quote:
Local 387's business manager, Dean Dryden,
veering right off topic ... What exactly is/coud be the purpose of a business manager in a union?
Members Sue International Union For Violating Free Speech Rights
Two members of Ironworkers Local 387 in Atlanta Georgia are suing their International Union for abusing union discipline to thwart efforts to root out corruption in their local.
The members, Carl Bishop and Oscar Ingram, along with other Local 387 members have been trying for some time to get information about the local's finances.
An internal jury of 12 union members, eight of whom signed the initial charge against Ingram, found him guilty and fined him $1,000. The fine would be waived if Ingram made a public apology or agreed to resign his position as a trustee of the local. Ingram appealed the conviction and penalty to the International only to be denied justice yet again. Bishop, who was also found guilty and fined $10,000, had his penalty reduced to $5,000 by the International.
What crimes did these members commit? According to NLPC the reformers only asked the United States Department of Labor and the NLPC for advice.
Attorneys for Bishop and Ingram are asking the U.S. District Court to throw out the kangaroo court convictions as the reformers were merely exercising their freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).
Certainly the members have enough reason to seriously want to scrutinize their union's finances. Steven Jones, ex-business manager and ex-secretary-treasurer was sentenced April 11, 2002 to six months imprisonment, three years probation and ordered to pay restitution of $90,000. In October 2001 Jones admitted to embezzling $29,724.73 from the union and $39,949.42 from a union apprenticeship fund.
Bishop and Ingram also asked if Local 387's business manager, Dean Dryden, had reimbursed the Local for personal airfare believed to have been charged to the Local's credit card. They also tried to obtain records of Dryden's cell phone usage, paid for by Local 387.
Another Ironworker, Linda Merk dared to challenge financial practices in her local in Canada. According to this story Merk, an office manager of Ironworkers local 771 in Regina, was fired for asking to have some dirty laundry steam cleaned. In addition to Merk, four members of the Local filed complaints with the commercial crimes section of the Regina Police in October of 2001. A month later, Merk was fired. Prior to going to the police, Merk asked for help from the International in straightening out her Local's finances but only got the brush off.
This story is evidence of another group of union leaders out of touch with their members and willing to misuse their power to prevent them from asking embarrassing questions and getting information about what their union is doing with their money.
Good luck to Bishop and Ingram in their fight to rid their local of corruption.
Seems like another case where the language within a union's constitution goes against a member's basic rights afforded them by the U.S. Constitution. Their hope lies in District Judge Gladys Kessler's decision. Members are always cautioned however to exhaust all internal procedures prior to filing a public lawsuit. Under the LMRDA, members, at least in most cases, must exhaust internal union procedures before theycan take the union to court. The internal procedures should be found in the union's constitution and by/laws. However, if you do not agree with the result, or if the process takes more than four months, you may file a lawsuit in federal district court for injunctive relief, restoration of your rights and money damages. I don't know if they have done this or not but seeing how precedence has been set in a number of other like cases, they possibly have a good chance of winning on the violation of their free speech.
quote:
veering right off topic ... What exactly is/coud be the purpose of a business manager in a union?
siGGy, it's just a different type of hierarchy which is used in the building trades normally, although I don't know if it's exclusive to the trades or not. A Business Manager has basically the same duties as I suppose the prez in your union has. In my union it works like this from the top down:
Business Manager
Secretary Treasurer
President/Organizer
The position of business manager was created in smaller locals where the Elected officials were all Power Source who worked in bargaining units.
Some democratically active locals or ones where elected officials could only serve a set number of terms, hired "men" to manage the union and to retain continuity.
This worked well for the buggers who loved power. They could hold two jobs--let's say President and Business Manager. Remember if you fire a business manager, you have to pay huge severance.
In some cases, the business manager is the real power--just as mandarins run government bureaucracies and have enormous powers.
This phenomenon is what's wrong with big local unions. The bigger the local, the more like a business it becomes. The more like a business it becomes, the more need there is for 'managers.' When you run a big local you manage a big business. When you manage a big business, you start to think in business terms.
Not unlike Tommy Douglas' 'Mouseland' union members by allowing their local unions to become businesses, have left no alternative but to have the mice elect cats to rule them at union level and to represent them to the other cats at corporate level.
Upon thinking my notion through, one might come to the conclusion that big locals are one of the fundamental flaws in the so-called union solidarity. If you take the 'trickle-down' theory, 'business think' has trickled down to permeate even the lowest ranks of trade unionism.
Well I must say that I'm encouraged by these members and the big step they are taking in defence of freedom of expression. I think that the provisions of union constitutions that restrict free speech are unconstitutional. That's already been decided in the UA and I think that other challenges will have similar results. It's really pretty simple: A union constitution can't over ride your constitutional rights. Period. Unions that wish to restrict free speech have been getting away with it because few members had the time, resources or knowledge to challenge their gag clauses.
Even if it were found that they could restrict their members' right to free speech, I think that ultimately that will backfire on the unions themselves. Who the hell wants to belong to an organization like that?
Exhausting internal dispute resolution avenues may be advisable but I'm not sure that it's always the best strategy. If I have a constitutional right to something why the hell should I go through some kangaroo court to fight for my right? It's my right all the time and I shouldn't be put to any extra difficulty in exercising it just because I belong to a union (seems sort of contrary to why I would want to join a union doesn't it).
The other problem with internal avenues is that the union can dog the process out for years, while a member tries in good faith to go the internal route.
I doubt that any member could successfully persuade their union to change its constitution through an internal process that's controlled by guys who like the constitution just like it is.
I hope these two members really kick ass. Time we got a challenge like that going here in Canada. That's one visit to the Supreme Court I'm sure the ufcw aren't looking forward to.
quote:
Exhausting internal dispute resolution avenues may be advisable but I'm not sure that it's always the best strategy.
It's my right all the time and I shouldn't be put to any extra difficulty in exercising it just because I belong to a union (seems sort of contrary to why I would want to join a union doesn't it).
I agree RV, it does seem contrary to what a union should stand for doesn't it? Why would a union, that is for the working people, take away a basic human right under their country's Constitution?
The way I understand it, the problem with not exhausting all internal resolutions, is the fact the member could find him/herself between a rock and a hard place in regard to the language of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act which stipulates certain provisions. It's a matter of covering all the bases which will possibly help a member's chances rather than impede them.
The real problem I see with exhausting all internal procedures is the time it takes to get some action. If the member has been ousted, and they have been removed from the job, the bureaucracy could literally force the member into financial hardship while they drag it out. But according to the LMRDA, if the internal process takes longer than four months, then a member can forget about internal solutions and file a lawsuit in federal court. It's not perfect by no means, but for now it's all there is unless somebody else knows of other avenues a member could take?
I wish Carl and Oscar the best! It would be great if we could contact them and offer our support. I would really like to hear the particulars of their situation. There are quite a few UA members who would be willing to share notes with them! 