Employees File Federal Class Action Suit to Halt Abusive Mandatory Union Dues Scheme
Right to Work Foundation helps employees challenge national union’s illegal “annual objection” policy
Aberdeen, Maryland (September 21, 2009) – Today, two employees filed a class action federal suit challenging the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union’s nationwide policy requiring employees to object year after year to paying union dues they cannot be lawfully forced to pay.
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Jacobs Technology Incorporated employees Rick Gorham and Robert Negosta are challenging the IAM union officials’ scheme intended to thwart non-union members’ legal rights to refrain from paying union dues for union electioneering and other non-bargaining activities. Foundation attorneys filed the complaint in Maryland’s U.S. District Court on behalf of the two employees and all of Jacobs Technology’s other similarly-situated employees.
In the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that union officials can lawfully compel nonmembers to pay union dues as a job condition, but not the part of dues spent for non-bargaining activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. However, these limited rights have been difficult to enforce, as union officials often concoct illegal schemes such as these “annual objection” policies to burden or thwart employees from exercising their rights.
While the IAM union hierarchy’s annual objection policy should not apply to employees who have refrained from IAM union membership, IAM union officials still illegally require nonmember employees nationwide to file formal objections every year. Additionally, IAM union bosses regularly change the dates for the annual thirty-day window period ostensibly to create additional confusion.
Foundation attorneys won a similar case challenging the IAM’s annual objection policy under the Railway Labor Act in a U.S. District Court in Virginia. The court forced the union to abandon the policy, but the union lawyers are trying to keep the policy in force in all workplaces not governed by that statute. Foundation attorneys are now challenging the policy that applies to employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
“These workers are taking a courageous stand against funding the Machinist union bosses’ radical political agenda and fat-cat lifestyles,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “No worker should be compelled to hand over their hard earned dollars so that IAM union bosses can play politics or take vacations with the union’s $2 million private jet.”
Comments
Should unions be on Federal Installations?
The IAM recently had a strike at Vance AFB in Enid, Oklahoma. That strike is over, but the same Union Reps. that were over Vance are the same ones that are over Tinker AFB. The District President who was part of the Vance strike has already warned the Tinker union members to start saving their money. There are over 200 plus IAM contract employees at Tinker. Our CBA is up in August of 2010.
Tinker AFB is a major AFB in the center of the United States. It's a lot larger than Vance. This AFB takes care of a lot of planes that are sent to war overseas. Tinker is over 5000 acres big and has just aquired an abandoned GM plant that's about 3.3 million square feet plus a couple hundred acres around it.
I would think that if the IAM District President is planning on striking if things don't goes his way, then he would be assisting the Taliban and the insurgents by stopping some of the processes that it takes to maintain these aircraft. Some of the union members are considered essential personnel and have to be at work on base no matter what the weather conditions are. Essential contract personnal being in a union seems to be a conflict of interest, and a definite internal security threat.
If the war planes can't receive the proper maintenance they require, then that puts our troops at a greater risk because of insufficient air support. This may or may not be a strech, but it would seem that if we did have to go on strike, then the insurgents couldn't have a better friend state side then the IAM.
I feel that anytime a union strikes a military base during war time, they are directly giving aid to the enemy. Any disruption in U.S. military operations either at home or abroad is a direct threat to the well being of our troops at war. I have been in the IAM for several years, but I refuse to strike if there is even a remote chance that it might make things worse for our troops in harms way. If the District or International don't like it, then they can kiss my flag.
Agreement
Being prior military I agree. Just as military members are not allowed to form a union nor strike, to prevent loss of service capability, thus any contracts in support of said military services should not be able to do so either. This "freedom" that the unions take is just preventing our country from protecting and providing what is necessary.