, see below.

 

If you're going to trash unions, try to do it based on factual information.

 

You have your experiences, I have mine. However, for the sake of argument feel free to check out the following FACTUAL information:

 

Trio Indicted for Racketeering, Pension Fund Kickbacks, And Money Laundering in Connection With Pension Fund Kickback Scheme

 

FBI Lists Evidence Seized in Union Case

 

UTD leaders had secret pension fund

 

[marylou]

Yep. I actually was the one who put together our 401(k) plan. What's your point/question/issue?

 

I was replying to your earlier comment re how plans are managed. Contributions may be directed by the individual but the very choices presented are controlled by whomever is directing the plan.

 

That's correct. Whether there is a union involved or not that is the case.

 

In our case. I did the legwork for both labor and management, and the care and feeding of the program is taken care of by people from both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TBay]

anyone can do a web search and find their goal is to promote an anti-union pov

opposition in all things. anyone can do a web search and find their goal is to promote the union agenda.

 

 

inside the economic department, as with economic departments of anyother university, one would almost be guaranteed opposing opinions on the matter. like web-based policy centers, college research is and has been influenced with funding by special interest groups.

 

you,ve answered my question on why the curious relationship between union states and above-national-average unemployment rates.

j_b said-

big news! industrialists are moving to places where labor regulations are lacking. is this supposed to convince anyone that unions are bad? funny logic if you ask me.

 

TBay responded-

your right and wrong.

right-industrialist find no problem with enslaving 12-yr old kids to mass produce goods. pure immoral greed.

 

wrong-I've worked union jobs in WA, now i work in utah (RTW). i had no bad experiences with co-workers only a few crusties when i occasionally picked up speed), it was the unnecessary union politics that jaded me. i've seen no differnce between WA and UT in the basics; safe work conditions, labor regulations, and wages/benefits that provide me well beyond my means. why deal with the added hassle of unions when one can move to an RTW state where the competition ensures quality products and where the individual is rewarded for high productivity, effectiveness, 'outshining', etc...?

 

i finished shootin' from the hip with you. i'm treadin' deeper into the socio-economic waters with which i become increasingly unfamiliar with.

 

marylou,

TBay as I have explained before, twice now I think, no one has to join or pay money that will be used to promote the political agenda of the union.

let liberal/union operated newsources like the New York Times, LA Times, etc, tell you that your wrong.

(forgive me j_b, but this is a non-scientific unopinionated news-article database)

http://www.stopunionpoliticalabuse.org/Frames/news.htm

 

 

On these so-called union fat cats.....well, I've known a ton of union reps, and not a one of them is getting rich or buying houses in Park City.

i'm not suprised that you would completely defend union reps and deny any wrongdoing. as would:

-every active pro-baseball and pro-football player denying that their is absolutely no steroid abuse occuring, despite that fact subtle comments are made by retired players and the now federal case involving 'roid distribution to Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Romanowski, etc...

-every mexican in a social security card line anywhere in SoCal denying there illegal entrance, despite the fact that they have zero proof/documentation of legal admittance.

 

need i say more on the topic... if i have to tell you a second time i'll make catbirdseat the proud progenitor of the longest cc.com thread ever. how many pages did dan hewitt have?

 

never trust anything you read on the internet

good night

[marylou]

TBay, any news source that says that unions can do this is either wrong, or telling you about a union that is not complying with the law. A union can't legally compel a person to do that. Below is a big boring pile of NLRB information that should be enough to convince you that the Beck ruling is real and not just a figment of my imagination.

 

If you want to see more on whether unions can use your dues for political purposes without your consent, just Google Beck+objector, and you should find all the information you need.

 

We went over this once in simple terms, here it is in more deatail. It was good for me to go fin the info and have a look for my own edification.

 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

 

MEMORANDUM GC 01-04 April 6, 2001

 

TO: All Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and

 

Resident Officers

 

FROM: Leonard R. Page, Acting General Counsel

 

 

 

SUBJECT: Guidelines for Response to Beck-Related Public Inquiries

 

We anticipate, based on President Bush’s February 17, 2001 Executive Order, that there may be an increased number of public inquiries concerning Beck and related union-security issues. To assist the public in understanding these matters, we have prepared the attached reference guide consisting of proposed responses to typical inquiries. This material is designed as a guide for information officers in responding to such inquiries and will help ensure that the Agency is providing accurate and complete information to the public concerning this topic.

 

Copies of this guide are being placed on the NLRB Field Offices electronic bulletin board, and on the NLRB intranet and website. Each person who serves as information officer should be familiar with the contents.

 

Since this reference guide does not purport to identify and address all possible questions which may arise in this area, Regions may wish to expand upon it as deemed appropriate. However, the Regions should coordinate any such expansion or addition with the Division of Advice to ensure that the Regions’ views are consistent with positions taken by the Office of the General Counsel.

 

Any questions concerning this should be directed to the Division of Advice or your Assistant General Counsel.

 

/s/

 

L. R. P.

 

Attachment

 

Distribution:

 

Regional - All Professional Employees, NLRBU

 

cc: NLRBU

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON TYPICAL

UNION-SECURITY AND BECK ISSUES

 

 

Following is a series of typical questions and answers which may be posed to Board agents concerning the Supreme Court’s decision in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), or other issues relating to union-security obligations.

 

This material is designed to serve as a desk reference in responding to public inquiries. As always, if there is any uncertainty about how to respond to a public inquiry, the Board agent should secure a phone number from the caller and call back after consulting with a supervisor to obtain the necessary information.

 

1. What is a union-security obligation?

 

The proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements requiring all employees in a particular bargaining unit to become “members” on or after the 30th day following being hired.[1] In a 1963 decision, NLRB v. General Motors Corporation, 373 U.S. 734, 53 LRRM 2313, the Supreme Court held that the term “member” requires only the payment of periodic dues and fees as opposed to full membership. Since the Court noted that “the membership that is required has been whittled down to its financial core”[2], individuals choosing that approach are often referred to as “financial core members.” Thus, under current law, no one has to be a member of a union in order to maintain a job, but all employees subject to a union security obligation can be required to pay union dues and fees. The Board in Paperworkers Local 1033 (Weyerhauser Paper Co.), 320 NLRB 349 (1995), held that a union must give employees notice of their General Motors rights before seeking to obligate employees under a union-security clause.

 

A number of states have exercised their option under Section 14(b) of the Act to pass legislation outlawing union-security agreements. Such legislation is commonly referred to as a “right-to-work” law. States currently having such laws include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana (agricultural workers only), Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. Employees working in states with “right-to-work” laws cannot be required to pay union dues and fees under a so-called "union-shop" clause, unless they are employed on a federal enclave.

 

2. What did the Supreme Court hold in Beck?

 

In Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, which allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements, does not “permit a union, over the objections of dues-paying nonmember employees, to expend funds so collected [pursuant to a union-security clause] on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration or grievance adjustment.” The Court also concluded that “such expenditures violate the union’s duty of fair representation.”

 

3. What are an employee’s rights and a union’s obligations under Beck?

 

In order to be eligible for Beck rights, an employee (1) must be a nonmember and (2) must be covered by a union-security clause in a collective-bargaining agreement.

 

In general terms, a union’s obligations under Beck are to provide notice to nonmember employees of their Beck rights; to refrain from charging objectors for nonrepresentational expenses; to provide objectors with a financial disclosure; and to establish procedures for objectors to challenge the accuracy of the union’s disclosure.

 

Initial Notice

 

A union’s initial obligation under Beck is to inform the employee that he has the right to be or remain a nonmember, subject only to the duty to pay initiation fees and dues,[3] and that nonmembers have the right (1) to object to paying for union activities not germane to the union’s duties as bargaining agent and to obtain a reduction in fees for such activities; (2) to be given sufficient information to enable the employee to intelligently decide whether to object; (3) to be apprised of any internal union procedures for filing objections.[4]

 

This initial Beck notice must be given at or before the time the union first seeks to obligate a nonmember employee under the terms of the union-security agreement.[5] In addition, a union member employee must be provided with an initial Beck notice if he did not receive notice at the time he entered the bargaining unit.[6] The initial notice requirement is satisfied by giving the unit employee notice once and is not a continuing requirement.[7] The Board does not require the initial Beck notice to be in any particular form as long as the union has made reasonable efforts to notify employees of their Beck rights.[8]

 

Treatment of “objectors”

 

A union has no further obligation under Beck until a nonmember employee objects to paying that portion of dues which covers nonrepresentational expenses. Such employees are often referred to as “objectors.” Generally, a union may require that objections be sent to the union during a specified annual “window period.”[9] However, a union cannot require that objections be sent by registered or certified mail, or that employees mail objections individually rather than consolidating several objections in one envelope.[10]

 

Once a nonmember employee “objects,” a union must refrain from charging him for that portion of dues which is expended for nonrepresentational functions. The union must also apprise the objector of the percentage of reduction in fees for objecting nonmembers, the basis for the union’s calculation, and the right to challenge these figures.[11] The information the union provides to an objector must be sufficient to enable the objector to determine whether to challenge the union’s allocations.[12] Thus, a union must provide a summary of major categories of “chargeable” and “nonchargeable” expenditures, but need not provide detailed supporting schedules.[13] In addition, the union must verify by audit that the expenditures claimed were actually made.[14]

 

Challenge

 

An objector may challenge the union’s allocation of representational and nonrepresentational expenditures. A union must provide “reasonable procedures” enabling objectors to file such challenges.[15] A union’s challenge procedure must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or administered in bad faith.[16]

 

The above is, of necessity, a general description of an employee’s rights and a union’s obligations under Beck. It is beyond the scope of this reference guide to cover the many issues which may arise with respect to these obligations. Issues concerning any of the above procedures may be raised in the form of appropriate unfair labor practice charges.

 

4. What expenses are “nonrepresentational?”

 

In Beck, the Court held that Section 8(a)(3) does not permit unions to expend funds, over the objection of the nonmember employees, on activities “unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment.” The Board and courts must determine, in contested cases, which specific functions fall within these categories. Generally, expenses incurred for activities within the objector's bargaining unit are chargeable if they are “germane” to the union’s representational role. Expenses attributable to activities outside the objector’s bargaining unit – “extra-unit” expenses – may be charged if, in addition to being “germane” to the union’s representational role, they are incurred for services that may ultimately inure to the benefit of the members of the local union by virtue of their membership in the parent organization.[17]

 

The Board has held that organizing expenses may be charged to Beck objectors, at least to the extent the organizing is within the same competitive market as that of the bargaining unit employer.[18] The Board has found that “economists generally agree that there is a positive relationship between the extent of unionization of employees in an industry or locality and negotiated wage rates.”[19]

 

The Office of the General Counsel has taken the position that lobbying expenses generally are nonrepresentational. The Board has not yet determined whether lobbying expenses are representational or nonrepresentational.[20] With regard to a union’s litigation expenses, the Board has held that they might be considered representational if they are germane to the union’s role in collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance settlement.[21]

 

Employees believing that any aspect of a union’s Beck policies are unlawful may, as always, raise this issue by filing an unfair labor practice charge.

 

5. What if a union seeks the discharge of an employee for nonpayment of dues, where the union has not complied with its Beck or General Motors obligations?

 

If a union requests that an employer discharge an employee for alleged nonpayment of dues without the union having afforded Beck or General Motors rights, the union’s action may violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act. The employee may file an appropriate unfair labor practice charge.

 

6. What did President Bush’s February 17, 2001 Executive Order provide?

 

The Executive Order, a copy of which is attached, requires all federal agencies to begin including in their contracts a provision obligating the contracting employer to post workplace notices informing employees of Beck rights. The Order will be effective April 18, 2001, and will be administered by the Department of Labor.

 

7. What if the employer or the employee is not covered by the NLRA?

 

The Executive Order covers not only employees who are covered by the NLRA but also those who may be covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). As usual, inquiries by employees covered under the RLA should be referred to the nearest office of the National Mediation Board.

 

8. What if an employee inquires whether he or she may resign from a union, despite restrictions on such resignations in the union’s constitution or by-laws?

 

The Supreme Court held, in a 1985 case, Pattern Makers League v. NLRB (Rockford-Beloit Pattern Jobbers), 473 U.S. 95, that an employee is free to resign from “full” union membership at any time. You should inform the employee that any resignation should be made in such a way so as to leave no doubt of intent. The employee should also be advised of his/her right to file a charge with respect to any action by the union to prevent the resignation. Similarly, the employee has the option of challenging, through an unfair labor practice charge, the legality of any restriction in the union constitution or by-laws concerning resignation.

 

9. What if an employee advises you that his religion prevents him/her from joining a labor organization and inquires whether he/she is still required to pay union-security dues?

 

Section 19 of the Act[22] provides that “any employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets...or teachings of a bona fide religion, body or sect which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting labor organizations shall not be required to join or financially support any labor organization as a condition of employment....” However, Section 19 also provides that such employees may be required, in lieu of periodic dues, to pay sums equal to such dues to a “nonreligious, nonlabor organization charitable fund exempt from taxation under...the Internal Revenue Code chosen by the employee from a list of at least three such funds designated in the contract or if the contract fails to designate such funds then to any such fund chosen by the employee.”

 

The Office of the General Counsel has not yet considered whether Beck has any impact on Section 19. Those wishing to raise that or any other issue concerning Section 19 may, as always, do so by filing an unfair labor practice charge.

 

EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS CONCERNING PAYMENT OF UNION DUES OR FEES

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 471 et seq., and in order to ensure the economical and efficient administration and completion of Government contracts, it is hereby ordered that:

 

Section 1. (a) This order is designed to promote economy and efficiency in Government procurement. When workers are better informed of their rights, including their rights under the Federal labor laws, their productivity is enhanced. The availability of such a workforce from which the United States may draw facilitates the efficient and economical completion of its procurement contracts.

 

(b) The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this order. The Secretary shall adopt such rules and regulations and issue such orders as are deemed necessary and appropriate to achieve the purposes of this order.

 

Sec. 2. (a) Except in contracts exempted in accordance with section 3 of this order, all Government contracting departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, include the following provisions in every Govern-ment contract, other than collective bargaining agreements as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(8) and purchases under the "Simplified Acquisition Threshold" as defined in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).

 

1. During the term of this contract, the contractor agrees to post a notice, of such size and in such form as the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe, in conspicuous places in and about its plants and offices, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The notice shall include the following information (except that the last sentence shall not be included in notices posted in the plants or offices of carriers subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188)):

 

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

 

Under Federal law, employees cannot be required to join a union or maintain membership in a union in order to retain their jobs. Under certain conditions, the law permits a union and an employer to enter into a union-security agree-ment requiring employees to pay uniform periodic dues and initiation fees. However, employees who are not union members can object to the use of their payments for certain purposes and can only be required to pay their share of union costs relating to col-lective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

 

"If you do not want to pay that portion of dues or fees used to support activities not related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment, you are entitled to an appropriate reduction in your payment. If you believe that you have been required to pay dues or fees used in part to support activities not related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment, you may be entitled to a refund and to an appropriate reduction in future payments.