Truck Drivers and Dockworkers Fight Back Against Teamster Union Intimidation
Employees seek to throw out union after union bosses’ ugly campaign of harassment and coercion
Seattle, Washington (March 5, 2009) – Employees from nine collective bargaining units of Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. have filed decertification petitions seeking elections to oust the Teamster union as the workers’ monopoly bargaining agent.
With help from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees – drivers and dockworkers – filed the decertification petitions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking secret ballot elections to determine whether the workforce wants to retain the Teamster union as their monopoly bargaining agent.
On September 22, 2008, Teamster union brass called a strike against Oak Harbor Freight. Teamster union operatives picketed Oak Harbor Freight’s clients with the goal of discouraging them from doing business with the company. Teamster union bosses sought publicly to damage Oak Harbor Freight’s reputation and openly celebrated when clients refused to do further business with the company.
Teamster union bosses organized a subsequent campaign of intimidation and harassment of Oak Harbor Freight employees who continued to work during the strike. Teamster union partisans participated in ambulatory strikes, in which they stalked and picketed Oak Harbor Freight drivers on their daily routes.
“It’s particularly despicable to intimidate workers if they refuse to abandon their jobs in the midst of an economic crisis,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “All workers should be free to support their families, free from harassment by union bosses.”
The Oak Harbor Freight employees work at terminal sites in Auburn, Washington; Burlington (Mt. Vernon), Washington; Olympia, Washington; Pasco, Washington; Spokane, Washington; Wenatchee, Washington; Medford, Oregon; Salem, Oregon; and Boise, Idaho.
Comments
Interesting press release.
Interesting press release.
Unfortunately you managed to leave out some important information. Such as Oak Harbor admitted to and lost several Unfair Labor Practices. And that the one that they won is under appeal. That the strike was over the ULP's, not economics. Have you ever read a past contract or the current best and final offer? Were the Teamsters asking for an exorbitant amount in wage increases?
Or since the Teamsters has offered to return to work OHFL placed 13 under suspension for alleged picket line mis-conduct.
How about that the Teamsters had been working for eleven months without a contract. Did you forget that? Even in your twisted view that shows that the Teamsters wanted to keep working. You certainly missed the fact that when that contract was signed the owners vowed that they would never again sign a contract.
You make no note of the fact the OHFL wanted to remove over 100 items from their contract. How about mailing to homes and forcing employees to watch at work numerous videos with threats that "You will be replaced" by the owners.
Did somehow you miss the fact that the "security" firm hired by OHFL intimidated and drove carelessly during the ambulatory picketing. How about that they were involved in a hit-and-run? Did you forget that the law allows for peaceful ambulatory picketing? Is there a law restricting me from walking on a sidewalk as long as I do not threating anyone during ambulatory picketing?
Sorry but your deliberate mis-truths and omitted facts go to show the true plan of your organization. And that is simply to oppress the worker to allow favoritism and mistreatment.
Yeah, those "unfair labor
Yeah, those "unfair labor practices" were really significant, weren't they? I mean how COULD they? Sending out DVDs? Such a travesty! And informing their employees of the reality of the situation....what a terrible thing for Oak Harbor to do! And God forbid that employees actually form a committee on their own...what on earth were they thinking?!
As for your claim that "the Teamsters had been working for eleven months without a contract", I guess that wouldn't in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with the fact that the Teamsters wouldn't SIGN a contract made available to them, would it? 'Nah, of course not1
Then let's go on to this talk about the "hit and run" and "peaceful ambulatory picketing"....in that, as I recall, the "hit and run" involved a Teamster illegally STOPPED (by his own admission) in the entrance, attempting to block ingress/egress. Now there may be no law "restricting [you] from walking on a sidewalk"...but there sure IS a law restricting you from blocking traffic.
Lastly, in light of the above, perhaps you'd like to review what you see as "deliberate mis-truths and omitted facts", and this time, perhaps, consider also the unions claimed "unconditional" offer to return to work that, apparently, was anything but.
Earn more, work less
Earn more, work less. Seems like a good motto for union employees around the world. I know too many former teamsters who would quit thier jobs before going back to a union job. These good people worked for promenant truck lines that are now out of business in large part due to the union. What did the union do for these people when their employers went out of business? Absolutely nothing. In fact many of them lost tens of thousands of dollars in retirement contributions that the teamsters kept to fund thier already failing retirement accounts. So, for all of you dilusional people who think that the union has done you so many favors, think again. If you work hard and earn the money that your employer is paying you, then your employer will likely treat you much better. Quit trying to earn more, and work less. It's the downfall of our economy.
Peaceful Picketing?????
After being the target of some these "peaceful" ambulatory picketers it's nice to see a true representation of what has happened. It's obvious that the Teamsters are motivated by only one thing and it's greed. They obviously don't care about any of the employees they claim to represent.
They hurt a great company and put many of their own members out of work. Way to go!
Good call
It sounds to me like bitter Oak Harbor management talking. Maybe even their attorneys. No the attorney would have only used facts that could be backed up, not a bunch of accusations that cannot be verified. And what is up with the repeated term "union bosses"? NOBODY uses this term. "Union bosses" is so late last century trying to get people to think of the mafia, or organized crime.
If the national right to work foundation wants to have any credibility, they really need to clean up their act.
The right to work should
The right to work should also include the right to work without pressure and threats from our employers. If the owners of Oak Harbor ran their business in this manner then maybe the union won't be necessary but they don't. They have been charged by the NLRB for offering certain employees benefits for reporting to the company.
Although the term "right to
Although the term "right to work" has obvious implications,this group represents nothing that those words would mean to the average American.
RTW is a anti-American, anti-worker, union-busting outfit that is controlled by corporate sponsors that are intent on oppressing the working people of this country. More than likely they will censor, remove, or professionally reply to these threads as public users, to manipulate the tone of the conversation.
Right-to-Work is very much pro-American
I am a Right-to-Work supporter and have always been an employee, not a corporate employer. The Right-to-Work organizations are the only ones to come to my aid when I was resisting the power of the union to force me to finance their corrupt activities. The union was the oppressor.
I am sure that I don't want the kind of America that you want.
Yea right
I guess you want longer work days, lower pay, no bennefits, no retirement, and you want to work untio you drop then? The Union is part of what stands up against companys such as oak harbor, but alass brain washed individuals can't think for themselves. You have a choice to work at a Union place of employment or not. If a place goes Union and you don't want to I guess you are in the minority since it has to be voted on in the first place. So you snivel about being out voted?
There must have been at least one reason that these places chose to go union in the first place, and it certainly isn't because their employer treats them just wonderful!
Again unless you know the facts about the union then you really have no business even flapping your jaw. I have been both Union, and non-union, and I choose Union! I work just as hard as any non-union worker, and probably harder than some if not several. I do not have a problem with non-union workers, I just have problems with brainwashed individuals which think they know all, and in reality are off in their own reality where they think every thing is great, and all employers put their employees before their own self centered greed, and lust for power. WAKE UP!
True Lies
What I don't quite understand about all of this argueing is this: If the company is so bad, why would you want to work there? Personally, if ever I didn't like the company that I chose to work for I would simply go find another company. And yes, I've moved on many times. Why would I want to stay even if the union came in to 'bargain/negotiate' for me (and then continue to work in what would now be a hostile environment). I'll do my own bargaining thank you.
I understand back in the day when there were only a handful of places to work for and then the unions stepped in and did a wonderful job of ending the 'sweatshops'(of which my mother-in-law worked in & her father in a steel factory) as well as horrible, unsafe working conditions. Fortunately there are government laws in place now that help to protect us from that. Unfortunately, government laws are not in place to provide us with anything other than minimum wage nor are there any laws in place that can guarantee us a pension. But can the union actually guarantee me a pension? Well they can 'bargain/negotiate' a great pension for me, but there is no guarantee that I will actually receive this ellusive pension is there? I'm sure the GM UAW union members can vouch for the fact that there are no guarantees, union or not. Everything that these employees/members have done to support the UAW in the collective bargaining process to assure better wages as well as retirement...and they find themselves out on the street anyway. Not to mention the blood and sweat they have given to the company all those years. Seems the employer, as well as the union that vowed to protect them has left them out cold on the street.
This economy is in a very difficult time. As I see it, the employer needs to put away their greed.... and the unions should do the same (um yeh, it's no secret that unions are greedy to, they are a business too afterall!).
And as someone allegated (allegated, is that a real word?) in the above paragraphs that the anti-union statements were written by either lawyers or whatever...wow, do you think that maybe, perhaps, there's a slight chance that some people just don't agree with unions?
There is rumor that the company I work for is going to vote on unionizing, well actually, it's more than just a rumor. I have been on this friggin internet for the past week doing my own research because I'd rather have facts than the propoganda that my employer and the union organizers will be throwing my way. As in the "Yea right" paragraph I'd rather not be brainwashed. But "Yea right" needs to keep in mind that the brainwashing and sniveling seems to go both ways from what I've seen and heard. I've been going to the teamsters sites, government sites, news sites, as well as pro/anti-union sites, and library attempting to educate myself on this subject.
When I first heard about the possibility of a union I was very surprised because I actually think I work for an awesome company where we have better pay than in most jobs, excellent benefits, terrific work environment, and safety is a huge concern with them (more because of liability reasons I'm sure). There are checks and balances in place for job advancement, sexual harrassment, workplace violence, and racial/sexual discrimination. I'm just not seeing the need for a union in this particular company. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this to be true everywhere. But I can say without a doubt, that some people are just never satisfied with what they have. And unfortuately a union will never make it 'enough' for those people. All I hear coming from all the words from the pro-union sites and people... is anger. Oh, and I also hear a lot of greed... not just fair and equal, but greed. Both sides are greedy because EVERYBODY wants to make money. The company wants to make money (gee, do you think that's why they are in business?...wouldn't you want to make as much money as possible if it were your business?..oh that's right you ARE wanting to make more money). The unions want to make money too. I'm certainly not fooled by thinking that the company will ever look out for my best interest. And neither am I fooled into thinking that a union will look out for my best interest. The only one that cares about my best interest in the work place, earnings, pension, etc.. is me. I'm not yet convinced that a union would look out for my best interest nor the best interest of the group as they profess.
In the paragaphs before mine there are two sides to that trucking story. As in every thing, whether people are in agreement or not, there are always two sides to the story....people's perceptions are always different. Propaganda? Lies? Probably not. Just emotions, tension, mind sets, and I'm sure a little unfortunate hatred. Which is what I would hate to see happen where I work. I love the people I work with as well as the people I work for. We all get along very well, there are the old timers and the new timers. For the most part we are like a family. It disturbs me to think that because of a union we will actually become divided rather than united. I see the ripples and it makes me sad. It may be time to once again move on.
Exploitation and Corruption Are Always Wrong
While it is true that there are employers that are exploitive and corrupt, I don’t believe that the remedy is an exploitive and corrupt union. Freedom of association is an essential human right. Monopoly bargaining and mandatory fees forced on those who desire not to associate with a union violate that right.