Is it illegal to support unions?

I don’t have a copy of it or anything, but I did sign something to the effect of don’t even say union in 2011

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;160870]It’s obvious that they [B]could[/B]. The case I linked to the vote went 2-1. Times change, labor rights depend on legislation, the courts and the NLRB.

For many years Labor and management have had a tacit understanding about what was acceptable. No longer. Unions get weaker every year.[/QUOTE]

It seems insane that the law can “change” with no act of Congress, but simply at the whim of government bureaucrats, or some judges. That doesn’t just go for labor law, it happens with a lot of stuff.

When you say that unions get weaker, you should qualify it with “private sector”. I live in NY. Believe me, the public sector unions are anything but weak.

One of the problems with unions is that so much of the AFL-CIO is now dominated by public sector unions, whose goals can be quite different than those of Joe Lunchbucket. Have you ever seen any public sector unions showing support for private sector ones? I haven’t.

Surely a copy would exist if this was legitimate where is it???

[QUOTE=z-drive;160449]How the fuck is it illegal to support a union? You can support whoever the hell you want. Company policy can ask you not to, but you’re free to do whatever you want with your money. We all know they can fire you under an alternate pretense though.

What say the chouest apologists? The issue is with the policy, not whether or not unions are good or not, or wanted or not.

Everyone needs to read the policy that was written, not the policy they want to read.

il·le·gal (ĭ-lē′gəl) adj. 1. Prohibited by law. 2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football. 3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a …

.As you can read, Illegal does not pertain only to the law, federal, state, or local. It can refer to company policies, just like in the “Oath” that CC posted. Furthermore, it only asks you to sign if you agree.
I have been screwed over by both SIU and AMO in the past, so yes I think Unions are nothing more than parasites. However, I have not and never will work for ECO, I know too many people who have and their stories tell me all I need to know about them. As for supporting unions, of course you have that right, just not on company time or property.

Is this “Oath” any more illegal than a company that will not allow you to work for it’s competitor on your time off? A company that requires you to sign a pledge of confidentiality or promise not to work for their competitor for at least a year after you quit them?.

We all can go on and on with anectdotal examples of each side of this coin, but to answer the ORIGINAL question? OF course it is legal for ECO to ask an employee to support their company policies.

[QUOTE=Rich Bogad;160873]It seems insane that the law can “change” with no act of Congress, but simply at the whim of government bureaucrats, or some judges. That doesn’t just go for labor law, it happens with a lot of stuff.

When you say that unions get weaker, you should qualify it with “private sector”. I live in NY. Believe me, the public sector unions are anything but weak.

One of the problems with unions is that so much of the AFL-CIO is now dominated by public sector unions, whose goals can be quite different than those of Joe Lunchbucket. Have you ever seen any public sector unions showing support for private sector ones? I haven’t.[/QUOTE]

You’re right. It’s going to be divide and conquer. You want to see people spitting mad bring up teachers unions. Charter schools will do them in. You’ll see a lot of joy while that happens.

CajunTugster, if a company policy required personnel to create a magic pipe, that would still be illegal as per the law.

In this case, as per the law, a company cannot interfere with labor organizing. Making employees take an oath not to join a union or pledge they won’t support organized labor is a violation of the employee’s free speech. You can’t discriminate based on what an employee believes. It crosses multiple lines.

[QUOTE=rshrew;160874]Surely a copy would exist if this was legitimate where is it???[/QUOTE]

hopefully one is forthcoming soon…I have been contacted. Stay tooned

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;160877]You’re right. It’s going to be divide and conquer. You want to see people spitting mad bring up teachers unions. Charter schools will do them in. You’ll see a lot of joy while that happens.[/QUOTE]
You want see people really spitting mad bring up the banks that crashed the economy, laundered drug money, took trillions of dollars in taxpayer handouts [no one went to jail] and corporate takeover of elections. Why such righteous indignation over unions but no quid pro quo over the ones ruining the country? I am neither pro or anti union but I recognize the fact that as union membership has declined so have wages. We hear constantly about the huge increase in American worker productivity and soaring corporate profits but no commensurate increase in wages exists even though USA workers take less vacation than their European counterparts that make a decent wage. As a matter of fact wages in the USA have decreased over the last 20+ years when inflation is figured in. Charter schools are a fine example of shifting national treasure to the private profit making sector with no benefit or better outcome except for the companies that own the charter schools. Righteous indignation directed only towards people who are union members that may or may not be politically disconnected from ones own narrow view does nothing but play into the hands of those who want to continue to shift national wealth to the few at the expense of the many which is certainly not the way a democracy works but is very well known in oligarchies and dictatorships. By the way, I think teachers unions need an overhaul but not destroying.

ok we have attacked the union vs non-union debate quite a bit. Have went over legality issues, debating back and forth. Even attacked each other’s posts from time to time. Questioned the existence of the " loyalty oath ". If we were to agree that a “proverbial line” was crossed, what can we the worker do ? If you go to the government organizations and they won’t help cause they are paid off with oil patch money and you try the legal means but those are also on the “take”. What can we the worker do ? Little to nothing with the power of one. If the GOM won’t stand up for themselves and organize in any way, there is nothing that can be done. If the “loyalty oath” exists and is illegal, who will challenge it ? I ask the question, cause it seems all other points have vaporized the dead horse.

ok, here is what I received a short while ago. It seems formatted very narrowly for usual letter document but it is what I have to present and thank the sender for his solidarity with my outrage with ECO. I am grateful to him.

take note that the word “must” is underlined in it

[QUOTE=pwrmariner;160889]ok we have attacked the union vs non-union debate quite a bit. Have went over legality issues, debating back and forth. Even attacked each other’s posts from time to time. Questioned the existence of the " loyalty oath ". If we were to agree that a “proverbial line” was crossed, what can we the worker do ? If you go to the government organizations and they won’t help cause they are paid off with oil patch money and you try the legal means but those are also on the “take”. What can we the worker do ? Little to nothing with the power of one. If the GOM won’t stand up for themselves and organize in any way, there is nothing that can be done. If the “loyalty oath” exists and is illegal, who will challenge it ? I ask the question, cause it seems all other points have vaporized the dead horse.[/QUOTE]

You are precisely correct. For some reason mariners unions and public service unions with the exception of police and firefighters unions,which seem to be sacrosanct, are bad. The horse has been beat to death. The average USA worker is scared to death of losing his job and therefore their worth as a person if he/she protests or even questions the legality of any “loyalty oath” or agreement as a condition of employment. With such courage if the USA was a colony today as they were prior to 1776 they would remain a colony. I end my participation in this discussion.

NOT SIGNING THE PAPER IS THE ANSWER!

If nobody signs there is NOTHING Joe Boss can do but that requires SOLIDARITY amongst the mariners!

the real question is does it exist?

.

[QUOTE=c.captain;160893]ok, here is what I received a short while ago. It seems formatted very narrowly for usual letter document but it is what I have to present and thank the sender for his solidarity with my outrage with ECO. I am grateful to him.

take note that the word “must” is underlined in it[/QUOTE]

Maybe this letter should find its way to the NLRB for review. I wonder what they would think of it.

I’m pro-Union, but it just occurred to me that these duties only apply while acting in their capacity as a supervisor. The way my logic follows is this, you only can’t support unions for those whom you supervise or manage. In your capacity as a worker though it doesn’t say you can’t support your own Union.

If you have to rescind support to any unions, and as someone said there are unions working on the brazil boats, wouldn’t you be signing a document that you were in violation of? Brazil=unions, working in Brazil=support of vessels there, working in Brazil=supporting unions… D’oh!

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;160901]I’m pro-Union, but it just occurred to me that these duties only apply while acting in their capacity as a supervisor. The way my logic follows is this, you only can’t support unions for those whom you supervise or manage. In your capacity as a worker though it doesn’t say you can’t support your own Union.[/QUOTE]

you are right…there is no prohibition to any class be restricted from collective bargaining. The entire issue of whether a group is represented or not is up to the group to decide and to enforce by their voice and feet. An employer can try to duck signing an agreement with those he considers management and could get a court to render an opinion agreeing with the employer but in the end, it remains the employees to force the employer to accept their demands by refusing to work without an agreement. Labor law does not exclude anyone from being represented if that is what they want.

All it takes is solidarity amongst rank and file but there is none in the GoM. Too many would never sign on and likely even rat out their coworkers. When the group is small they have no real power but when a group is large enough to impact the continuance of the operation, then they can make just about anything happen for their benefit. Of course, if a crew decided to walk off in Fourchon, Bull Conner and his goons would be standing right there to intimidate and harass the mariners to force them back aboard.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;160487]This issue with officers being management came up with Crowley on the West Coast, was it 1990 or thereabouts? Wasn’t that when Crowley took the big pay cuts?[/QUOTE]

I am pretty sure that Exxon did it in the mid-80s. I think it was accompanied by elimination of OT and some sort of “merit” based pay scheme that had overlaps between the different officer levels (e.g. some 2nd Mates could be making more than some chief mates).

After reading this memo, it makes me think of the job I was offered by Nicki Collins months ago. I turned it down based on his request that I work 28/14.

Were I working there now, they would be telling me it is “illegal” to continue paying MMP Offshore dues and making PCF donations.

Fucking orange and blue unethical, oppressive, paranoid clown shown.

did Nicky tell you that you would regret it?

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;160932]After reading this memo, it makes me think of the job I was offered by Nicki Collins months ago. I turned it down based on his request that I work 28/14.

Were I working there now, they would be telling me it is “illegal” to continue paying MMP Offshore dues and making PCF donations.

Fucking orange and blue unethical, oppressive, paranoid clown shown.[/QUOTE]

He called me last fall while I was at sea. No email (which was on my resume) just phone calls. Which of course I discovered two weeks after he made them.

I was embarrassed to call back so late…but then I thought, “Wait a minute. I was at sea doing my job, why am I embarrassed to be out of phone range?”

I didn’t call back- It’s just as well because the bottom fell out of the market a few weeks later.