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.
Best time to do this, and other things, as everyone seems to be afraid for their job down there, and rightfully so.
Gcaptains news is so widely read that I’m surprised they won’t get into some of these issues. They don’t have to present a position with regards to the story, but some of this should be more in the mainstream industry news.
How did Dionne sign off on this? Isn’t she supposed to be a big time lawyer? I’ve seen some crazy stuff this is a new one. Maybe tugsailor is right this does have something to do with ops up in Seattle/Alaska.
[QUOTE=c.captain;160438]yes, a publicly traded company would have to be much more circumspect about demanding a “loyalty oath” from employees for no other reason that to do so would be seen by shareholders (many of which are pension funds of unions or at least unionized public servants). In any event, a member of the forum has proved the ECO memo to me…he did not ask that I not post it here but I am protecting his identity per his request…
here’s how it reads:
each member here can form their own conclusions what Joe Chouest wants from this…
could it be civil action against individuals who sign it but don’t obey or only to cut the knees off any malcontents in the company who are grumbling?[/QUOTE]
If the form is actual, it’s a disgrace. How can anyone say that “It is illegal for any supervisor or manager of the Company to support Union organizing, contribute financial support or other support to Unions.” It’s anything but illegal.
I don’t know whom they consider a manager or supervisor. Is it some guy who works in the office or is it a captain, chief engineer, etc?
That company is a large US government contractor. Somebody should report this to the DOD, National Science Foundation (with whom the company has contracts), and the Dep’t. of Labor. Also, if someone has an actual copy, you could look at the website of the New Orleans Times Picayune, and see who you could send it to.
It looks really stupid on the company’s part to have that contract. It’s how they get themselves in a heap of trouble.
If anyone has an actual copy and knows that it applies to mariners, I’m sure MM&P and/or AMO, or MEBA might find it very interesting.
PS: I"m not a fan of unions in general, but this seems like total BS.
[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]
Yes it is legal but hazardous to your health in the bayou.
[QUOTE=Rich Bogad;160455]If the form is actual, it’s a disgrace. How can anyone say that “It is illegal for any supervisor or manager of the Company to support Union organizing, contribute financial support or other support to Unions.” It’s anything but illegal.
I don’t know whom they consider a manager or supervisor. Is it some guy who works in the office or is it a captain, chief engineer, etc?
That company is a large US government contractor. Somebody should report this to the DOD, National Science Foundation (with whom the company has contracts), and the Dep’t. of Labor. Also, if someone has an actual copy, you could look at the website of the New Orleans Times Picayune, and see who you could send it to.
It looks really stupid on the company’s part to have that contract. It’s how they get themselves in a heap of trouble.
If anyone has an actual copy and knows that it applies to mariners, I’m sure MM&P and/or AMO, or MEBA might find it very interesting.
PS: I"m not a fan of unions in general, but this seems like total BS.[/QUOTE]
I would be surprised if anyone lets a copy out. People are freaking from what I hear. I crew change next week and I will try my best to get my hands on one. I am not a union fan either, far from it, but I think this is wrong. Even if legal, it’s wrong. And the icing on the cake is that they are saying the managers and supervisors should be everything they aren’t. Thought the irony was thick on that level.
Can we all agree that everyone should have the right to organize, whether or not you choose to do so and regardless of your opinion of unions’ advantages/disadvantages? Your right to NOT be in a union is just as important as someone’s right to be in one if they so choose.
This is nonsense and needs to be squashed to keep the other joe boss’s from following suit; mainly for more or less threatening hard working Mariners with false legal information.
I have to say, having read what c.captain (c.scooter to you GOM types) posted, it absolutely gobsmacks me how ECO’s legal department could have passed that. I suspect that was actually never run by ECO’s legal department, now that I think of it. I’m assuming the emphasis was added, but such an agreement is illegal and not in any way enforceable in any court in the United States. A halfway competent lawyer–hell, a legal intern–could pick that apart in roughly the time it took me to post this.
I’m with Rich Bogad, that really needs to be brought to the appropriate legal authorities. Maybe the mariners in question want to unionize, maybe they don’t, but that’s absolutely their decision [I]without interference from their employer.[/I]
[QUOTE=awulfclark;160465]I have to say, having read what c.captain (c.scooter to you GOM types) posted, it absolutely gobsmacks me how ECO’s legal department could have passed that. I suspect that was actually never run by ECO’s legal department, now that I think of it. I’m assuming the emphasis was added, but such an agreement is illegal and not in any way enforceable in any court in the United States. A halfway competent lawyer–hell, a legal intern–could pick that apart in roughly the time it took me to post this.
I’m with Rich Bogad, that really needs to be brought to the appropriate legal authorities. Maybe the mariners in question want to unionize, maybe they don’t, but that’s absolutely their decision [I]without interference from their employer.[/I][/QUOTE]
I posted the memo word for word as I received it but added the bold emphasis…can someone who works for ECO PM me with confirmation of the “loyalty oath” I posted is genuine? it would be nice to say I have it from multiple sources
[QUOTE=c.captain;160470]I posted the memo word for word as I received it but added the bold emphasis…can someone who works for ECO PM me with confirmation of the “loyalty oath” I posted is genuine? it would be nice to say I have it from multiple sources[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it’d be nice to know that was genuine, because something like that could potentially go nuclear in the right (or wrong) hands. Like I said, I can’t believe that memo ever passed through any legal department.
Get a load of this…union organizers threatened at gunpoint in South Carolina at the Boeing plant…the one by the airport in Charleston.
They canceled the upcoming vote as a result.
Joe Boss wins that one.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/04/boeing-machinists-call-off-vote-after-union.html
The Machinists Union has canceled a vote that was scheduled for next week that would ask Boeing’s production workers at the company’s South Carolina plants if they would like to join the union.
The Machinists faced tough opposition from South Carolina politicians as members campaigned to convince the more than 3,000 Boeing (NYSE: BA) workers to vote in favor of the union. Earlier this week, union officials said they would cancel the vote if they weren’t able to get enough of the 787 Dreamliner workers to sign cards saying they were in favor of unionizing.
If the vote happened and the union lost, the Machinists would have to wait a year before asking for a vote again. Now, union organizers can regroup and schedule the vote for six months from now.
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers said in a statement Friday that union members faced dangerous and violent confrontations with homeowners while they were canvassing for votes. Two organizers were threatened at gunpoint, the union said.
“After speaking with Boeing workers who we were previously unable to reach, we’ve determined now is not the right time for an election,” said lead IAM organizer Mike Evans in a statement. “An atmosphere of threats, harassment and unprecedented political interference has intimidated workers to the point we don’t believe a free and fair election is possible.”
The ILWU said organizers went to 1,700 workers’ homes during the campaign.
Boeing has been actively campaigning against the union. Former Renton boss Beverly Wyse, who worked with the Puget Sound Machinists union for years when she ran the 737 line, said last week that unionizing would be a “limiting factor” that South Carolina’s facilities didn’t need. Wyse now runs the Boeing South Carolina.
I’m no expert on labor relations and have never been a member of a union (and don’t have strong feelings one way or the other, not that it’s anyone’s business ;-), but it looks to me as if that memo did in fact pass through somebody’s legal department: “… as a supervisor or manager,” “…as an agent of management …” are tip-offs. I also find it interesting that union organization concerns are buried in a memo that spends a lot of space talking about supervisor responsibilities and duties …
On the face of it, though (unless all licensed employees are in fact supervisors or managers, and there seems to be some doubt about that and maybe it doesn’t matter anyhow?) it appears that the memo is “coercive or threatening,” and that it asks employees to spy on union activity. Both no-nos under the NLRA. http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/employeerightsposter11x17_final.pdf
And then there is this, from http://www.fklaborlaw.com/articles/Union-salting-Supervisor-dos-and-donts.html
Don’t spy on union activities.
You may not spy on employees to determine their feelings about a union; you may not attend union meetings; and you may not even give the impression that you’re watching employees’ union activities.It’s easy to unintentionally create the impression that employees are under surveillance.
The NLRB has taken a hard line against apparently innocent questions or apparently harmless statements like these: “We know who is involved with the union.” “I hear you’re involved with the union, Betty. Is that true?” “Let me know if you hear of anyone supporting the union; I’d like to talk to them and give them our company’s position.” "They won you over last night, didn’t they?"Even though none of these statements involve a threat or a promise of benefit, the NLRB has held that they imply surveillance of employees’ union activities. The NLRB is not concerned with whether the statement is true, or whether the supervisor intended any unlawful effect, or whether there was actual surveillance. They have found that such statements have a “reasonable tendency” to discourage employees in exercising their rights, since they create the impression that the supervisor has sources of information about union activity.Here are general rules for your supervisors to follow:
You may not imply that you have someone on the inside telling you about union meetings or insinuate that you know when and where union meetings have been held (unless the notices of meetings are public knowledge). Do not create the impression that you know exactly what has been said at these union meetings.
You may continue to visit local bars, pubs, restaurants and other establishments, even if a union meeting is taking place there, as long as you have had a frequent practice of attending these places. Before going to any establishment where you know a union meeting is to take place, be sure to check with company officials first. They will give you legal clearance on whether or not to go ahead with the visit.
You may not request employees to report the identity of pro-union sympathizers to you or to other officials of management. Also, you may not encourage those you supervise to engage in surveillance of the union activities of their co-workers, or to reveal who is for or against the union. Do not question (even when you are off company premises) an employee’s spouse, relative, neighbor, friend, or co-worker as to whether the employee is for or against the union.
You may not tell employees that co-workers are informing you about union activities, or that some employees are “keeping you posted” on what is going on with the union; do not imply, even in a joking way, that you are receiving information about union activities in the plant. Do not even start a conversation with the statement, “I’ve heard that some people are interested in the union…” All these statements can be viewed by the NLRB as creating the impression of surveillance.
Try saying “no” to an organizer who will look in your windows if you don’t answer the door. I have said “no thanks” and when they didn’t get the hint, told them to get off my property, only to have two of them return the next day. I guess an aggressive tactic like that could be met might be met with a gun.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;160446]Ratings are NOT supervisors or managers. Masters and Chiefs certainly are managers. Mates and AEs, maybe or maybe not.
While I realize most of this discussion is not about the off shore deep water mariners, it is interesting to note that one major officers union states this in their contract with an offshore operator: “The parties agree that the duties of the licensed deck officers, including Master, shall be maintained as supervisory and professional.” Doesn’t stop being organized but mostly has effect with the NLRB rules.
Lawyers write crew contracts with “unenforceable” provision all the time. They are designed to misinform and scare ignorant mariners out of their rights. You should see some of the contracts that the Seattle fish companies use. Presenting these contracts ought to be a crime and lawyers who write them ought to be disbarred, but many things are not the way they ought to be.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;160486]Lawyers write crew contracts with “unenforceable” provision all the time. They are designed to misinform and scare ignorant mariners out of their rights. You should see some of the contracts that the Seattle fish companies use. Presenting these contracts ought to be a crime and lawyers who write them ought to be disbarred, but many things are not the way they ought to be.[/QUOTE]
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?
There is a very large number of political contributors who would like to see that idea become the law of the land.
[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]
Might be legal but it has proven to be hazardous to ones health in the bayou. Especially if you work for the Show Est Company! Be careful!
It was an issue back in the NY tug strike as well.
Don’t you deep sea master still have some Union affiliation though?
If I had to guess along the PNW origins, I would imagine in a fairly unionized area of the industry (if I’m wrong correct me), there’s been some shit talk from the various unions. It’s not beyond longshoremen’s unions to make it difficult to work cargo at their terminals if they’re out to make a statement about labor on the vessels they’re working. It’s rare they will stand behind boat trash but it has happened.
My recollection is that Crowley was the first company to “go management” with deck officers. At one time mariners had the option to stay in MMP Inland, or be management at 10 percent higher pay. Since MMP Inland was, and is, a pretty worthless union, most guys who were not close to retirement went management.
The Foss masters and mates are currently “management” at significantly higher pay than the MMP Inland contract companies.