Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
— by Ted Ted
anon - read the case again if you must. It is not what I said - it is what the NLRB Board Said.

No one said you don't have to pay dues. Once initiated under the proviso to NLRA Sec. 8(a)(3) [30 days elapsed & you pay the initiation fees duly imposed], you are a union member. When you are not working for an employer, per the other cases posted, you do not have pay dues for the period of time you were not working. When you do go back to work, the 8(a)(3) proviso again kicks in, as does the corresponding 30-day grace period to pay your then current and owing dues. [not back dues for the time no working, current dues, which is a critical point]

As to the case cited above, 123 NLRB 51 - Again, I did not write the NLRB Board decision & order, the NLRB did - repeated here:

"the payment of assessments may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment"

Patently clear on its face, no further explanation required.

Read your UBC/COUNCIL negotiated contract with the Employer Associations and note that the UBC, in boilerplate langauge conditions the employment of its rank & file members to payment of dues and assessments, or dues assessments. They further define this condition precedent to your obtaining employment as not only being mandatory, but being subjugated to Trust Fund Agreements for the Pension, Annuity and Health & Welfare Funds to wit, they claim supersede and over-ride the language contained within your Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

All UBC Councils employ this tactic, and then make minor reference to the TRUST FUND legalese, albeit via reference. The UBC also readily ignores at will, any & all legal cases in which it is the losing party, i.e. UBC 43 & others which have consistently ruled that the UBC's Constitution & Bylaws are facially unlawful [of no force or effect].

Now, given the average member has difficulty with the general CBA language and the basics of the NLRA, do you really believe they are in a position to contest or challenge the UBC Officials and their Corporate Counsel. The punishment for speaking up is economic starvation via blackballing.

If this case has been over-turned, show me where and when, just name the case...

Moreover, the majority of "assessment monies" generated & collected do little for the average rank & file UBC Member. Most of what is collected under the auspice of "dues assessment", "work assessment" or whatever name a particular UBC Council & it attorneys wish to ascribe to it - most of the monies go to agencies that work directly against the UBC Rank & File Members interest and are bastions of easy money, do-nothing jobs for hacks and political insiders attached to them.

The point is very simple - these illegally collected monies need to revert back to the Union brother & sisters paychecks, their take home pay. We no longer pay the AFL-CIO do we, why? Simple, they charged us $5M plus a year & did squat for the UBC rank & file. Go to their site, Trumka is busy organizing thrid world hellholes.....that would do nothing to benefit NYCDCC members - correct? Well, it's the same with the AGC here at home right now.....we pay assessments to them, yet they routinely collect our monies & then put them into their coffers & readily fund ABC legal issues which work against, why the hell would we, or should we continue to do so? How many illegal issues and activities by the UBC International will it take for you to comprehend these things?

Here are a few things the UBC still does which are facillay unlawful, things which they have lost the case - yet readily ignore & flout at will:

Voting - denied, in spite of Chao, legislating from the bench, limited to one Circuit
Picketing - deemed mandatory in spite of NLRB caselaw making it unlawful
Mobility - allowed in spite of Non-Right To Work States legislation & the Union Security clause which make it illegal to enforce
Full Mobility - same issue
Collection of Dues - as noted herein
Collection of Assessments - as noted herein
Beck Rights - denied regularly
Ability to Resign to escape the Rule(s) - denied regularly in spite of Sup Ct precedent
Raiding other Trades - encouraged, regardless of the overall harm it does to UBC Brothers
Free Speech - regularly denied to members

You are either for the men or against them & to date you appear to be against the working man, in all of your actions & statements - which is it? I am not interested in your opinion nor is this a debate. I deal in factual matters - period. Seems to me that you cannot handle facts so you resort to attacks & hyperbole.

When the men here present facts directly attributable to the NLRB Board, or any Court in the land you attack the resultant decision of the courts, put your own spin on them, or try to obfuscate the meaning of what the Court and decision clearly stated.

You then routinely go into a laborious diatribe of how the people writing in/posting here fail to comprehend English. When you are proven wrong time & again, you then resort to personal attacks.

Your behavior mimicks that exactly of all CM's & you should probably go work for one as diversion & distraction from the issue is what you do best. In the end, when the issue involves money, a real claim, the CM's always pay up, because this type of bullshit that you spew on this blog never holds up in a Claim let alone in a Court of law.

I am not going to change the way I write or state things to suit you, nor will I dumb things down as you keep suggesting. If you are not up to the task, don't start the argument on something you don't comprehend, and via your default or lack of knowledge try to ascribe what you do not know to myself or others by insulting us.

I have said it before, you have a lot of potential, and with a bit more real world experience, some time and maturity, you may go somewhere with it. But before you do that, make up your mind exactly which side you are on.

If you are with the UBC Corpporate Machine, say so. If you are with the rank & file, your fellow union brothers and sisters - then act like it, stop tearing them down and start building them up.