http://wearedeltafa.com/kangaroo_court
Picture yourself arriving at the front door of a new restaurant in town. As you reach for the door handle, you notice a sign that says:[/size]
CUSTOMERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO POST NEGATIVE YELP REVIEWS. ANYONE FOUND POSTING A NEGATIVE YELP REVIEW WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RESTAURANT TRIAL. IF FOUND GUILTY OF RESTAURANT CRIME IN THE COURT OF RESTAURANT LAW, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RESTAURANT FINE.
Apparently, this restaurant is so fearful of criticism that they try to intimidate anyone who might give them a negative review. You might ask yourself, "Is the food here so bad that they can't tolerate honest reviews? Should I eat here?"
This may come as a surprise to some, but the IAM is very much like this hypothetical restaurant.
Article L, Section 3 of the IAM Constitution describes "Improper Conduct of a Member," which includes:
- Attempting, inaugurating, or encouraging secession from the I.A.M.
- Advocating or encouraging or attempting to inaugurate any dual labor movement
- Supporting movements or organizations inimical to the interest of the I.A.M. or its established laws and policies
- Accepting employment in any capacity in an establishment where a strike or lockout exists as recognized under this Constitution, without permission
- Any other conduct unbecoming a member of the I.A.M.
In a nutshell, these provisions prohibit IAM members from supporting any movement that is trying to get rid of the IAM or speaking out against the IAM in any way.
So what happens to an IAM member who is "charged" with violating Article L, Section 3? That's when Article L, Sections 4-16 come into play. These sections define the elaborate trial system of the IAM, a process that amounts to no more than a
kangaroo court run by IAM cronies. Here are some of the highlights from these sections:
- It is the duty of any member who has information as to conduct of a member covered by Sec. 3 of this Art. to immediately prefer charges in writing against such member by filing the same with the president of the L.L. of which the accused is a member
- In the event that any L.L., or the members thereof, fail to proceed as prescribed herein, then any officer or representative, or member, may file written charges against such member or members with the I.P. Upon the receipt of such charges, the I.P. shall forward 1 copy thereof to the accused and 1 copy to the president of the L.L. of which the accused is a member, together with an order commanding said L.L. to proceed to place the accused on trial under the provisions of this Art
- Both the plaintiff and the defendant shall have the privilege of presenting evidence and being represented either in person or by a member to act as his/her attorney
These are our favorite sections because they highlight the divisiveness of the IAM and the ironic fulfillment of an IAM promise. In the first bullet, it becomes a member's DUTY to rat on his coworker if his coworker is speaking out against the IAM. In the second bullet, it is clear that a true rat can keep raising his complaint higher and higher, until the International President FORCES the local lodge to begin a trial. Finally, in the third bullet, the IAM keeps their promise of providing an attorney for members, except the attorney is just another member, and the trial takes place in the kangaroo court of the IAM.
These are not outdated, rarely used sections of the IAM Constitution. Here are examples of cases that involved IAM trials:
Machinist Union Hit with Multiple Federal Charges for Retaliating Against Employees Who Inquired about their Rights
... union officials ordered Bedenik and Slatten to attend an IAM union internal kangaroo court held for the purpose of punishing them for inquiring about refraining from full union membership. Instructing the employees to attend the proceedings and only enter through the “rear entrance” of the building, union officials intended to fine and discipline the two for thinking about opposing the union. The employees chose not to show up for their “trial.”
Dozens fight union fines over strike at Joliet Caterpillar plant
In September, union members who crossed the picket line were informed of the local's intent to hold trials regarding their crossing. After the trials, union members voted to assess fines.
Please ask yourself this question:
If this is an organization that is truly trying to help us, why must they resort to threats and intimidation to prevent us from speaking out against them?
