This article is
here only because others like you -- unionists who understand the importance
of democracy in our unions and our countries -- contribute to AUD.
From the March-April 2009
issue of Union Democracy Review #178
In the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters:
How to eviscerate the LMRDA, but quietly
The federal law, LMRDA, has all those
fine provisions designed to strengthen union democracy. But over the years
union officials, guided by their attorneys, have learned how to immunize
themselves against its effects and cut the heart out of some sections
of the law. The latest egregious example is in the SEIU where Andy Stern
used the law's trusteeship provisions to take over a 150,000-member local,
remove the elected local officers who criticized him, seize its treasury,
and carve up the local. In that case, trustees invaded explosively, massively,
with all financial guns blazing, all in defiance of public protests. But,
more representative than these events, are trusteeships imposed without
public fanfare, quietly, unobtrusively, and routinely. For that we point
to one small example, Pipefitters Local 211 in Oklahoma.
The international imposed a trusteeship in May 2007
and kept it in place for 22 months. In March 2009, after one member had
complained to the Labor Department, the trustee abruptly announced that
there would nominations in May for officer elections in June. During that
22 month interlude, the trustee removed officers including Brent Bowers,
a member of the local for 33 years who had served as elected business
agent for over 10 years. It was Bowers who had filed the DOL complaint.
The trustee also announced that, without membership
vote, the international had voided the old bylaws and imposed a new set:
no more election of business agents. The powers of the business manager
were vastly expanded including the right to appoint all three business
agents and the delegates to all union conferences except the national
convention. The separate post of financial secretary-treasurer was abolished
and combined with that of business manager. For whatever reason, an ominous
clause was added: "Any member found guilty of posting or passing
out political campaign literature at the Apprentice Building property
shall be tried, and if found guilty, fined after notice and hearing.
[Note the double guilt in that sentence!]
The new imposed bylaws make it virtually impossible
for ordinary members to process amendments. Under the old bylaws, proposed
amendments would be read at three meetings and voted on at the third,
with a 2/3 vote required for adoption. The new bylaws make passing amendments
just as simple for a BM appointed committee. But an amendment initiated
from the membership must first be endorsed by a petition signed by 10%
of the membership, in this case by 300, an impossible burden in a local
whose 3,000 members are scattered over many miles and where meetings are
attended by fewer than 100.
It has been difficult enough for many members to attend
any meeting but, Bowers reports, it is now even more difficult. The meeting
time has been changed from evenings on weekends to late afternoon on weekdays.
Bowers is in federal court pro se, asking the judge
to install the old bylaws and appoint a court monitor to supervise the
election. Even a highly skilled inventive union democracy lawyer would
find such a suit overwhelmingly difficult. A legally untutored layman
doesn't have much of a chance. But the suit may provide an outlet for
frustration and shake up the powers-that-be.
This website
is made possible by contributions from union members and supporters like
you. Please help us build the movement for union democracy, join
or contribute to AUD.
Use
the following credit line on the materials you use: "From the
website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email:
info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA;
718-564-1114"