Politics > Politics-USA > NRTW: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
09 Apr 2004 12:54:47 PM |
| Object: |
NRTW: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
======================================================
April 6, 2004
======================================================
UAW’S NATIONAL AGREEMENT WITH "BIG THREE"
CHALLENGED FOR ILLEGALLY REQUIRING SUPPLIERS
TO HELP UNIONIZE EMPLOYEES
Union hit with federal charges for establishing
"secondary boycott" arrangement
.......................................................
http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=306
.......................................................
Washington, D.C. (April 6, 2004) -- Two Dana Corp.
employees today filed federal charges challenging an
unlawful provision within the master agreement between
the "Big Three" auto makers (General Motors, Daimler
Chrysler, and Ford) and the United Auto Workers (UAW)
union that pressures "tier one" suppliers to help
forcibly unionize employees.
The charges attack an increasingly common "top-down"
organizing tactic that is used to short-circuit
traditional grassroots-driven union organizing drives
and bypass the less-abusive secret ballot election
process. The workers allege that the UAW union’s
"good corporate citizen policy" and other contract
clauses are, in effect, an illegal "secondary boycott"
provision that requires "Big Three" parts suppliers to
assist union organizers or lose their significant
sales contracts.
With free legal aid from attorneys with the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Dana Corp.
workers Gary Smeltzer and Joseph Montague filed the
charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
against the UAW union. Smeltzer and Montague,
employees at Dana Corp.’s St. Johns, Michigan, plant
currently face a UAW union organizing drive
precipitated by the national agreement.
Facing pressure from the "Big Three" and the "good
corporate citizen policy," Dana signed a so-called
"neutrality agreement" with the UAW. The agreement
requires the company to deny employees an opportunity
to vote in a traditional secret ballot election, gives
union organizers employees’ private information
including home addresses, and subjects employees to a
highly coercive card-check recognition process which
includes "home visits" and other intimidation of
employees into signing the cards. (If a majority of
the employees are successfully pressured to sign the
cards, the union hierarchy is granted "exclusive
representation" power and the employees are ultimately
forced to pay union dues as a condition of
employment.)
"The UAW union’s so-called ‘good corporate citizen
policy’ is nothing more than a coded statement that if
you do not grease the skids for unionization at your
company, you will lose your business with the Big
Three," said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the
National Right to Work Foundation. "Since employees
are increasingly less likely to opt in favor of
unionization when actually given a chance to vote
their consciences, union organizers have resorted to
harassment, bullying, and other tactics."
The NLRB’s regional director will investigate the
employees’ unfair labor practice charges and decide
whether to issue a formal complaint.
======================================================
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
8001 Braddock Road | Springfield, VA 22160
http://www.nrtw.org | (800) 336-3600
======================================================
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is
a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free
legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights
have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The
Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees
in close to 300 cases nationwide. Its web address is:
http://www.nrtw.org/
........................................................
To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to:
http://www.nrtw.org/listinfo.php3
........................................................
(C) 2004, NRTWLDF
--
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
09 Apr 2004 02:03:02 PM |
|
|
"challenging an unlawful provision" in the first sentence ... now there's some
unbiased journalism
"James" <litehaus1776@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:4076d557_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
======================================================
April 6, 2004
======================================================
UAW'S NATIONAL AGREEMENT WITH "BIG THREE"
CHALLENGED FOR ILLEGALLY REQUIRING SUPPLIERS
TO HELP UNIONIZE EMPLOYEES
Union hit with federal charges for establishing
"secondary boycott" arrangement
......................................................
http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=306
......................................................
Washington, D.C. (April 6, 2004) -- Two Dana Corp.
employees today filed federal charges challenging an
unlawful provision within the master agreement between
the "Big Three" auto makers (General Motors, Daimler
Chrysler, and Ford) and the United Auto Workers (UAW)
union that pressures "tier one" suppliers to help
forcibly unionize employees.
The charges attack an increasingly common "top-down"
organizing tactic that is used to short-circuit
traditional grassroots-driven union organizing drives
and bypass the less-abusive secret ballot election
process. The workers allege that the UAW union's
"good corporate citizen policy" and other contract
clauses are, in effect, an illegal "secondary boycott"
provision that requires "Big Three" parts suppliers to
assist union organizers or lose their significant
sales contracts.
With free legal aid from attorneys with the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Dana Corp.
workers Gary Smeltzer and Joseph Montague filed the
charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
against the UAW union. Smeltzer and Montague,
employees at Dana Corp.'s St. Johns, Michigan, plant
currently face a UAW union organizing drive
precipitated by the national agreement.
Facing pressure from the "Big Three" and the "good
corporate citizen policy," Dana signed a so-called
"neutrality agreement" with the UAW. The agreement
requires the company to deny employees an opportunity
to vote in a traditional secret ballot election, gives
union organizers employees' private information
including home addresses, and subjects employees to a
highly coercive card-check recognition process which
includes "home visits" and other intimidation of
employees into signing the cards. (If a majority of
the employees are successfully pressured to sign the
cards, the union hierarchy is granted "exclusive
representation" power and the employees are ultimately
forced to pay union dues as a condition of
employment.)
"The UAW union's so-called 'good corporate citizen
policy' is nothing more than a coded statement that if
you do not grease the skids for unionization at your
company, you will lose your business with the Big
Three," said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the
National Right to Work Foundation. "Since employees
are increasingly less likely to opt in favor of
unionization when actually given a chance to vote
their consciences, union organizers have resorted to
harassment, bullying, and other tactics."
The NLRB's regional director will investigate the
employees' unfair labor practice charges and decide
whether to issue a formal complaint.
======================================================
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
8001 Braddock Road | Springfield, VA 22160
http://www.nrtw.org | (800) 336-3600
======================================================
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is
a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free
legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights
have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The
Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees
in close to 300 cases nationwide. Its web address is:
http://www.nrtw.org/
.......................................................
To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to:
http://www.nrtw.org/listinfo.php3
.......................................................
(C) 2004, NRTWLDF
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
09 Apr 2004 04:45:13 PM |
|
|
In article <24f7af9dd272535161498e40da11ed8f@news.teranews.com>, says...
I assume you're being sarcastic. There is no pretense of the source
being unbiased; it's a press release from the
National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation
homepage--><http://www.nrtw.org>
"challenging an unlawful provision" in the first sentence ... now there's some
unbiased journalism
"James" <litehaus1776@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:4076d557_3@newspeer2.tds.net...
======================================================
April 6, 2004
======================================================
UAW'S NATIONAL AGREEMENT WITH "BIG THREE"
CHALLENGED FOR ILLEGALLY REQUIRING SUPPLIERS
TO HELP UNIONIZE EMPLOYEES
Union hit with federal charges for establishing
"secondary boycott" arrangement
......................................................
http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=306
......................................................
<SNIP>
--
..
"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's
realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. "
..
-Hon. Ron Paul of Texas, 7/10/2003, "Neo-CONNED"
..
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osama Bin Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for IllegallyRequiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
09 Apr 2004 05:17:38 PM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
"challenging an unlawful provision" in the first sentence ... now there's some
unbiased journalism
But correct. Forced union membership is illegal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
10 Apr 2004 09:02:44 AM |
|
|
"Osama Bin Kerry" <obk@osama.net> wrote in message
news:RSOdc.22906$Nn4.4024677@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Michael Legel wrote:
They haven't been "busted" ... they have been accused ... there IS a
difference.
The CWA got busted. Like I said, check out the Beck ruling. Check out
how many times CWA locals have been convicted of violating it even
though it was the CWA that lost the case at the Supreme Court level in
the first place.
Is it impossible for you to stick to one subject at a time? We WERE talking
about the UAW. You are pitiful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osama Bin Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for IllegallyRequiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
10 Apr 2004 09:46:24 AM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
Is it impossible for you to stick to one subject at a time? We WERE talking
about the UAW. You are pitiful.
The UAW and CWA are unions. Same subject.
The UAW has gotten slapped down as well due to the Beck ruling
http://www.abc.org/newsline/april252003/becknl25.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
10 Apr 2004 10:07:47 AM |
|
|
"Osama Bin Kerry" <obk@osama.net> wrote in message
news:4NTdc.31853$WA4.21383@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Michael Legel wrote:
Is it impossible for you to stick to one subject at a time? We WERE
talking
about the UAW. You are pitiful.
The UAW and CWA are unions. Same subject.
The UAW has gotten slapped down as well due to the Beck ruling
http://www.abc.org/newsline/april252003/becknl25.html
Oh good Lord! You are simply a joke you know that? Citations from one
anti-union spam cite after another to shore up your despicably shallow claims.
Did you even bother to read this tripe before you posted the link? It has
more to do with our current dictator's wish to usurp worker rights than to
enforce them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osama Bin Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for IllegallyRequiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
10 Apr 2004 10:29:15 AM |
|
|
Michael Legel wrote:
Oh good Lord! You are simply a joke you know that? Citations from one
anti-union spam cite after another to shore up your despicably shallow claims.
Did you even bother to read this tripe before you posted the link? It has
more to do with our current dictator's wish to usurp worker rights than to
enforce them.
It describes Bush's protecting the rights of govt employees from
predatory unions unlike our last dicktator, president bj.
Bush is just implementing policy consistent with the Beck Ruling.
Too bad some government union doesn't try something clever so we can
have PATCO II.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hawth Hill" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged forIllegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
10 Apr 2004 11:35:12 AM |
|
|
in article DVOdc.22907$Nn4.4024796@twister.nyc.rr.com, Osama Bin Kerry at
obk@osama.net wrote on 04/10/2004 10:14 AM:
Typical. Spin a loss as a victory.
Ah, I see. Sarcasm and derision as substitutes for reason or persuasion.
Implying that others are biased.
Well, it then seems only fair to inquire into just how unbiased you are.
You obviously regard it as oppressive for a union to spend monies derived
from dues of members to further political aims of the union, without
affording those members with notice and opportunity to opt out of any such
shared expenses. Well, fair enough.
Do you also support the right of a corporation's shareholders to receive
notice of expenses incurred by the corporation in furtherance of political
activities and persuasion, plus the right of such shareholders to opt out of
such expenses? If not, please explain why others should not regard you and
your views as biased. Why isn't such a right for shareholders correlative?
Is there some reason why you so vehemently oppose the notion that employees
should have a means to engage in collective bargaining, based upon
industrial democracy? You don't deny that you do oppose it, do you?
By the way, have you even read Beck? Or _any_ of its progeny? Or Vaca vs.
Sipes? Or even Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act?
HH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osama Bin Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for IllegallyRequiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
10 Apr 2004 03:53:22 PM |
|
|
Hawth Hill wrote:
You obviously regard it as oppressive for a union to spend monies derived
from dues of members to further political aims of the union, without
affording those members with notice and opportunity to opt out of any such
shared expenses. Well, fair enough.
Do you also support the right of a corporation's shareholders to receive
notice of expenses incurred by the corporation in furtherance of political
activities and persuasion, plus the right of such shareholders to opt out of
such expenses? If not, please explain why others should not regard you and
your views as biased. Why isn't such a right for shareholders correlative?
I wouldn't be opposed to such a policy. Problem is it has been against
the law for years for unions to extract money from members pockets for
political purposes without member's agreement. It's still fairly common
to read of a union being ordered to stop doing that.
Is there some reason why you so vehemently oppose the notion that employees
should have a means to engage in collective bargaining, based upon
industrial democracy? You don't deny that you do oppose it, do you?
Basically, collective bargaining all to often turns into collective
thuggery, especially on the picket lines.
By the way, have you even read Beck? Or _any_ of its progeny? Or Vaca vs.
Sipes? Or even Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act?
I've browsed them and know enough about them that it's illegal to force
an employee to be a member of a union. Another law unions break on a
regular basis. Thus Bush's executive order informing employees of their
rights, since unions so conveniently forget to do so.
HH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hawth Hill" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged forIllegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
10 Apr 2004 06:01:18 PM |
|
|
in article 69Zdc.31935$WA4.10000@twister.nyc.rr.com, Osama Bin Kerry at
obk@osama.net wrote on 04/10/2004 9:53 PM:
Do you also support the right of a corporation's shareholders to receive
notice of expenses incurred by the corporation in furtherance of political
activities and persuasion, plus the right of such shareholders to opt out of
such expenses? If not, please explain why others should not regard you and
your views as biased. Why isn't such a right for shareholders correlative?
I wouldn't be opposed to such a policy. Problem is it has been against
the law for years for unions to extract money from members pockets for
political purposes without member's agreement. It's still fairly common
to read of a union being ordered to stop doing that.
Thus, I infer that you oppose _ANY_ organization charging its members fees
for membership and then using a portion of those fees for purposes not
previously disclosed and agreed to by the member, right? Especially if
membership in the organization is associated with important financial
benefits for the member?
Many might argue with some justification that stockholders fall into
precisely that class. So, too, might policy holders of an insurance
company, or customers of utilities, or numerous other examples that might be
drawn.
But, I have no quarrel with your right to believe as you do.
I do, however, dispute your assertion that union members' Beck rights are
still often violated. Now, roughly 15 years post-Beck, I see very, very few
cases being reported by the Board or the courts in this area. And, no, I do
not regard executive orders by political parties as equivalent to evidence
of such continuing violations. And, that, of course, is my right.
HH
.
|
|
|
| User: "tmurph2" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
11 Apr 2004 09:42:24 AM |
|
|
Hawth Hill <HawthHill@ExPat.com> wrote in message news:<BC9E3B4E.339A2%HawthHill@ExPat.com>...
in article 69Zdc.31935$WA4.10000@twister.nyc.rr.com, Osama Bin Kerry at
obk@osama.net wrote on 04/10/2004 9:53 PM:
Do you also support the right of a corporation's shareholders to receive
notice of expenses incurred by the corporation in furtherance of political
activities and persuasion, plus the right of such shareholders to opt out of
such expenses? If not, please explain why others should not regard you and
your views as biased. Why isn't such a right for shareholders correlative?
I wouldn't be opposed to such a policy. Problem is it has been against
the law for years for unions to extract money from members pockets for
political purposes without member's agreement. It's still fairly common
to read of a union being ordered to stop doing that.
Thus, I infer that you oppose _ANY_ organization charging its members fees
for membership and then using a portion of those fees for purposes not
previously disclosed and agreed to by the member, right? Especially if
membership in the organization is associated with important financial
benefits for the member?
Many might argue with some justification that stockholders fall into
precisely that class. So, too, might policy holders of an insurance
company, or customers of utilities, or numerous other examples that might be
drawn.
But, I have no quarrel with your right to believe as you do.
I do, however, dispute your assertion that union members' Beck rights are
still often violated. Now, roughly 15 years post-Beck, I see very, very few
cases being reported by the Board or the courts in this area. And, no, I do
not regard executive orders by political parties as equivalent to evidence
of such continuing violations. And, that, of course, is my right.
HH
Unions should be allowed to spend money for political purposes simply
because they are controled by the political process. Unions support
candidates who support them just like corporations. The difference is
the candidates who don't get support from corporate sources seek only
to regulate them not destroy them. On the other hand, anti union
politicians actively try to destroy unions and the effects they have
on improving the lives of workers. It is a matter of survival for
union workers and for all workers in America.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged forIllegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
11 Apr 2004 12:06:20 PM |
|
|
In article <BC9DE0CE.33883%>, says...
in article DVOdc.22907$Nn4.4024796@twister.nyc.rr.com, Osama Bin Kerry at
obk@osama.net wrote on 04/10/2004 10:14 AM:
Watch a leftist deploy the logical fallacies of:
False Analogy <Comparing stock owners to forced unionism, hoping
it doesn't get pointed out, or noticed, that nobody is forced to
own a company stock, but in 28 states, worker's may be compelled
to support a union and fund the union's political activities, forced
to accept a refund determined by the Unions' accountants for witholding
support of political activities, and only after 'resigning' union
membership and losing all voting rights. E.g., the compulsory union fees
still amount to 99.9% of full dues.>
Red Herring: attempting to support one proposition
(i.e. compulsory union dues) by arguing
for a different one entirely (corporate lobbying)
Do you also support the right of a corporation's shareholders to receive
notice of expenses incurred by the corporation in furtherance of political
activities and persuasion, plus the right of such shareholders to opt out of
such expenses? If not, please explain why others should not regard you and
your views as biased. Why isn't such a right for shareholders correlative?
Is there some reason why you so vehemently oppose the notion that employees
should have a means to engage in collective bargaining, based upon
industrial democracy? You don't deny that you do oppose it, do you?
'industrial democracy'. that's a zinger.
<snip>
--
..
"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's
realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. "
..
-Hon. Ron Paul of Texas, 7/10/2003, "Neo-CONNED"
..
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Legel" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
11 Apr 2004 12:35:12 PM |
|
|
"James" <litehaus1776@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:40796cfc_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
In article <BC9DE0CE.33883% >, says...
in article DVOdc.22907$Nn4.4024796@twister.nyc.rr.com, Osama Bin Kerry at
obk@osama.net wrote on 04/10/2004 10:14 AM:
Watch a leftist deploy the logical fallacies of:
False Analogy <Comparing stock owners to forced unionism,
the analogy was stock owners to workers ... get it straight if you claim any
illusion of logic
hoping
it doesn't get pointed out, or noticed, that nobody is forced to
own a company stock, but in 28 states, worker's may be compelled
to support a union and fund the union's political activities, forced
to accept a refund determined by the Unions' accountants for witholding
support of political activities, and only after 'resigning' union
membership and losing all voting rights. E.g., the compulsory union fees
still amount to 99.9% of full dues.>
again you twist the facts and call them logic ... no worker is compelled to
JOIN or support a union, nor are do they fund political activities if they
don't CHOOSE to. Your rightist analogy is EXACTLY the fallacy of which you
appear to rant about. Nice try but argued very shabbily.
Red Herring: attempting to support one proposition
(i.e. compulsory union dues) by arguing
for a different one entirely (corporate lobbying)
And describes your argument exactly as well! Very good!
Do you also support the right of a corporation's shareholders to receive
notice of expenses incurred by the corporation in furtherance of political
activities and persuasion, plus the right of such shareholders to opt out
of
such expenses? If not, please explain why others should not regard you and
your views as biased. Why isn't such a right for shareholders correlative?
Is there some reason why you so vehemently oppose the notion that employees
should have a means to engage in collective bargaining, based upon
industrial democracy? You don't deny that you do oppose it, do you?
'industrial democracy'. that's a zinger.
<snip>
--
.
"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's
realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. "
.
-Hon. Ron Paul of Texas, 7/10/2003, "Neo-CONNED"
.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
11 Apr 2004 02:32:54 PM |
|
|
In article <c92ea71662c256313fd829077a0259fc@news.teranews.com>, says...
"James" <litehaus1776@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:40796cfc_1@newspeer2.tds.net...
<SNIP>
again you twist the facts and call them logic ... no worker is compelled to
JOIN or support a union, nor are do they fund political activities if they
don't CHOOSE to. Your rightist analogy is EXACTLY the fallacy of which you
appear to rant about. Nice try but argued very shabbily.
In 28 states, workers may be compelled to support a union through compulsory
dues. The so-called reduced agency fee for 'resigning' from a union
in these states is still compulsory,
(that means mandatory, not optional, required, see www.thesauraus.com for
more synonyms)
and amounts to 99+ % of the
full dues that are required for those who don't resign.
What part of that is too difficult for you to understand.
Still having trouble? Go to www.nrtw.org to learn more.
<SNIP>
--
..
"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's
realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. "
..
-Hon. Ron Paul of Texas, 7/10/2003, "Neo-CONNED"
..
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hawth Hill" |
|
| Title: Re: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged forIllegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
11 Apr 2004 05:36:37 PM |
|
|
in article 40796cfc_1@newspeer2.tds.net, James at
litehaus1776@yahoo.com.INVALID wrote on 04/11/2004 6:06 PM:
'industrial democracy'. that's a zinger
I doubt that the hundreds of millions of workers who have voted in fair
elections for the right to have, or not have, a representative in collective
bargaining would agree. Nor the tens of thousands of units of workers who
have exercised their rights under the National Labor Relations Act these
past 60+ years to have some say concerning their own wages, hours, and
working conditions.
And, as for the term, it's lifted directly out of the statute.
HH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tmurph2" |
|
| Title: Re: NRTW: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
12 Apr 2004 09:42:12 PM |
|
|
litehaus1776@yahoo.com.INVALID (James) wrote in message news:<4076d557_3@newspeer2.tds.net>...
======================================================
April 6, 2004
======================================================
UAW?S NATIONAL AGREEMENT WITH "BIG THREE"
CHALLENGED FOR ILLEGALLY REQUIRING SUPPLIERS
TO HELP UNIONIZE EMPLOYEES
Union hit with federal charges for establishing
"secondary boycott" arrangement
......................................................
http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=306
......................................................
Washington, D.C. (April 6, 2004) -- Two Dana Corp.
employees today filed federal charges challenging an
unlawful provision within the master agreement between
the "Big Three" auto makers (General Motors, Daimler
Chrysler, and Ford) and the United Auto Workers (UAW)
union that pressures "tier one" suppliers to help
forcibly unionize employees.
The charges attack an increasingly common "top-down"
organizing tactic that is used to short-circuit
traditional grassroots-driven union organizing drives
and bypass the less-abusive secret ballot election
process. The workers allege that the UAW union?s
"good corporate citizen policy" and other contract
clauses are, in effect, an illegal "secondary boycott"
provision that requires "Big Three" parts suppliers to
assist union organizers or lose their significant
sales contracts.
With free legal aid from attorneys with the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Dana Corp.
workers Gary Smeltzer and Joseph Montague filed the
charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
against the UAW union. Smeltzer and Montague,
employees at Dana Corp.?s St. Johns, Michigan, plant
currently face a UAW union organizing drive
precipitated by the national agreement.
Facing pressure from the "Big Three" and the "good
corporate citizen policy," Dana signed a so-called
"neutrality agreement" with the UAW. The agreement
requires the company to deny employees an opportunity
to vote in a traditional secret ballot election, gives
union organizers employees? private information
including home addresses, and subjects employees to a
highly coercive card-check recognition process which
includes "home visits" and other intimidation of
employees into signing the cards. (If a majority of
the employees are successfully pressured to sign the
cards, the union hierarchy is granted "exclusive
representation" power and the employees are ultimately
forced to pay union dues as a condition of
employment.)
"The UAW union?s so-called ?good corporate citizen
policy? is nothing more than a coded statement that if
you do not grease the skids for unionization at your
company, you will lose your business with the Big
Three," said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the
National Right to Work Foundation. "Since employees
are increasingly less likely to opt in favor of
unionization when actually given a chance to vote
their consciences, union organizers have resorted to
harassment, bullying, and other tactics."
The NLRB?s regional director will investigate the
employees? unfair labor practice charges and decide
whether to issue a formal complaint.
======================================================
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
8001 Braddock Road | Springfield, VA 22160
http://www.nrtw.org | (800) 336-3600
======================================================
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is
a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free
legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights
have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The
Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees
in close to 300 cases nationwide. Its web address is:
http://www.nrtw.org/
.......................................................
To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to:
http://www.nrtw.org/listinfo.php3
.......................................................
(C) 2004, NRTWLDF
--
The UAW has very good lawyers who will be glad to waste all the money
the NRTWF has to spend. They also know how to write agreements which
can stand up in court. Bring it on!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osama Bin Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: NRTW: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for IllegallyRequiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
13 Apr 2004 04:01:33 AM |
|
|
tmurph2 wrote:
The UAW has very good lawyers who will be glad to waste all the money
the NRTWF has to spend. They also know how to write agreements which
can stand up in court. Bring it on!
They are also happy to take away rights from the working guy by forcing
them to join a union. They should be outlawed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tmurph2" |
|
| Title: Re: NRTW: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for Illegally Requiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
14 Apr 2004 07:51:42 PM |
|
|
Osama Bin Kerry <obk@osama.net> wrote in message news:<N%Nec.26941$Nn4.5369835@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
tmurph2 wrote:
The UAW has very good lawyers who will be glad to waste all the money
the NRTWF has to spend. They also know how to write agreements which
can stand up in court. Bring it on!
They are also happy to take away rights from the working guy by forcing
them to join a union. They should be outlawed.
Nobody has the right to destroy the working conditions, pay, and
benefits of hard working UAW members who fought and sacrificed to
improve their lives.
I would like to see some of these guys go out on strike against the
company untill they remove the cumbersome dental plan, the horrible
vacation time, the sick and personal days, that terrible 40 hour work
week and all the unjust things that the workers have been forced to
endure. Show some guts!! Hold out for much,much,much less.
Nobody in America is forced to join a union. Those who say otherwise
are liars.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osama Bin Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: NRTW: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for IllegallyRequiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
14 Apr 2004 08:02:55 PM |
|
|
tmurph2 wrote:
Nobody in America is forced to join a union. Those who say otherwise
are liars.
Maybe not, but they are forced to pay agency fees.
Besides which, the unions have proved they are not the friends of the
working guy with this illegal immgrant amnesty crap they have been
pushing. It's all about the union dues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NRTW: UAWs National Agreement With Big Three Challenged for IllegallyRequiring Suppliers to Help Unionize Employees |
14 Apr 2004 08:30:56 PM |
|
|
Osama Bin Kerry wrote:
tmurph2 wrote:
Nobody in America is forced to join a union. Those who say otherwise
are liars.
Maybe not, but they are forced to pay agency fees.
Besides which, the unions have proved they are not the friends of the
working guy with this illegal immgrant amnesty crap they have been
pushing. It's all about the union dues.
You're right about that, and the union members had better do something
about it, or the illegal aliens will have their jobs for half the pay
and no benefits, and they will be sitting at the unemployment office
wondering what happened.
They wouldn't let non-union workers come in and take their jobs, without
a fight, but when it comes to illegal Mexican immigrants, they just sit
on their ***** and do nothing.
I think most of them are afraid to say anything against their union
leaders, or, are afraid of being called racists.
I am just waiting to see how the teamsters will react in June, when
Mexican trucks are allowed to make deliveries anywhere in the United
States. They seem to be the only ones with any balls. They have been
known to fire on trucks driven by replacement workers during a strike.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
