Transport Workers Local 514 Et Al V. Keating Et Al

TWU informer

Veteran
Nov 4, 2003
7,550
3,731
WHERE IS THAT POWERFUL AFL-CIO AFFILIATION WE WE NEEDED IT?

How much in TWU MEMBERS Dues money was spent on this lawsuit to attempt to overturn the will of the people in Oklahoma?
LABOR LAW REFORM

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Right to Work

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma on Dec. 16 rejected two separate attempts by union lawyers to deny Oklahoma citizens the right to choose whether or not to join or support financially a union, upholding Oklahoma’s constitutional Right to Work amendment which was passed by statewide referendum in September 2001.

With its ruling the state’s Sup. Ct. effectively ended a two-year legal battle waged by attorneys for Gov. Frank Keating alongside National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys against union lawyers bent on reclaiming the privilege of compulsory unionism they enjoyed prior to that referendum. “Today is a great day for Oklahoma. No longer will there be a dark cloud over the Right to Work amendment that has already resulted in the creation of new jobs, an increase in wages, and more employee freedom compared to states without such protections,â€￾ said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

In Transport Workers Local 514 et al v. Keating et al, a U.S. Court of Appeals earlier ruled that certain ancillary provisions of the law are preempted by federal law such that it cannot apply to employees working, for example, on exclusive federal property or in the airline or railroad industry (as is the case with all other state Right to Work laws). However, the federal court accepted a request by Right to Work attorneys that the Oklahoma Sup. Ct. should decide the state law question of whether the federal preemption invalidates the entire Right to Work constitutional amendment. On the 16th, Oklahoma’s Sup. Ct. held that union lawyers could not prove their assertion that Oklahoma voters would somehow not have approved the Right to Work amendment if they had known that it could not be applied to every single employee in the state.

At the same time, the state's high court rejected arguments in a separate state court challenge to the Right to Work amendment. This past summer, Right to Work attorneys discovered the existence of a “collusive lawsuitâ€￾ filed with the apparent intention by both parties (union and employer) of voiding the state’s Right to Work law without serious arguments made by a party that sincerely supports the law. Discovering this, Foundation attorneys intervened in that suit representing Stephen Weese, a Tulsa-area employee, to ensure that the law was vigorously defended.


The Oklahoma Sup. Ct. rejected arguments raised by union lawyers in the collusive suit that the Right to Work constitutional amendment violated the due process and equal protections clauses of the Oklahoma constitution. The Oklahoma court followed U.S. Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1940s that have rejected similar arguments under the U.S. Constitution.

WHERE IS THAT POWERFUL AFL-CIO AFFILIATION WE WE NEEDED IT?

HERE IS THE AFL-CIO, THEY HAVE BEEN REAL BUSY FIGHTING DISCLOSURE OF UNION EXPENDITURES. WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?
QUOTABLE QUOTES / LABOR LAW REFORM

Editorial: Union leaders afraid of disclosure

Among those leading the movement for greater corporate financial transparency among publicly trade firms is the AFL-CIO.



With huge pension funds under its umbrella, the labor federation has a vested interest that happens, despite excesses at the edges of its policy proposals, to coincide with the public interest in a nation of investors. It is curious, then, that the AFL-CIO has now gone to court in an attempt to forestall the same financial transparency regarding its stewardship of member dues that the labor federation demands for public corporations.



Last week the AFL-CIO sued the federal government in an effort to block revision of Labor Department rules concerning disclosure of union spending. For more than 40 years, unions have been required to file summary disclosures on what is known as form LM-2. Under rules set to take effect Jan. 1, regional and local unions with incomes greater than $250,000 must report itemized expenses and receipts of more than $5,000; they also would have to file disclosures of finances of related union trusts, which have figured in many cases of union corruption.



The nature of labor unions, particularly their spending on political and legal operations far afield from their core mission of representing workers at the bargaining table, has changed a great deal since the last substantive change to disclosure rules in the 1950s.



While one may sympathize a little with the AFL-CIO's complaint that the new rules add administrative burdens, that sympathy is checked by the fact that the money involved does not belong to union leaders; it belongs to the rank-and-file, dues-paying members and union retirees. And it is not as if the rules will require hand-written, double-entry ledgers to be created. We're talking here about reports easily produced by any competent financial officer.



All of which leads to the question union members ought to be asking of leaders attempting to block the new disclosure rules: What exactly are union leaders afraid of disclosing? Union leaders' vociferous opposition to disclosure of their organizations' finances quite reasonably gives rise to suspicion that union members would not be thrilled with how their dues and trust investment dollars are being spent - if they could only find out how those dollars are being spent.



Alas, some disclosures, at least in the eyes of AFL-CIO leaders, are more equal than others. [(Tiffin, OH) Advertiser-Tribune, 12/15/03]
 
TWU Informer,

Considering the ‘implied’ power of the AFL-CIO, one would expect high visibility during these union busting/outsourcing/offshoreing times. The only time I have seen (with my own eyes) the power of the AFL-CIO was during the AMFA vote wherein I had to dodge these goons at the gate as I came to work. It would appear that if you cannot demand the wages and benefits from the company on behalf of your constituents, then they can ‘at best’ intimidate you to make you believe that they are actually working in your best interest.

The AFL-CIO may have been one thing in another time, but they are certainly not the moving force of the workers today. We can not trust the AFL-CIO machine and/or the Company as they sleep together too often, and both have their hand in our pockets.

The AFL-CIO will have to make some changes in these times or will have to revert to their worker intimidation tactics more often than not. Subservience to the ‘union’ is no better than subservience to the ‘task master’.

Good article!

Take Care,
:up: UAL_TECH
 

Latest posts

Back
Top