F.A.Q.s, or "FFPIR is trying to bust my union. What should I do?"

Once you submit your petition to unionize, you will immediately find yourself the focal point of a sad irony, as a progressive, left-wing non-profit, champion of fairness and trainer of the next generation of social change leaders, busily barrages you with every union-busting tactic known to Corporate America.

Know what to expect…

Q:  What should I expect?

A:  First, they will panic. They will begin with constant “indie meetings,” (which are illegal in a union office) featuring lots of empty smiles, empty promises, assurances that “we can work these problems out” (usually without ever actually asking what “these problems” are), followed by lots of indirect questioning, and thinly veiled threats. They will mostly target those whom they see as being the most accessible (i.e. undecided). FFPIR does not waste their time talking to canvassers whom they know see through their mechanized façade, and they will largely ignore those whom they know to be the ringleaders. They will know who is who.

No problem. You have all made up your mind that this is what you want to do, and there is no need for concern. Just let them do all the talking.

When indie meetings don’t achieve the desired results, they will bring in national leaders to lecture you. Maybe this will be Sarah Gaudette, maybe it will be Wendy Wendlandt (whose official title is actually Env. CA’s Chairperson of the Research & Policy Center Board of Directors), or, if you all behave real nicely, it might even be Ed Johnson, National Canvass Director. Again, no problem. Let them do all the talking. Expect an hour a day on average, until you win the vote, and they all go back to their actual jobs.

These lectures and indie meetings will mostly involve Union Mud Slinging, as FFPIR carries on a proud corporate tradition that has kept our some of our most powerful industries union-free for years. You will hear about how bad unions are, how evil the Teamsters in particular are, and how “inappropriate” a union would be for this workplace (see: NIMBY (Not In My BackYard!). To be fair, most FFPIR administrators did not exactly come from working-class backgrounds, and probably don’t know a whole lot about labor unions, other than what their equally misinformed higher-ups are telling them. Your directors are just doing what these higher-ups are pressuring them to do, and they will not argue if they want to keep their job.

Unless you went into this process already knowing a lot about unions, you will likely come away with a few questions and concerns…
 

Q.  Is it true that every single charge filed at the Labor Board has been dismissed?

A:  Most charges have been withdrawn, because it is difficult to prove that one has been fired explicitly for being pro-union.  However, the most important charge filed- the charge against FFPIR for unilaterally changing quota policy- was found to have merit.  Read the Notice to Employees.

Q.  I heard that the Teamsters are a bunch of truck drivers. Why would we join their union?

A:  The International Brotherhood of Teamsters was founded in 1903 to represent the Teamsters- horse and buggy drivers. Since then, they have grown to represent many different kinds of workers. Our local in particular, 848, has 9500 members, from 270 different bargaining units, including, but not limited to chauffeurs, warehouse workers, salespeople, electricians, nurses, grocery store workers, and many others.

 
Q:  Is it true that we have to pay huge initiation fees and dues?

A:  Dues and fees? Yes. Huge? Hardly. First of all, no one who is on staff at the time the contract is signed has to pay the initiation fee, which is calculated as 20 hours pay for employees making less than $11 an hour (that’s us). Dividing base pay of $60 by eight, and multiplying by twenty, that’s $150. Monthly dues are two hours pay. Dividing the initiation fee by ten, that’s $15 a month. Our office will be a closed shop, which means that anyone working here has to join the union within 31 days of starting work (by which time at least 90% of canvassers are gone anyway). For their first five months as a union member, however, they only have to pay the $15 monthly dues. Only after a canvasser has been on staff six months will they have to pay the $150 initiation fee (around 1% of observers last that long). By the way, all of this is tax deductible.

FFPIR’s fear is that these “huge” fees and dues will scare people away, especially summer canvassers. $15 a month? Starting after the first month on staff? If anything, this will give the “next generation of social change leaders” that FFPIR claims to be producing their first insight into the important role that organized labor plays in protecting our workforce.

 
Q: Don’t we all have to go on strike if one group of workers in the union goes on strike?

A:  Grrrr….Again, Local 848 alone represents 9500 members from 270 different bargaining units. If that story were true, we’d all be on strike, all the time. Only if one group of workers in the same line of work in your union goes on strike would you be expected to strike with them. In other words, if the LA telephone canvassers go on strike, the LA door canvassers would strike with them, and vice-versa. Do we have a problem with this? Hell, no. These are our brothers and sisters, and we’re not happy until they are.

Q: I heard that the Teamsters lobbied in support of opening ANWR for oil drilling, and then I also heard that they supported Schwarzenegger’s nomination for CARB chairperson. Are the Teamsters anti-environment?

A:  No more than the Sierra Club is anti-job growth, or anti-economy. It’s not their mission. Unions exist to protect the rights of their members, not to advocate one direction or the other on environmental policy. When forced to choose between protecting jobs and protecting the environment, labor unions will choose one, and environmental groups will choose the other.

In August of 2001, the Teamsters were approached by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), and asked to lend their political endorsement to the energy bill including the drilling measure. First, they were fed the usual corporate crap- that opening ANWR would have little or no environmental damage, that it would solve our nation’s foreign oil dependency, and that it would produce 75,000 new jobs (keep in mind that the average teamster is no more or less well informed than the average American when it comes to environmental issues). Jerry Hood, the Teamsters’ official from Alaska, was given a choice- support drilling in ANWR, and the energy bill will include a measure requiring oil and gas companies who hold leases in the Arctic Refuge to negotiate agreements with labor unions. Don’t support the measure, and expect the oil and gas companies to have their way.

As for Schwarzenegger’s CARB Chair nominee, Cynthia Tuck has built a career lobbying for oil companies, and yes, the Teamsters did support her. The reason: the Teamsters represent a lot of truckers, and California based truckers are forced to pay higher-than-average diesel prices, which are often attributed (rightly or wrongly) to particular state formulations that cut down on air pollution. For fear of having their jobs outsourced, many California truckers support a change in the state’s fuel standards. Tuck supports this change as well.

 
Q: And aren’t the Teamsters also supposed to be really corrupt? Like, Mafia corrupt?

A:  The Teamsters definitely have a history with organized crime that goes back to Al Capone, and probably climaxed in the late 50s and early 60s during Hoffa’s presidency, at the time McClellan hearings. These hearings were purported to root out organized crime at all levels of society, but mostly just gave organized labor a bad image, which has plagued them to this day. Hoffa was an fascinating historical figure to say the very least, and while he did do some things that were either downright good or bad, he spent most of his career either doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

As far as anyone knows, Hoffa and the mob didn’t exactly part ways on the best of terms, and the mob’s influence over the Teamsters today compared to what it was forty years ago is roughly comparable to what the mob’s overall power is today compared to what it was forty years ago- that is to say, not much at all.  Nevertheless, corporate America has capitalised tremendously by perpetuating the Teamsters’ image as a bunch of evil, opportunistic thugs, and by jumping on this bandwagon, FFPIR is furthering the anti-union work of the corporations they are fighting.  

Q:  What about this Jim Santangelo guy?

A:  Jim Santangelo is the president of Joint Council 42, which means he is responsible for thirty-odd locals in Southern California, Southern Nevada, Saipan, Hawaii and Guam. He has a thirty plus year career with the IBT. If you Google “Jim Santangelo” and “Teamsters,” and really dig through every result, you will find references to charges Santangelo faced during the late ‘90s regarding money received by him and several other Teamster officials through pension and severance accounts set up for Teamster members. The fine Santangelo ended up paying was relatively low, and the damage to his career was minimal, because he had been acting in accordance with policies that had recently been changed regarding who within Teamster ranks was and was not eligible for pension and severance pay. To put it into perspective, Google “Jim Santangelo” and “Teamsters,” and you’ll get hundreds of results, most of which are business as usual. Google “Ben Flamm” and “FFPIR,” and see what happens (Ben’s FFPIR career having been only a fraction as long as Jim’s with the IBT, of course).

Furthermore, if you trace the online source of this information, you will most likely find yourself on the nlpc.org website. The National Legal and Policy Center is an extreme right-wing website dedicated to protecting the interests of big oil, Wal-Mart, and the Bush Administration, while bashing George Soros, the ACLU, and all things progressive, especially labor unions. In fact, their website has a special “Union Corruption Update” section, just for the benefit of employers like FFPIR who need union dirt, and need it fast. If you wonder why there is so much bad press on labor unions, just think about who stands to capitalise on giving unions a corrupt image, and who stands to benefit from employers not unionizing. Think about how powerful and how influential those interests are, and always have been. It is a wonder we have any unions at all!

The message to be taken away from all of this is that FFPIR will find a way to dig up dirt on whoever you unionize with, regardless of how honorable that union's history is.

Q: So why did you choose the Teamsters?

A:  Simply put, we do not necessarily need a union that is pro- or anti- oil drilling. We need a union that will stand up to FFPIR, and not tolerate their stupid bullshit. That is the real reason why FFPIR fears canvassers unionizing with the Teamsters. If the Teamsters Union has a poor environmental record, it is because they do not compromise when it comes to protecting their members, most of whom are not aware of their union’s environmental record anyway. You’ve probably all known (or at least canvassed) people who accuse environmental groups of being anti-economy, or anti-worker. Of course, all of you know full well that while most environmental groups respect workers rights, and the capitalist system, it is not environmental groups’ mission to protect these things. How is accusing a labor union of being anti-environment any less irrational or fanatical than this?  FFPIR are fundamentalists and absolutists, the left-wing equivalent of George W. Bush- if you’re not with them, then you’re against them. Don’t buy it.

Remember that the Teamsters Union represent the interests of its members. Their environmental record will not change until the members make it. Change from within. It’s how FFPIR works anyway. If you’re working to improve an environmental group’s poor labor record, there’s no reason the same can’t be done with a labor union’s poor environmental record.

Q: Doesn’t unionizing create a rift between staff and directors?

A:  It does if your director believes and passes on lies about unions, changes office policy, and violates past practice in order to fire union ringleaders and accommodate his or her own anti-union agenda. In other words, unionizing does create this rift if your directors want it to, as ours have. There’s no reason why, if you and your director have good relations at the start, you can’t continue to have good relations. Unionizing will NOT make the directors’ job harder. They will be required to submit a list of new employees to the union every two weeks. That’s how much harder their job will be. If anything, unionizing will clarify office policies. Aside from the pressure their higher-ups will put on them to stop it, directors have nothing to fear from canvassers unionizing.