|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Wrenchman Dues Alert
I have before me two administrative letters from international UAW. These letters #35 and #39 concern my request to explain what authority the UAW has in taking dues from our profit sharing checks. Firstly, we must understand the constitutional edicts (requirements) of lawful dues taking. We find the authority for the dues taking under Article 16 Section 2 of the UAW constitution I will take excerpts and comment: "all dues are payable during the current month to the financial secretary of the local union. Minimum union dues shall be a 'sum equivalent to two hours pay per month'. For those members paid by the hour, (there are sum that are on salary) day, week or month, the dues shall be based on the amount earned per straight time hour in the last payroll period worked before the dues are payable, including cost of living allowance and any other amounts considered as part of regular pay, but excluding shift premium. For those whose earnings vary straight time hours for the purpose of computation shall be based on the average earned per hour in the last month the member worked including incentive earnings, cost of living allowance clock hour add-ons, and any other amounts normally considered as regular pay, but excluding shift premium, overtime premium, Saturday, Sunday and holiday premiums." Emphasis mine.
The UAW's stand is that the profit sharing constitutes regular pay, is it? I think not. They refer you to the part that states "any other amounts normally considered regular pay". TWO hours pay per month. The union also goes on to explain that the profit sharing being regular pay and subject to dues, they have concocted a formula. This formula is, if 2 hours pay is due for dues, and there are 173 hours worked per month then the share of profit sharing to dues is 2/173 or 1.15%, which brothers is fine and dandy that someone went to a lot of trouble but, and I say a big but, the formula for the taking fails in that it is not found in the constitution. In order for the union to make this "fit" they must only apply it within the framework of the constitution ART. 16 SECT 2. Which it is my belief, it certainly does not. The union also sent me a nice letter with a paperclip pointing to the paragraph that they are certain gives them authority to take the money from us.
The first page of the second letter (39) letter gives the likeness of an official document although it is an administrative letter; it is neither constitutional law nor enacted laws of constitution. In other words if it isn't lawful it is garbage. This paper is signed by OWEN BIEBER and sealed with the UAW crest. Ask your financial secretary for your copies. Be sure you get them!
I refer you to the page marked with the paper clip on page 7, entitled DUES FROM PROFIT SHARING, BONUSES AND OTHER LUMP SUM PAYMENTS obviously voices were raised at the convention regarding the lawfulness of the taking of dues. It states objections to this in paragraph one and two. The international responded that they would not make changes to omit tasking of dues from profit sharing, this is inaccurate, had anyone read and understood the proceedings the union never changed the constitution to include profit sharing, so how could they change something that was never there at the start. So in this instance they were correct. Changes to dues will fall under article 4, and be 2-3-4 hours pay per month increase and voted on by delegates not the executive board. They take and appear to have power they do not have.
The page goes on to restate Art 16 sect 2 in part. "equivalent to two hours pay per month" and it goes on to repeat the art 16 sect 2 "any other amounts considered regular pay". The little notations at the bottom, being small doesn't mean unimportant, they are very important in that they state the rebellion that came about by this action of 'taking'. " other submissions in the area of dues asked: for no change, 5, for a change in the method of dues payment, 4 ; for a change in the rebate formula from the strike fund, 5; for a special dues structure for substandard shops,1; for earmarked funding of certain local committees, 4; for special initiation fees, 2; for a change in S.U.B dues,2; for a cut of dues by 50%, 1; and for special dues by part time members, 2. I imagine some people at this convention were ticked off but unknowledgeable as to why or how to proceed.
My brothers I have to the best of my ability tried to explain within the framework of our constitution the inability for neither the union nor its delegates to authorize an unconstitutional act, such as these dues takings. My inquiry's to the NRLB were met with failure, in that the NLRB found that the company and the union may agree to anything they want as long as it is distributed equally, this is why shift premium is not part of unions deus structure, it is disparate. The NLRB found that it has no authority to defend the worker in an illegal action of its union, but as long as its equitable they don’t care.
So what do we do?
First brothers understand the theory of this issue. UAW people will try to con, mislead and flat out lie to you on this issue, they need the money to bring more people to Disneyland, more perks and food and drinks. They also need the money to further fill their already over burdened wallets, already COLA on their double pensioned retirements. The truth is simple; the UAW has no authority to take unions dues from lump sum payments. It simply has never been done and can never be done, legally. You are still permitted to ask for your refund under article 16 section 7a. The above issue is different and not applicable to this. ART 16. SECT. 7a deals with the excess monies, where SECT 2, deals with the legality of extracting from existing monies.
Also ask them for your copy of the LM-2, this breaks down what they do with all the money and it is available from the LABOR DEPT. in in your city and the international supplies a copy to the labor board in Detroit, and is available for a poultry sum of 10 bucks. It shows what all officers get paid as well as the expenditures. Some of the expenditures are quite remarkable. Especially if you go back a few years 1982-3!
The company and the union have threatened me over this, and over things I do at home, labor relations gave me a direct over to not call Jac Nasser from home, to complain about my car, they are punishing me because I am convienent. This is clearly an unlawful order yet the union maintains it and does not fight it, I am to not call or maybe ask permission to make any calls out of town. I guess I'll ask labor relations for permission to call regarding my car, or permission to call my brother in Detroit?
I also want to put a bug in members ears, what ever happened to the "NICKEL" FUND, what about that money and how is the money they take before anything, which is mine, getting spent? I am certtain it is quite a "chunk" of change!
.... I won my grievance about the 30 days off, I got HALF my money, and yea I guess we always get half of what is stolen. It is profitable for the company. I asked for the dispositions of the grievances, that which shows how they were paid, I have as yet to ONLY receive half of it! I never received the overtime either on that which is mine! I have harassment grievances written and waiting since 1991! Waiting for the union to provide a number, waiting 12 weeks now. Be sure you get the number and a copy, DEMAND IT! (RESPONSE TO UNION HARSH TREATMENT)