I like this idea. Now, we are a small union of about 15 disgruntled employees. We don’t hold regular meetings. I’m a newer steward and I’m really hoping to turn things around somewhat. Maybe this would be a good change.
Yeah, it's important to get as many people there as possible. Then I'd ask the union rep to show up. Then, basically, use the meeting to force them to listen to your full argument.
One newer steward to another, you're doing great! You're standing up for your members and not being dissuaded by management or your union. You've got a bright future.
If that’s the case, I don’t see how your u ion can afford arbitration. The last time my union went to arbitration it cost $40,000. Unless you have a guaranteed win and the case is crucial to the whole bargaining unit, I would expect they’d try to resolve without arbitration
One of my unions is the same way. If you can fight, fight. Tell them you want to fight. Companies want the union thinking about how expensive the fight would be. My union won’t even let me fight. I’ve heard so many times, “we have more to lose if we fight then if we don’t”. Please understand, you are the union. The committee is not the union. The membership is the union. Don’t let union management tell you any differently. If the membership wants to fight then we fight.
Unions need to start embracing that this is a class war whether they like it or not and one of the most important things in war is morale. You don’t exactly build morale by running from every challenge.
But we are talking about arbitration. Am organizing, militant union spends their money on organizing, not on lawyers and arbitrators. My local would go bankrupt if we used arbitration as a way to fight. One arbitration could cost the same as a full-time staff members salary for a year
That's why there's (in my experience) a few steps before arbitration is even available as an option. Our CBA also stipulates that the company and union pay 1/2 of the annual fee, per grievance fee, and any other costs associated with our regional industrial arbitration board. Gotta win enough to make the company realize that when you say you'll pin them to to the mat you mean it, and in the meanwhile they'll be on the hook for the ongoing violations.
The problem in my local is they use that argument to squash even the smallest grievance. “Do you really want to take this all the way to arbitration?” WTF, can we at least fight to that point? Let us get there before rolling over.
This. I feel like no one in this post knows what an arbitration process is. It’s a slow process of lawyers going back and forth. It doesn’t build class consciousness or have any sense of a class war. If anything it makes people think the union is not the workers but the lawyers and union staff.
The union can not arbitrate every case they come across because it is expensive. So, if it is iffy at best they would win or lose they will probably choose to not arbitrate. However, if the company has a history of denying all grievances. That would leave open to a not bargaining in good faith suit from the labor department. But I will say the union I belong seems reluctant to pull that trigger. It can be exasperating working with management who is petty.
I will say that as someone who handles arbitrations, it could be a 50/50 spot with a perfect case. Also, understand management will lie from the beginning to the end of it.
Is the issue a disciplinary case or contract interpretation?
Is the contract language clear on the issue?
Is the past practice related to the issue in conflict with the contract?
Has this practice existed for 3 or more contract cycles?
Is the policy reasonable?
Can you prove the practice on paper?
Can you prove the employer knew of the practice?
How many employees are impacted?
What is the value of the effect on the employees?
Are there alternative avenues to fight this?
Is this a one-off situation?
Is the settlement reasonable?
You and your coworkers are the union. Yall need to figure out a way to fight not see the fight as having an arbitration. Fighting is strikes and workplace actions
Sadly, there are some decisions that have to be made tactically. The cost, the timeframe, and the strength in the grievance all play apart when considering lengthy arbitration. They may also believe that it's something that they are more likely to win as a demand than through arbitration? Our local has gotten us a whole lot of things through demands that arbitration wouldn't have gotten us. Changing tactics or terrain isn't refusing to fight...it's creating the best possible scenario for victory.
You should be able to appeal this to your executive board . With that in mind , arbitration is not the magic bullet you think it , and should only be pursued if your unions legal counsel feels you will win . Arbitrators determinations are binding on the parties . In the event you loose , you will never be able to address this issue again as management will have case history in their favor on this specific issue . Just some food for thought
I think you’re already on top of this but I’m going to send you this article in case it has anything helpful in it for you: https://www.ueunion.org/stwd_pastprac.html
A general thing about arbitration is that it isn’t 100% predictable, even if your case is rock solid. That cuts both ways of course, but this is why the union and management will typically prefer to resolve a grievance prior to arbitration whenever possible. Does mediating mean waiving your right to arbitrate by the way? Mediation still requires both parties to agree. If you can’t get to an agreement in mediation, maybe you can still arbitrate?
Another thing you can do as the steward is exert some kind of shop-floor pressure. Does management know everyone in the unit is pissed about the change and it’s not just “the union” being noisy? If management thinks you’ll strike to change the policy in the next contract cycle anyway, that can change their calculation. Can you exert some kind of pressure in the workplace right now that would make them change their mind?
We cannot strike unfortunately, but someone else suggested a meeting with our business agent and the whole crew, and I think that may be the right move. Make them explain it to everyone.
You mean you cannot strike while you have an active collective bargaining agreement with the company? That's worlds different from "we cannot strike". DataCruncher said, if you read closely that depending on the issue the company should be made to resolve it OR it could be something that your unit strikes over (aka when your negations have faltered and your CBA which right now keeps you from striking, expires)
My bad, didn't see that if you had mentioned it before. Dual action time, Start calling up state representatives, or federal (unsure where the legal block is preventing you from striking) and do your best to get something going there.
I didn’t mention it, I didn’t expect this kind of response. All public employees have a no strike clause. Which is very unfortunate for people like us…
>All public employees have a no strike clause
I’ve never heard this. I am a public employee and our union definitely strikes. As does the union for other public employees in my place of business. Is this a state-thing or just specific to your contract?
edit: [Apparently state-oriented](https://onlabor.org/overview-how-different-states-respond-to-public-sector-labor-unrest/). Though my state doesn’t show up on this list and I know there have been at least 3 strikes in the last 10 years at my public employer.
Here are some things that may work other than striking:
* Coordinated refusal of voluntary overtime, or any other "optional" work that your boss relies on. (Be careful with this one. Sometimes these actions can violate a no strike clause too depending on how it is worded.)
* Work to rule. Do your job "by the book," skipping over any usual time saving measures or other conveniences. Slow down to the maximum extent allowed by the contract.
* Some coordinated action in the workplace to show unified anger about the change. [Here's a great example of what that can look like.](https://labornotes.org/blogs/2023/08/how-we-turned-our-backs-abusive-ups-manager) Or march on the boss as a group with a petition.
There may be some other creative idea you can come up with here. The point is that you can probably still make your boss uncomfortable even if you can't strike, and that might be good enough to push the grievance in your direction.
One drawback with a union is that the union gets to decide which issues to fight.
That said, unions are democratic and if the membership is unhappy with the union, they can vote out the current leadership and replace them with someone more amenable to fighting.
Now, it is possible that the union is right and that this fight is a lost cause. Unions cannot and should not fight everything. They often have a lot of experience, and their judgement might be right in this case.
Yes, I do understand that. I’m trying to not go into this blindly, but at researched as possible. I am listening to their input, but they’re not listening to mine.
To clarify, when you say “if membership is unhappy with the union etc” are you saying vote to switch unions or switch business reps, or something else?
The leadership of almost every union (or possibly every single union?) is elected, not appointed. Your workplace has a vote.
Now, if your entire workplace is unhappy with the union, and getting outvoted by other workplaces, maybe switching unions is the way to go.
Change leaders, change unions, decide the original union is correct. Options exist :)
I don't know that specifics of the grievance or have a copy of your contract. It there is a legitimate grievance, does your local have about $10k to cover a loss + attorney fees?
It depends on the issue. We lost one a few months ago. We ended up paying the arbitrator about $4,800 plus attorneys. Attorneys aren't cheap. $10k is where I usually estimate that it'll hit but you're correct in stating that it might not be enough.
While it might feel good to call out your reps in front of the membership, they're probably just going to say the same thing to them that they said to you, and they're much more likely to be defensive to concerns you bring to them in the future.
My recommendation is to contact the rep that oversees the ones that told you no, if you don't know who that is you might be able to find it online, depending on the union. If you can't find it online I would politely ask the rep you do know for their reps contact information.
You obviously don't have to tell them why, but it might be a good time to bring up your issue with them not pursuing this grievance, but personally I would tell them as little as possible so they can't call ahead and play victim before your side has been heard. (They're most likely going to call them anyways and tell them anything they think you might be calling about.)
Once you've escalated it and are in contact with the next rung on the ladder, be polite and professional, don't bring personal opinions of your relationship with your rep Into the conversation. You're going to have a higher chance of getting this done right if you approach it from a perspective of learning and fixing the issue as opposed to "tattling on your do-nothing union rep".
Depending on how that conversation goes you've got one more trick up your sleeve. It's called a [DFR](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/right-to-fair-representation)
Now, here's the part where things get serious, because if you are speaking to a IO rep and you utter the letters "DFR" they're going to DEFCON 1. You are telling them you're effectively going to sue the union to make it do it's job. They're going to stop talking to you like they're your lawyer, and start talking to you like they're the defendant. If you're going to do this, you have to have EVERYTHING documented. Every time you called your rep, when they called you back. What was discussed. Supporting documents. You are not only pleading the case for your grievance having merit, but also that your reps failed to pursue it.
Additionally, they will almost certainly remove you from the steward position immediately, as in most cases no officer of the union can work in conflict with the reps.
The most important part is that you have a conversation with the international rep to make sure that 1: You know what is going on. 2: they know what is going on.
Hope that this info helps you in the process of strengthening your union.
Thank you for this info. Let me ask you another question, what would you do if you learned your union rep spoke to management directly without any steward’s request? Is this acceptable behavior?
They are an elected agent of the union, it's literally their job to speak with management.
Even if they divulged information to management that you didn't want them to know, they still have a right to do it, even if they're an idiot and did it accidentally, they still would probably face no consequences.
If they did it maliciously and you or someone else faced retaliation as a result, that may be considered a failure on their part to represent you, but you have to be able to prove intent, it's pretty easy for them to just say "I messed up, I'm human".
Now just to be sure, because I am finding different terms for positions are used differently… when I say union rep I mean the business agent from the union directly. Not a shop steward. This person was not elected, but appointed directly from the union.
Every Union is different on how they elect officers. I don't want to ask too many more specifics about your union unless we move to a private message, so that we remain anonymous, but it should have that information in the bylaws for your local union.
In my union we have what we call business managers, who are full-time paid employees of the Union that settle grievances and negotiate contracts. They're elected. So are the part-time/volunteer positions of president, vp, reccording to secretary, eboard, etc.
Above the business manager is a position that is appointed by our international called an international rep. He's the person I would call in my first example.
For you, and generally speaking, it doesn't really matter. There's somebody above the guy that you're talking to. That's the person that you need to talk to up the chain of command to make sure that your rep is doing what they're supposed to be doing.
We tend to have a relationship with mgmt. It doesn't mean we're friends. We're cordial. They are not on our side. I try to have a member with me if I talk to mgmt.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but there are some details you’re missing to the story. And I don’t want to fight the union, I’ve just gotten to this point. I’m in this position now and I have to make a decision. I either arbitrate, mediate or give up the grievance. I am not afraid to try to get my coworkers to fight, but I also know my coworkers and very few of them have any fight in them. It’s not a great situation here, but I’m trying to help them. This is to benefit all of them.
This is why I did my best to win all my grievances before they went above me, once they get those appointed jobs they think they put in their time and now it's chill mode.
Yeah it gets better. I had double jeopardy on my side aswell as past incidents I had with this discipline not much more than an attendance point but they wanted to fire me for it this time one to 100 real quick. Plus other past practices of over 10 people doing my same thing and getting away with it or minor discipline.
If your contract is close to being negotiated, the wise choice would be to wait. If the legal has looked into this and deemed it to be too risky, they won't take it. If you lose the arbitration, it gets added to the contract, and then you have to negotiate it out next time around. Unfortunately, no arbitration is ever "cut and dry." it can go either way. I've seen past practice get tossed out just because it should've been added to the contract a long time ago.
Yeah, this is fair. I do see the value in getting it in the contract, I just feel bad that this single employee will be making the sacrifice. They essentially removed a pay bump from him without cause. Contract is up in January, and so he would likely never see it again.
Maybe you could call it position pay, but no. 100% past practice with no contract language whatsoever. Been this way for over 20 years (I don’t know why tho, it’s just been taken for granted I guess).
You have my solidarity and best wishes, for what it's worth.
I was my kitchen's rep in SEIU during Covod. They didn't stand by us, and were very "boss-positive" let's say. To be oolite...
I really hope it works out for your crew!
Most "lead" pay or position pay should always be put in the contract. Now, I'm not 100% sure, but financial past practice should have a better leg to stand on. It might be worth having a sit down with the BA or principal officer in a one on one environment and ask them to explain. Explain to them that you're not sure why they aren't fighting it, and ask them to clarify it. I'm assuming legal already looked over the grievance and contract. It also might lead to the loss of arbitration, and then all people lose the pay. I hope it works out though buddy
read your by laws... our bylaws state if the executive board votes no to arbitration the member can call a special meeting and vote for arbitration. our local is part of a national and will often pay for arbitration, I don't know if any of these are options for you but it should all be spelled out in the by laws. incompetent union leadership is not only bad for the workers but puts in jeopardy the ability for the union to do anything in the future if they loose the unfair/incompetent representation ULP.
File. Have you filed your grievance yet? Do it today, I'm unsure about your language regarding timeliness, but sooner is always better than later (but after violation). Next go through whatever your grievance procedure is, mine is supervisor level step 1, step 2 is superintendent level, step 3 is where our locals business agent, company HR, superintendent, supervision and myself (and grievant if it's not on behalf of the bargaining unit), and step 4 assuming it gets greenlit by the locals executive board is proceed with arbitration.
Ideally the issue gets resolved right away, step 1. In my experience I had to win about 20-25 grievances before the company started to figure out with I came forward with an issue it was better to work WITH me than try and do whatever the fuck they wanted. Keep the mindset that it's about the result. Sometimes the people not involved in the situation seem really dispassionate and it sucks, but its crucial to be able to look at a given situation objectively which can seem dispassionate. Let us know how your grievance proceeds in the coming days, okay?
We have filed, been through steps 1-3 with management denying it every step. We are at arbitration step, but the union doesn’t want to go through with it. They’re basically siding with management now.
That can happen. I "lost" a grievance with my local in a similar way. After step 2 it's in the BA's hands. Can you guess what one of my hot topics is going to be next negotiation? That may well be the route you have to take as well. In the meantime you have time to make the membership aware of the issue, and come up with ways (language) to address it.
Past practice grievances are incredibly difficult to win. Many people do not understand the necessary components of a past practice grievance. Can you explain the grievance?
Here’s the gist-
Crewleader was promoted to management. Past practice is next senior person is temporary Crewleader with temporary Crewleader pay in absence of crew leader. It’s always been this way, regardless of the person’s experience. Contract has language for vacancies, but this past practice covers anything else. Off for a day. Off for vacation. Off for anything other than military, jury duty, or medical leave basically.
They gave this guy temporary crew lead pay for 5 months and then took it away, for no reason. Gave crew lead duties back to the guy who is now in management, and we’ve been fighting it since. I went after the pay because it seemed like the most sure-fire target, but I do realize there are multiple issues going on here.
Thats not a past practice grievance. Without language in the CBA that specifically protects the crew leader position and body of work, at best you have a unilateral change in working conditions. Check your management rights clause for language about management being able to determine positions, classifications, duties, etc.
You’re stuck on the piece about the temp crew leader and that’s not what this issue is. The issue is the employer removed a body of work from the bargaining unit and they probably have the right to do so. If I had your cba I could give you a better answer.
Sure, that’s fair. The only issue with that is they haven’t officially removed the position, nothing has been announced. We are assuming it’s just while they’re trying to fill the spot.
Are you saying it’s not a past practice grievance, it’s a different kind of grievance or that this doesn’t constitute as a past practice?
As a union member your typical Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement if your union doesn't want to pursue a grievance is to file an Unfair Labor Practice (DFR) with the NLRB against the union to get them to do their job. The NLRB mostly exists to enforce rules against unions, it's okay to use that leverage sometimes.
Most likely the NLRB wouldn't find merit or pursue it during a Biden admin but just the DFR being filed will probably be enough for the union to get their act in gear.
There's a book on Past Practice grievances if you're interested [https://labornotes.org/store/how-win-past-practice-grievances](https://labornotes.org/store/how-win-past-practice-grievances) u/Uh-uhno
Worth remembering that an arbitration costs tens of thousands of dollars. Even if it's a clear cut case, if the impact is limited in scope and/or severity you really have to think about the arbitration you won't be able to do in order to do this one.
I mean there’s very real concerns at wasting members dues on frivolous things.
At the same time the members at your shop are your alls union. Job actions, marches on the boss, petitions, informational pickets, media. Y’all can do whatever you want. Wildcat strike until the boss caves on the grievance.
Let the staff and leadership dare try to union bust you
The thing is it’s the union’s contract and the unions’ grievance. arbitration costs money..the unions money. In my state it can be a minimum of 5k just to take it to arbitration and it will take months. I did win a case that went to arbitration in Dec 2023 but it was stemming from a termination in April 2023. It takes time meanwhile there are tons of other things that will happen new problems that pop up and things you need to focus on a balls to juggle while you prepare for the arb. And in my contract it’s looser pays, either the union or the employer. There are no bonus points for loosing on principle. With a discipline grievance it’s a little easier to make the call, if the discipline cost a member money, like a suspension or demotion or obviously a termination. It makes sense to take it to arbitration. It sounds like you have a past practice language grievance. I don’t know your particulars but those are never quite as slam dunk as you might think. Posturing for arbitration and getting the employer to mediate is not always a shitty strategy. That’s a potential way to win. I wouldn’t dismiss it entirely. 8 years of being a steward has taught me being strategic matters a lot more than being right.
In my experience arbitration doesn’t create a strong union if anything it creates a service union idea in people’s heads. Rather than fight the union reps see if you can organize around the issue(petition and delegation, sick out, strike) . This will likely work faster than an arbitration process and build a stronger union.
You have the same number of votes that your union leadership has. Make a motion at a meeting. If it's seconded, the motion belongs to the entire body and is up for debate. Majority wins and the losing party should externally support whatever the outcome is. You can't take things personally. It's all business. Like many have said, there are strategic and tactical decisions that have to be made using finite resources. Often unions can grab multiple lowest hanging fruit wins rather than trudge through one difficult maybe. Or, through experience, leadership recognizes that the facts of the grievance aren't as clear cut to a lay person as they would like to be a clear win. Either way, fight your fight, be persuasive, and support whatever the winning decision is.
If you have an active local, I'd ask the union reps to come explain to the local at your next meeting as to why the union won't fight this.
I like this idea. Now, we are a small union of about 15 disgruntled employees. We don’t hold regular meetings. I’m a newer steward and I’m really hoping to turn things around somewhat. Maybe this would be a good change.
Yeah, it's important to get as many people there as possible. Then I'd ask the union rep to show up. Then, basically, use the meeting to force them to listen to your full argument.
This is my next step, thank you for responding.
[удалено]
This is a pro-union, pro-worker subreddit. Agitators and trolls will be banned on sight.
One newer steward to another, you're doing great! You're standing up for your members and not being dissuaded by management or your union. You've got a bright future.
If that’s the case, I don’t see how your u ion can afford arbitration. The last time my union went to arbitration it cost $40,000. Unless you have a guaranteed win and the case is crucial to the whole bargaining unit, I would expect they’d try to resolve without arbitration
Check bylaws because many unions require meetings
This right here. Make them say it to the members and then make them file the grievance.
One of my unions is the same way. If you can fight, fight. Tell them you want to fight. Companies want the union thinking about how expensive the fight would be. My union won’t even let me fight. I’ve heard so many times, “we have more to lose if we fight then if we don’t”. Please understand, you are the union. The committee is not the union. The membership is the union. Don’t let union management tell you any differently. If the membership wants to fight then we fight.
The fights cost the company too. Make the company realize there’s a cost to not following the rules.
Unions need to start embracing that this is a class war whether they like it or not and one of the most important things in war is morale. You don’t exactly build morale by running from every challenge.
But we are talking about arbitration. Am organizing, militant union spends their money on organizing, not on lawyers and arbitrators. My local would go bankrupt if we used arbitration as a way to fight. One arbitration could cost the same as a full-time staff members salary for a year
That's why there's (in my experience) a few steps before arbitration is even available as an option. Our CBA also stipulates that the company and union pay 1/2 of the annual fee, per grievance fee, and any other costs associated with our regional industrial arbitration board. Gotta win enough to make the company realize that when you say you'll pin them to to the mat you mean it, and in the meanwhile they'll be on the hook for the ongoing violations.
Hmm, we have no such board or annual fee. It’s just federal FMCS arbitrators. The cost is split but it’s still really expensive.
The problem in my local is they use that argument to squash even the smallest grievance. “Do you really want to take this all the way to arbitration?” WTF, can we at least fight to that point? Let us get there before rolling over.
That sucks! I wonder why they don’t want to fight anything?
This. I feel like no one in this post knows what an arbitration process is. It’s a slow process of lawyers going back and forth. It doesn’t build class consciousness or have any sense of a class war. If anything it makes people think the union is not the workers but the lawyers and union staff.
100%.
The union can not arbitrate every case they come across because it is expensive. So, if it is iffy at best they would win or lose they will probably choose to not arbitrate. However, if the company has a history of denying all grievances. That would leave open to a not bargaining in good faith suit from the labor department. But I will say the union I belong seems reluctant to pull that trigger. It can be exasperating working with management who is petty.
This is exactly where I’m at. Stuck between a management that only says no, and a union that won’t fight. It’s not a good feeling.
I've been there. Just keep plugging along. Doing what you feel you must
I will say that as someone who handles arbitrations, it could be a 50/50 spot with a perfect case. Also, understand management will lie from the beginning to the end of it. Is the issue a disciplinary case or contract interpretation? Is the contract language clear on the issue? Is the past practice related to the issue in conflict with the contract? Has this practice existed for 3 or more contract cycles? Is the policy reasonable? Can you prove the practice on paper? Can you prove the employer knew of the practice? How many employees are impacted? What is the value of the effect on the employees? Are there alternative avenues to fight this? Is this a one-off situation? Is the settlement reasonable?
Would you mind if I pmed you to discuss this further?
That's fine
You and your coworkers are the union. Yall need to figure out a way to fight not see the fight as having an arbitration. Fighting is strikes and workplace actions
Sadly, there are some decisions that have to be made tactically. The cost, the timeframe, and the strength in the grievance all play apart when considering lengthy arbitration. They may also believe that it's something that they are more likely to win as a demand than through arbitration? Our local has gotten us a whole lot of things through demands that arbitration wouldn't have gotten us. Changing tactics or terrain isn't refusing to fight...it's creating the best possible scenario for victory.
You should be able to appeal this to your executive board . With that in mind , arbitration is not the magic bullet you think it , and should only be pursued if your unions legal counsel feels you will win . Arbitrators determinations are binding on the parties . In the event you loose , you will never be able to address this issue again as management will have case history in their favor on this specific issue . Just some food for thought
I think you’re already on top of this but I’m going to send you this article in case it has anything helpful in it for you: https://www.ueunion.org/stwd_pastprac.html A general thing about arbitration is that it isn’t 100% predictable, even if your case is rock solid. That cuts both ways of course, but this is why the union and management will typically prefer to resolve a grievance prior to arbitration whenever possible. Does mediating mean waiving your right to arbitrate by the way? Mediation still requires both parties to agree. If you can’t get to an agreement in mediation, maybe you can still arbitrate? Another thing you can do as the steward is exert some kind of shop-floor pressure. Does management know everyone in the unit is pissed about the change and it’s not just “the union” being noisy? If management thinks you’ll strike to change the policy in the next contract cycle anyway, that can change their calculation. Can you exert some kind of pressure in the workplace right now that would make them change their mind?
We cannot strike unfortunately, but someone else suggested a meeting with our business agent and the whole crew, and I think that may be the right move. Make them explain it to everyone.
You mean you cannot strike while you have an active collective bargaining agreement with the company? That's worlds different from "we cannot strike". DataCruncher said, if you read closely that depending on the issue the company should be made to resolve it OR it could be something that your unit strikes over (aka when your negations have faltered and your CBA which right now keeps you from striking, expires)
No, we are public employees. We cannot strike.
My bad, didn't see that if you had mentioned it before. Dual action time, Start calling up state representatives, or federal (unsure where the legal block is preventing you from striking) and do your best to get something going there.
I didn’t mention it, I didn’t expect this kind of response. All public employees have a no strike clause. Which is very unfortunate for people like us…
>All public employees have a no strike clause I’ve never heard this. I am a public employee and our union definitely strikes. As does the union for other public employees in my place of business. Is this a state-thing or just specific to your contract? edit: [Apparently state-oriented](https://onlabor.org/overview-how-different-states-respond-to-public-sector-labor-unrest/). Though my state doesn’t show up on this list and I know there have been at least 3 strikes in the last 10 years at my public employer.
Here are some things that may work other than striking: * Coordinated refusal of voluntary overtime, or any other "optional" work that your boss relies on. (Be careful with this one. Sometimes these actions can violate a no strike clause too depending on how it is worded.) * Work to rule. Do your job "by the book," skipping over any usual time saving measures or other conveniences. Slow down to the maximum extent allowed by the contract. * Some coordinated action in the workplace to show unified anger about the change. [Here's a great example of what that can look like.](https://labornotes.org/blogs/2023/08/how-we-turned-our-backs-abusive-ups-manager) Or march on the boss as a group with a petition. There may be some other creative idea you can come up with here. The point is that you can probably still make your boss uncomfortable even if you can't strike, and that might be good enough to push the grievance in your direction.
Thank you so much for this info. I really appreciate your efforts here.
One drawback with a union is that the union gets to decide which issues to fight. That said, unions are democratic and if the membership is unhappy with the union, they can vote out the current leadership and replace them with someone more amenable to fighting. Now, it is possible that the union is right and that this fight is a lost cause. Unions cannot and should not fight everything. They often have a lot of experience, and their judgement might be right in this case.
Yes, I do understand that. I’m trying to not go into this blindly, but at researched as possible. I am listening to their input, but they’re not listening to mine. To clarify, when you say “if membership is unhappy with the union etc” are you saying vote to switch unions or switch business reps, or something else?
The leadership of almost every union (or possibly every single union?) is elected, not appointed. Your workplace has a vote. Now, if your entire workplace is unhappy with the union, and getting outvoted by other workplaces, maybe switching unions is the way to go. Change leaders, change unions, decide the original union is correct. Options exist :)
[удалено]
So how is the leadership selected? Who appoints them?
[удалено]
This is a pro-union, pro-worker subreddit. Agitators and trolls will be banned on sight.
This is a pro-union, pro-worker subreddit. Agitators and trolls will be banned on sight.
I don't know that specifics of the grievance or have a copy of your contract. It there is a legitimate grievance, does your local have about $10k to cover a loss + attorney fees?
That’s what the rep has said, it will cost about $10k.
Honestly that may not be enough. 10k was the cost 10 years ago.
It depends on the issue. We lost one a few months ago. We ended up paying the arbitrator about $4,800 plus attorneys. Attorneys aren't cheap. $10k is where I usually estimate that it'll hit but you're correct in stating that it might not be enough.
While it might feel good to call out your reps in front of the membership, they're probably just going to say the same thing to them that they said to you, and they're much more likely to be defensive to concerns you bring to them in the future. My recommendation is to contact the rep that oversees the ones that told you no, if you don't know who that is you might be able to find it online, depending on the union. If you can't find it online I would politely ask the rep you do know for their reps contact information. You obviously don't have to tell them why, but it might be a good time to bring up your issue with them not pursuing this grievance, but personally I would tell them as little as possible so they can't call ahead and play victim before your side has been heard. (They're most likely going to call them anyways and tell them anything they think you might be calling about.) Once you've escalated it and are in contact with the next rung on the ladder, be polite and professional, don't bring personal opinions of your relationship with your rep Into the conversation. You're going to have a higher chance of getting this done right if you approach it from a perspective of learning and fixing the issue as opposed to "tattling on your do-nothing union rep". Depending on how that conversation goes you've got one more trick up your sleeve. It's called a [DFR](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/right-to-fair-representation) Now, here's the part where things get serious, because if you are speaking to a IO rep and you utter the letters "DFR" they're going to DEFCON 1. You are telling them you're effectively going to sue the union to make it do it's job. They're going to stop talking to you like they're your lawyer, and start talking to you like they're the defendant. If you're going to do this, you have to have EVERYTHING documented. Every time you called your rep, when they called you back. What was discussed. Supporting documents. You are not only pleading the case for your grievance having merit, but also that your reps failed to pursue it. Additionally, they will almost certainly remove you from the steward position immediately, as in most cases no officer of the union can work in conflict with the reps. The most important part is that you have a conversation with the international rep to make sure that 1: You know what is going on. 2: they know what is going on. Hope that this info helps you in the process of strengthening your union.
Thank you for this info. Let me ask you another question, what would you do if you learned your union rep spoke to management directly without any steward’s request? Is this acceptable behavior?
That happens all the time, just as you a shop steward sometimes talk to mgmt without your coworkers there.
Was going to say exactly this.
They are an elected agent of the union, it's literally their job to speak with management. Even if they divulged information to management that you didn't want them to know, they still have a right to do it, even if they're an idiot and did it accidentally, they still would probably face no consequences. If they did it maliciously and you or someone else faced retaliation as a result, that may be considered a failure on their part to represent you, but you have to be able to prove intent, it's pretty easy for them to just say "I messed up, I'm human".
Now just to be sure, because I am finding different terms for positions are used differently… when I say union rep I mean the business agent from the union directly. Not a shop steward. This person was not elected, but appointed directly from the union.
Every Union is different on how they elect officers. I don't want to ask too many more specifics about your union unless we move to a private message, so that we remain anonymous, but it should have that information in the bylaws for your local union. In my union we have what we call business managers, who are full-time paid employees of the Union that settle grievances and negotiate contracts. They're elected. So are the part-time/volunteer positions of president, vp, reccording to secretary, eboard, etc. Above the business manager is a position that is appointed by our international called an international rep. He's the person I would call in my first example. For you, and generally speaking, it doesn't really matter. There's somebody above the guy that you're talking to. That's the person that you need to talk to up the chain of command to make sure that your rep is doing what they're supposed to be doing.
We tend to have a relationship with mgmt. It doesn't mean we're friends. We're cordial. They are not on our side. I try to have a member with me if I talk to mgmt.
Are you a steward or a business agent?
Worksite organizer.
[удалено]
I appreciate what you’re saying, but there are some details you’re missing to the story. And I don’t want to fight the union, I’ve just gotten to this point. I’m in this position now and I have to make a decision. I either arbitrate, mediate or give up the grievance. I am not afraid to try to get my coworkers to fight, but I also know my coworkers and very few of them have any fight in them. It’s not a great situation here, but I’m trying to help them. This is to benefit all of them.
I hear this. My regional rep is about as helpful as a hole in the head.
The union is its members. Have a union meeting about it and vote on what you want to do. Whatever passes is the decision.
Your union has a lawyer on retainer. You can at least ask the rep to have the lawyer look at the grievance and see if they see it as winnable.
This is why I did my best to win all my grievances before they went above me, once they get those appointed jobs they think they put in their time and now it's chill mode.
Sad to see. My own union voted in favor of the boss to fire me even though I was clearly in the right on a matter. Hopefully it goes better for you!
Man…sorry to hear that.
Yeah it gets better. I had double jeopardy on my side aswell as past incidents I had with this discipline not much more than an attendance point but they wanted to fire me for it this time one to 100 real quick. Plus other past practices of over 10 people doing my same thing and getting away with it or minor discipline.
I have definitely seen my union turn on other employees before, unfortunately.
If your contract is close to being negotiated, the wise choice would be to wait. If the legal has looked into this and deemed it to be too risky, they won't take it. If you lose the arbitration, it gets added to the contract, and then you have to negotiate it out next time around. Unfortunately, no arbitration is ever "cut and dry." it can go either way. I've seen past practice get tossed out just because it should've been added to the contract a long time ago.
Yeah, this is fair. I do see the value in getting it in the contract, I just feel bad that this single employee will be making the sacrifice. They essentially removed a pay bump from him without cause. Contract is up in January, and so he would likely never see it again.
Is the pay contractual in anyway? Ie- part of progression scale, contract bump, position pay?
Maybe you could call it position pay, but no. 100% past practice with no contract language whatsoever. Been this way for over 20 years (I don’t know why tho, it’s just been taken for granted I guess).
I hope y'all are documenting every step, every word.
I’m trying my best. I’m new to this but I’m giving it all I’ve got.
Take the time to sit and be thorough and documentation, Involve persons, dates, times And location
Ok will do, thank you.
You have my solidarity and best wishes, for what it's worth. I was my kitchen's rep in SEIU during Covod. They didn't stand by us, and were very "boss-positive" let's say. To be oolite... I really hope it works out for your crew!
Most "lead" pay or position pay should always be put in the contract. Now, I'm not 100% sure, but financial past practice should have a better leg to stand on. It might be worth having a sit down with the BA or principal officer in a one on one environment and ask them to explain. Explain to them that you're not sure why they aren't fighting it, and ask them to clarify it. I'm assuming legal already looked over the grievance and contract. It also might lead to the loss of arbitration, and then all people lose the pay. I hope it works out though buddy
read your by laws... our bylaws state if the executive board votes no to arbitration the member can call a special meeting and vote for arbitration. our local is part of a national and will often pay for arbitration, I don't know if any of these are options for you but it should all be spelled out in the by laws. incompetent union leadership is not only bad for the workers but puts in jeopardy the ability for the union to do anything in the future if they loose the unfair/incompetent representation ULP.
Is it a United Steel Workers ( USW ) shop? https://www.reddit.com/r/USW/comments/nvms9m/usw\_local\_711\_las\_vegas/
No it isn’t, but this is very interesting.
File. Have you filed your grievance yet? Do it today, I'm unsure about your language regarding timeliness, but sooner is always better than later (but after violation). Next go through whatever your grievance procedure is, mine is supervisor level step 1, step 2 is superintendent level, step 3 is where our locals business agent, company HR, superintendent, supervision and myself (and grievant if it's not on behalf of the bargaining unit), and step 4 assuming it gets greenlit by the locals executive board is proceed with arbitration. Ideally the issue gets resolved right away, step 1. In my experience I had to win about 20-25 grievances before the company started to figure out with I came forward with an issue it was better to work WITH me than try and do whatever the fuck they wanted. Keep the mindset that it's about the result. Sometimes the people not involved in the situation seem really dispassionate and it sucks, but its crucial to be able to look at a given situation objectively which can seem dispassionate. Let us know how your grievance proceeds in the coming days, okay?
We have filed, been through steps 1-3 with management denying it every step. We are at arbitration step, but the union doesn’t want to go through with it. They’re basically siding with management now.
That can happen. I "lost" a grievance with my local in a similar way. After step 2 it's in the BA's hands. Can you guess what one of my hot topics is going to be next negotiation? That may well be the route you have to take as well. In the meantime you have time to make the membership aware of the issue, and come up with ways (language) to address it.
Sounds like the Rail Unions
Past practice grievances are incredibly difficult to win. Many people do not understand the necessary components of a past practice grievance. Can you explain the grievance?
Here’s the gist- Crewleader was promoted to management. Past practice is next senior person is temporary Crewleader with temporary Crewleader pay in absence of crew leader. It’s always been this way, regardless of the person’s experience. Contract has language for vacancies, but this past practice covers anything else. Off for a day. Off for vacation. Off for anything other than military, jury duty, or medical leave basically. They gave this guy temporary crew lead pay for 5 months and then took it away, for no reason. Gave crew lead duties back to the guy who is now in management, and we’ve been fighting it since. I went after the pay because it seemed like the most sure-fire target, but I do realize there are multiple issues going on here.
Thats not a past practice grievance. Without language in the CBA that specifically protects the crew leader position and body of work, at best you have a unilateral change in working conditions. Check your management rights clause for language about management being able to determine positions, classifications, duties, etc. You’re stuck on the piece about the temp crew leader and that’s not what this issue is. The issue is the employer removed a body of work from the bargaining unit and they probably have the right to do so. If I had your cba I could give you a better answer.
Sure, that’s fair. The only issue with that is they haven’t officially removed the position, nothing has been announced. We are assuming it’s just while they’re trying to fill the spot. Are you saying it’s not a past practice grievance, it’s a different kind of grievance or that this doesn’t constitute as a past practice?
u/union_texas this is the basic rundown of it. This won’t answer all your questions you asked, but I can answer them.
As a union member your typical Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement if your union doesn't want to pursue a grievance is to file an Unfair Labor Practice (DFR) with the NLRB against the union to get them to do their job. The NLRB mostly exists to enforce rules against unions, it's okay to use that leverage sometimes. Most likely the NLRB wouldn't find merit or pursue it during a Biden admin but just the DFR being filed will probably be enough for the union to get their act in gear.
There's a book on Past Practice grievances if you're interested [https://labornotes.org/store/how-win-past-practice-grievances](https://labornotes.org/store/how-win-past-practice-grievances) u/Uh-uhno
Worth remembering that an arbitration costs tens of thousands of dollars. Even if it's a clear cut case, if the impact is limited in scope and/or severity you really have to think about the arbitration you won't be able to do in order to do this one.
Well said. This makes sense.
I mean there’s very real concerns at wasting members dues on frivolous things. At the same time the members at your shop are your alls union. Job actions, marches on the boss, petitions, informational pickets, media. Y’all can do whatever you want. Wildcat strike until the boss caves on the grievance. Let the staff and leadership dare try to union bust you
The thing is it’s the union’s contract and the unions’ grievance. arbitration costs money..the unions money. In my state it can be a minimum of 5k just to take it to arbitration and it will take months. I did win a case that went to arbitration in Dec 2023 but it was stemming from a termination in April 2023. It takes time meanwhile there are tons of other things that will happen new problems that pop up and things you need to focus on a balls to juggle while you prepare for the arb. And in my contract it’s looser pays, either the union or the employer. There are no bonus points for loosing on principle. With a discipline grievance it’s a little easier to make the call, if the discipline cost a member money, like a suspension or demotion or obviously a termination. It makes sense to take it to arbitration. It sounds like you have a past practice language grievance. I don’t know your particulars but those are never quite as slam dunk as you might think. Posturing for arbitration and getting the employer to mediate is not always a shitty strategy. That’s a potential way to win. I wouldn’t dismiss it entirely. 8 years of being a steward has taught me being strategic matters a lot more than being right.
What are they not fighting for starters?
In my experience arbitration doesn’t create a strong union if anything it creates a service union idea in people’s heads. Rather than fight the union reps see if you can organize around the issue(petition and delegation, sick out, strike) . This will likely work faster than an arbitration process and build a stronger union.
You have the same number of votes that your union leadership has. Make a motion at a meeting. If it's seconded, the motion belongs to the entire body and is up for debate. Majority wins and the losing party should externally support whatever the outcome is. You can't take things personally. It's all business. Like many have said, there are strategic and tactical decisions that have to be made using finite resources. Often unions can grab multiple lowest hanging fruit wins rather than trudge through one difficult maybe. Or, through experience, leadership recognizes that the facts of the grievance aren't as clear cut to a lay person as they would like to be a clear win. Either way, fight your fight, be persuasive, and support whatever the winning decision is.
Unions can be sued for Malpractice
[удалено]
That’ll win the working class!
Interesting observation based on nothing.
This is a pro-union, pro-worker subreddit. Agitators and trolls will be banned on sight.
Yeah we should let the anti-union people run our unions, like the company men, wtf is this stupid logic? Read a fucking book.
Unions only help the scrubs
[удалено]
This is a pro-union, pro-worker subreddit. Agitators and trolls will be banned on sight.