Is it illegal to support unions?


#1

Trying to find out if it is indeed illegal to support union organizing, contribute financial support, etc.? Seems far fetched. Can any maritime laws really support this?


Edison Chouest Offshore in Alaska
#2

of course it isn’t illegal…why on earth would you think would be? all are registered with the IRS although I do not believe a contribution to their political funds would be deducible like dues are…


#3

[QUOTE=c.captain;160379]of course it isn’t illegal…why on earth would you think would be? all are registered with the IRS although I do not believe a contribution to their political funds would be deducible like dues are…[/QUOTE]

You gonna shit a Joe Boss brick when you find out why I ask such a silly question…


#4

Did Joe tell you this? In fact it’s the exact opposite, discouraging unionization and labor organizing is highly illegal. Most employers are able to barely not cross the line though.


#5

[QUOTE=Ea$y Money;160380]You gonna shit a Joe Boss brick when you find out why I ask such a silly question…[/QUOTE]

ok, so give…I gotta take a dump soon anyway so let’s make it a very satisfying one


#6

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;160385]Did Joe tell you this? In fact it’s the exact opposite, discouraging unionization and labor organizing is highly illegal. Most employers are able to barely not cross the line though.[/QUOTE]

Oh, this one leaps over the line. If I can get my buddy to send a copy I will post. But he is scared shitless…


#7

[QUOTE=Ea$y Money;160387]Oh, this one leaps over the line. If I can get my buddy to send a copy I will post. But he is scared shitless…[/QUOTE]

I have great fear of what we are about to learn here and why do I hear that ominous “Jaws” theme music coming from the deep south?

a Great White named Gary perhaps?

.


#8

[QUOTE=Ea$y Money;160377]Trying to find out if it is indeed illegal to support union organizing, contribute financial support, etc.? Seems far fetched. Can any maritime laws really support this?[/QUOTE]

What??? Where on earth are you getting this from? Go look up the National Labor Relations Act.


#9

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;160385]Did Joe tell you this? In fact it’s the exact opposite, discouraging unionization and labor organizing is highly illegal. Most employers are able to barely not cross the line though.[/QUOTE]

I took a class once upon a time in labor relations. The employer, employee and union all have certain things they can and cannot do.

It may depend what level the employee is… whether they are management or subordinate. Supervisors and managers are usually categorized on the company’s side… and the company can’t financially support unions… so it might be illegal for some employees to do it too if they are in managment positions. That way they can’t basically buy the union’s favor with their contributions to the detriment of the little guy.


#10

[QUOTE=Saltgrain;160392]I took a class once upon a time in labor relations. The employer, employee and union all have certain things they can and cannot do.

It may depend what level the employee is… whether they are management or subordinate. Supervisors and managers are usually categorized on the company’s side… and the company can’t financially support unions… so it might be illegal for some employees to do it too if they are in managment positions. That way they can’t basically buy the union’s favor with their contributions to the detriment of the little guy.[/QUOTE]

This brings up an ugly point what officers have been held as management in the past (Foss Maritime being one of the first to go down this crooked road)…

I wonder what is about to come down here? You know full well that it is not going to be pretty!


#11

[QUOTE=Saltgrain;160392]I took a class once upon a time in labor relations. The employer, employee and union all have certain things they can and cannot do.

It may depend what level the employee is… whether they are management or subordinate. Supervisors and managers are usually categorized on the company’s side… and the company can’t financially support unions… so it might be illegal for some employees to do it too if they are in managment positions. That way they can’t basically buy the union’s favor with their contributions to the detriment of the little guy.[/QUOTE]

From my understanding, the issue is exactly that… All licensed personnel are " Supervisors or Managers ". I am still waiting to get a copy and read it exactly. Still seems cheesy…

I could see the Master being a " Supervisor or Manager " Since that is the ultimate authority on the vessel, but how do all the underlings fit?


#12

My teacher said that generally, a company gets the union it deserves… he was neither for or against unions. Basically, if a company treats their employees fairly… there wouldn’t be much need for a union… or would theoretically have a “good” relationship with them.

He did say that since the government has stepped in with all sorts of labor related laws… unions generally have become less “necessary” for the average worker since they have explicit rights under the law…but then again… kind of hard for david to fight goliath… so unions still have a place at the table.

and based on the recent events in the gulf… I wouldn’t be surprised if unions didn’t want to take advantage of the changes and see if people wanted to have their representation.


#13

This thread reminds me of a joke;

You know how to keep an idiot in suspense?


#14

Yeah, they should unionize the GOM. I suggest the attempt be calledOperation Dixie


#15

[QUOTE=snacktray;160398]This thread reminds me of a joke;

You know how to keep an idiot in suspense?[/QUOTE]

I used to have that printed on a business card. Both sides.


#16

[QUOTE=Ea$y Money;160396]From my understanding, the issue is exactly that… All licensed personnel are " Supervisors or Managers ". I am still waiting to get a copy and read it exactly. Still seems cheesy…

I could see the Master being a " Supervisor or Manager " Since that is the ultimate authority on the vessel, but how do all the underlings fit?[/QUOTE]

I believe in the past, the officers are managers claim was used for a company to declare null and void a contract with a union for the officers however, it was the mariners who chose to enforce that by going along with it. If marine officers want to be represented by a union, there in no LAW in the land that a union cannot represent them hence why the MMP, MEBA and AMO represent officers where ever the officers stand by the union. A company can try to bust a union but it is up to the rank and file if that will be allowed to stand. The workers have the right to call BULLSHIT on Joe Boss but rarely do even in relatively strong unions these days. You don’t hear much about strikes anywhere anymore and it isn’t because all the bosses are just the nicest people ever.

If a company which currently does not have a contract with an officers union wants their officers to sign some statement declaring that they hold with the company policy then it is equivalent to a loyalty oath but could not be enforced in a court however Louisiana being an at-will employment state, anyone violating an oath they took siding with the company would have little recourse if they were fired for later asking for union representation. Joe Boss is running scared and is trying to intimidate his officers now to toe the line and be loyal serfs. Joe wanting it in writing is what is telling here because in the past he managed to bullshit the workers into believing they were getting ambrosia instead of a shit sandwich. Maybe the mariners are waking up to realize that they aren’t eating the food of the Gods any more but the boss’s feces instead? If so, then good for them I say…welcome to the fight brother!

The only way to make a union in the GoM get standing is by solidarity across all trades and a massive walkout by all oilfield mariners. But Joe would always find enough scabs by tossing money at them and that is why you will never see a union in the GoM. The sad reality is that the mariners really hold the aces since Joe cannot hire scabs with the required certificates off the street anymore. He needs the workers he has because the USCG will not accept substitutes (or would they?) Sadly, though the mariners will cave as they always do and sign the loyalty oath believing that it is in their best interest to do so when in reality it is in their worse. This is why I always say the GoM is a backwards land and will remain backwards for the foreseeable future. Walk backwards, talk backwards, think backwards, act backwards, get stabbed in the back and ask the boss for another…what a world!

.


#17

Unions in the Gulf would come by dint of a miracle. I am amazed at how much the rank and file detest unions today and will actually fight to keep them out. Joe Boss wouldn’t have to lift a finger.


#18

[QUOTE=c.captain;160404]

If a company which currently does not have a contract with an officers union wants their officers to sign some statement declaring that they hold with the company then it is equivalent to a loyalty oath but could not be enforced in a court however Louisiana being an at-will employment state, anyone violating an oath they took siding with the company would have little recourse if they were fired for later asking for union representation. [/QUOTE]

All states are “at will”. There is no state that requires an employer to provide a reason for termination of an employee.

There is no law, anywhere, precluding “management” from union representation. While uncommon in the private sector, it is very common with unionized public employees. Also, firing someone, non-management or management, for seeking union representation is a federal, not state, offense, subject to action by the NLRB and/or DOJ.


#19

[QUOTE=Rich Bogad;160408]All states are “at will”. There is no state that requires an employer to provide a reason for termination an employee.

There is no law, anywhere, precluding “management” from union representation. While uncommon in the private sector, it is very common with unionized public employees. Also, firing someone, non-management or management, for seeking union representation is a federal, not state, offense, subject to action by the NLRB and/or DOJ.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of legal or illegal, something is certainly going on behind the scenes. The company wouldn’t go to this extreme if it wasn’t. Can’t wait to see where this goes. Cliff hanger Friday, just like the soap operas. As The Bayou Turns…


#20

[QUOTE=Ea$y Money;160409]Regardless of legal or illegal, something is certainly going on behind the scenes. The company wouldn’t go to this extreme if it wasn’t. Can’t wait to see where this goes. Cliff hanger Friday, just like the soap operas. As The Bayou Turns…[/QUOTE]

It is against federal law for a company to require anybody, management or not, to sign an agreement that deprives them of the right to join a union. I’ve never even heard of any company trying to do that.