Posted by 
APWU
APWU’s President Burrus states that in March he sent letters to non-APWU members requesting that they join the union. The mailing included a postage-paid return envelope along with an APWU membership application.
Burrus noted that about 1000 postal employees chose to join the union, but many others chose to use the postage-paid envelope to express their negative views regarding the union and union membership – because of this, Burrus decided to publicize the names of those who identified themselves.
You may read Burrus’ statements and see his publicized list of employees choosing not to join APWU here.
I am a current union employee. I am growing more and more anti-union everyday.
I am tired of hearing that crap that non union workers are scabs and are riding the coattails of others. I am been a postal worker for 22 years. When I came to the postal service for employment, I was not aware they had unions. I was just looking for a job. People should not feel as though they need to join unions to have a job. So what if the union negotiates for our raises. All that was negotiated before I became a postal employee. I can’t think of anything outstanding the union has done for me in the past 22 years. The only thing that was major was the ending of part time flex in larger offices. That was not good news to me. I transferred from another area to be close to my family. At the time I transferred there was no one available to swap with me. So I get to lose everything I worked hard for for 22 years and become a part time flex again, due to something the union negotiated a long time ago. I think that’s a gross injustice. To treat somebody like a new hire even though they have not changed employers is just totally wrong. Nobody should have to choose between their job and their family. Family comes first. Before people start complaining about being bumped, if the post office was paid by state government, I could see your side and I would not complain. However we receive a government check and I my check continues to come from the exact same place. I just feel once you gain your seniority you should be able to keep it no matter where you go. You never know if you may find yourself in the same situation, I know most people would give up their seniority to be near their family because their family is important to them. I moved before they negotiated the ending of part-time flex in larger offices. To add insult to injury they get rid of part time flex and I get to sit at the bottom of the list with one person below me. I don’t know why the union did not see this coming that when they negotiated this the post office would no longer hire regular employees they would start hiring more casuals. I think any dummy could have seen that. I have been paying dues to APWU every since 1988 when I transferred from the mail handler craft. I just feel totally ill. I was recently excessed and at my new office I am again low man on the totem pole. Everybody including the part-time flex there have more seniority than me. They have excessed from that office in the past so its possible I could get excessed again. How do you think I feel being employed 22 years and being tossed around like this? I should just give my money to people who negotiate things I don’t agree with. I also don’t like their constant support of the democratic party. That’s all I am going to say about that. I wasn’t trying to start a debate about Democrats versus Republicans. Why should I remain a union member? With the big boss doing something like this, this gives me more ammo to drop this union. I don’t like bullies. Also the union does not pay my salary I earn my pay everyday. When the union starts paying me a salary then union workers can complain about me not pulling my weight. Tell me why I should feel guilty when most of everything in that contract was negotiated before I became a postal employee.
This blog deals with the manner in which Mr. William Burrus, APWU President, responded to recalcitrant non-union member employees who declined his invitation to join the APWU in a manner he disliked. As the exclusive representative, the APWU, and Mr. Burrus as its agent, have a duty to fairly represent all collective bargaining unit employees regardless of their union affiliation or lack thereof. But did Mr. Burrus violate his duty by publishing those names? The following excerpts from Vica v Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967), written for the majority by Mr. Justice White, establishes the standard to which unions and their agents, including Mr. Burrus, are held.
“Although the NLRB has recently held that a union’s breach of its statutory duty of fair representation is an unfair labor practice under § 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, …”
“The doctrine of fair representation, which protects individuals against arbitrary union conduct, …”
“A union breaches its duty of fair representation when its conduct toward a member of the designated unit is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, … ”
“Under this doctrine, the exclusive agent’s statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.”
“Although N.L.R.A. § 8(b) was enacted in 1947, the NLRB did not, until Miranda Fuel, interpret a breach of a union’s duty of fair representation as an unfair labor practice. In Miranda Fuel, the Board’s majority held that N.L.R.A. § 7 gives employees “the right to be free from unfair or irrelevant or invidious treatment by their exclusive bargaining agent in matters affecting their employment,” . . . .”
“. . . “that Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act accordingly prohibits labor organizations, when acting in a statutory representative capacity, from taking action against any employee upon considerations or classifications which are irrelevant, invidious, or unfair.”
“The collective bargaining system, as encouraged by Congress and administered by the NLRB, of necessity subordinates the interests of an individual employee to the collective interests of all employees in a bargaining unit. See, e.g., J. I. Case Co. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 332. This Court recognized in Steele that the congressional grant of power to a union to act as exclusive collective bargaining representative, with its corresponding reduction in the individual rights of the employees so represented, would raise grave constitutional problems if unions were free to exercise this power to further racial discrimination. 323 U.S. at 323 U. S. 198-199. Since that landmark decision, the duty of fair representation has stood as a bulwark to prevent arbitrary union conduct against individuals stripped of traditional forms of redress by the provisions of federal labor law.”
“A breach of the statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
Since Mr. Burrus’ response was directed at collective bargaining unit employees, specifically non-union member employees, and appears to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and/or hostile in character, is it reasonable to conclude his response constitutes an unfair labor practice by a labor union?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
I’m not anti union.. but, i am anti present day union mentality. While the Prez is seeking relief for businesses… the unions will seek to use it as a reason to demand higher wages. What’s the point??? Why even boither to give tax incentives to businesses. The unions and thier “Hoffa” style tactics of bulling and intimidation are driving businesses right out of business. I can see if the employer can be more free to fire or discipline poor workers but, the unions prevent this. They even go so far as to protect these poor workers and has earned a reputation of being the dud’s hero. It is well known that unions drive up cost and overhead by blocking employer’s ability to manage thier own overhead cost. Think of how much money can be saved just by eliminating poor workers. I’m talking poor workers ie; duds that either refuse to work, won’t work, or not able to do the job, ( the latter can be placed in different positions that use thier talents more effectively). It takes two employees to do the job of one poor worker. That’s double the overhead cost to an employer. Why should a custodian make so much an hour. They make almost as much as a mechanic. The highest paid custodians in the nation exist in the USPS. It’s crazy. Chrysler and GM failed, in part, because of the union and thier refusal to make meaningful concessions. They did not give a dam about thier”brothers” who would be affected by thier refusals. The ones who would be laid off. What happened to solidarity and brotherhood! It’s all BS! The union heads are all in it for themselves. The CTA (Chicago Transportation Authority) jus laid off hundreds of workers and reduced services that not only affect union worker but the public as a whole… all because the UNION and thier sorry memebers all decided to not compromise and throw thier fellow members “under the bus”. This is solidarity? Brotherhood? What a joke. I’m willing to wager that many of the members who voted to screw there fellow members were poor workers who would be protected either way… due to thier “seniority”. Nothing to do with knowledge or proficiency. Thos eare 4 letter words to unions. As a now former dues paying member, I am just totally fed up with these protections given to these poor workers then forcing me to work “with” them. In actuality… I get to do there jobs too as they won’t or can’t and the task need to get done. I get NO extra pay for this. All i get is more bitter and DISGUSTED!
You are all cry baby!!
The union is the one reason why they paying you what you’re earning now!
If its not enough for you, look for another high paying job.
The union is the one reason why, when you wake-up tommorrow, you’ll have still have your job without being to worry about to lost it.
The union is the one reason why, your getting all your benefits.
The union is the one reason why…………………….
read this…. http://courierexpressandpostal.blogspot.com/2010/02/irs-cracks-down-on-workers-status-abuse.html
and compare yourself to UPS and FEDEX!!
I bet Obet is one of those “poor workers” that i’ve spoke of. The unions think that they play a bigger role than they do. This notion of “JOB SECURITY” is all BS. That’s right… smoke and mirrors. Cause if an employer really needs to trim the fat, you can bet your arse job security would be tossed. It is known by those at the table that a “no layoff” clause is just something that the unions can use as a talking point for recruitment. Any fool who really believes that this would save his or her job needs a psyc exam. Tell me why should anyone get $20 an hour to paint one sign. This is what unions have done to america. They drove up cost to the point where you’d have to make that much to buy anything. It’s a redundant thing. They demand higher pay, companies have to charge more for goods and services, then they ask for more, then companies raise prices more. On and on. In the meantime… ordinary people find it difficult to afford basics. More join the ranks of the poor. Foreign consumers can’t afford our goods. Trade slows. Think supply and demand. You don’t demand what you can’t afford. Now if we adopt a new mentality and decrease the power of unions to interfere with overhead… such as allowing employers to rid thier rank of “dead weight”… then maybe we can have the nice saleries and keep overhead down as well. Now more on this job security. What would the incentive be for a new hire to come into a shop, join a union and, when it comes time to lay someone off, guess what!! See ya! Mr. new employee. Thanks for all of the dues you’ve wasted supporting those who’ve been here longer. Now what is the incentive for those with seniority to join the union. They will benefit either way so, why join. The facts are what they are. There is very little incentive for either side to join. Esp the new hire. Just wasted money. Work 20 years and be the first fired. That would suck right? Now if the unions were blocked from the process, then only the “dead weight” would get ejected. They’re not contributing anyway. In fact, they actually increase overhead disproportionately. So, i really don’t need to hear or read your “talking point” reference. Have a nice day.
I am a dues paying member but don’t get adequate representation. I can’t get my grievances filed by the local union and the local union representatives often side with Postal Management in their action. The contractual violation are known to the union representatives and tolerated by them. The union visit our office maybe once every 4-6 weeks and don’t usually have time to talk to the employees. Several Letter Carriers have given the union representative statements about management performing craft work but no action is taken.
Why pay for something (union representation) that isn’t provided. Burris seem to be attempting to embarrass the individuals into joining the union against their will. If the union provided adequate representation to all its due paying members then more will remain members. They just chose not to pay for something they weren’t getting anyway. Burris need to stop crying and start fighting for what he and those under him have lost by getting in bed with Postal management. Burris if you lay with dogs and you always get fleas.