What's new

Crossing a primary picket? Consequences?

V

v for vendetta

TB Lurker
Credits
0
Looking in a dated Teamster Constitution handbook I found article 19 section 8. These articles describe possible consequences. Fines and suspension of union membership. Are these current? My book is dated 1991 so I am not sure enough to comment either way. It is possible new rules regarding serious charges like crossing are in place. If anybody union or not is up on this please inform me? I don't think I am the only one with questions.
 
There are ways of getting around being fined and suspended. You would still be hated by just about everyone, and there are a couple things about not being able to run for special Teamster things(Im just rambling...I cant think of the right words...)

Im sure someone else can help out more...and I sure hope you dont want to cross
 
I sure hope you don't cross either. Yes, that is the most updated. Generally it is not pursued unless the membership votes on action being taken but there is much more to it. After the membership votes on it, a few are chosen from the membership to go in front of the E-Board (executive board) to explain why the membership feels that charges should be brought against picketline crossers. Then it is in the hands of the E-Board to make their decision but a decision is not made at that time of this meeting. So it takes some time for the process to go through. Then if the E-board sees that the by-laws and constitution has been broken charges are brought against those that crossed. It is much like if you broke the law you would have to go to court to defend yourself. At that point the line crosser would have their time to speak to the E-board. It isn't just cut and dry. I hope this gives you more information and am in hopes that you do not end up in the scenario I just explained. Please hold the line! United we stand, divided we fall.
 
any line crosser should be tarred and feathered to say the least in my opinion what ever fines and penalties the union hands down would be better than what the membership would want to do to these slimeballs
 
airhorne;

You might be careful with such responses; i.e. - it's just such irresponsible musings as those that have given the Teamsters the reputation for being thugs and ne'er-do-wells that they "enjoy" in the public's eye today. RTW advocates will point to posts like yours in a New York minute to justify why right to work laws need to be put in place....and who could blame them? Meanwhile, nothing can serve to undermine the credibility of a union's posturing that companies commit ULPs as making it so obvious that the union's members care nothing about engaging in "unfair practices", or disregarding the law, or even paying attention to civility itself. And, of course, there's the ultimate problem of "what goes around comes around"...and the fact is that, if by your indiscretion, you're advocating an outright "war", you'll likely be facing a foe that is stronger, more intelligent, and in possession of greater resources than yourself.

Seems to me that the old saw about being able to attract more flies with honey might apply here...in that vinegar such as your post spouts can't help but drive responsible potential members away.

My opinion....
 
I would and will never ever cross of that you can rest assured . I simply asked if in current constitutional rules the same article 19 section 8 would apply to crossers. Laws and rules can change quite dramatically in 17 yrs. Does anyone have a current copy to be precise? Not a trick question no cryptic meaning.
 
Thanks for the info solidarity sister. Looks like a picket crosser will soon have his ill gotten gains taken back. In addition to losing all respect of his/her peers.
 
That Article hasn't changed I have the one from 2001 but it is all the same. Line crossers should read it as well, to be more informed of their actions and the consequences.
 
Are the line crossers actually maintaining their membership in the union, thus subjecting themselves to potential discipline? Or are they sending in letters of resignation/reduction to "representational fee paying" status only, thus placing them beyond the bounds of any union discipline efforts? I would have thought that, even if they were just half-way knowledgeable, it would be the latter. While I believe that companies aren't allowed to actively encourage members to resign from the union, they are allowed to present the alternatives available in that direction if they so choose. I would have thought that Oak Harbor - given that it's talking about using permanent replacement workers - would have presented those alternatives by now. Haven't they?

Once a [past] member goes that route, it tends to put (to use a mixed metaphor) on the other foot; i.e. - if the union harasses or tries to intimidate the past member, or fail to represent him simply because he's no longer a member, it commits an unfair labor practice itself, and subjects itself to discipline. For some reason, I suspect that Oak Harbor wouldn't be all that upset if such a situation presented itself.

Others opinions on the subject, of course, may vary; that was just mine.
 
In order to avoid potential consequences (fines) a line crosser would have had to resign prior to crossing the picket line. I would hope that Oak Harbor would be decent enough to inform them.
 
When the possibility of a strike became real, OHFL management presented the members with their options during the meetings that have been one of the issues in the ULP filings. They hadged their bets by telling the members that they needed to consult with the union to be sure that they were getting the correct information. The three options, I believe, were to strike, resign and cross, or become a non dues paying member. I might have the terminology wrong on the last one.

I assume that those who crossed would have chosen the last option.
 
What about the lady from the claims department who TRIED to cross yesterday only to be told that all of the claims positions had been filled but that she was more than welcome to apply for the receptionist job at the Auburn terminal? She tried to sneak in the back door before any of her "brothers and sisters" arrived to start picketing, but I know they saw her leave. Six hours later she's back on the picket line like nothing had happened. In my opinion, everyone involved in this had a choice to make, and the time to make that choice was on September 22nd. It takes a lot of nerve and a lack of any scruples to waffle back and forth like that.
 
Agreed JustMe123, was everyone aware of this? Did you or anyone else let the union officials know about this. What a slap in the face to everyone on the picket line! That is appalling! Makes me physically ill!
 
I really hope it isn't true.....that truly is a slap in the face!!

I can tell you for sure it wasn't anyone from the Auburn terminal. Only 1 girl in Customer Service crossed the 1st week of the strike.
 
Wilbur said:
Are the line crossers actually maintaining their membership in the union, thus subjecting themselves to potential discipline? Or are they sending in letters of resignation/reduction to "representational fee paying" status only, thus placing them beyond the bounds of any union discipline efforts? I would have thought that, even if they were just half-way knowledgeable, it would be the latter. While I believe that companies aren't allowed to actively encourage members to resign from the union, they are allowed to present the alternatives available in that direction if they so choose. I would have thought that Oak Harbor - given that it's talking about using permanent replacement workers - would have presented those alternatives by now. Haven't they?

Once a [past] member goes that route, it tends to put (to use a mixed metaphor) on the other foot; i.e. - if the union harasses or tries to intimidate the past member, or fail to represent him simply because he's no longer a member, it commits an unfair labor practice itself, and subjects itself to discipline. For some reason, I suspect that Oak Harbor wouldn't be all that upset if such a situation presented itself.

Others opinions on the subject, of course, may vary; that was just mine.
Click to expand...

it seems to me that when you are no longer a member of the bargaining unit that they would be giving up thier right to representation you wouldnt represent a company during a labor dispute if they didnt seek your services now would you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top