Translator

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Are you falling under constructive termination?

Conway starting to put more strict rules on employees, making it impossible for workers to feel not wanted. The company starting to harass employees and making us employees fall under a constructive termination evironment. Also your medical benefits are so ridiculous, making the employee pay 65% and company pays only 35% for medical, what ever happen to the old fashion 80/20 ? Now it seems we are paying cobra prices for our medical benefits. But in over all we must be cautious to our work status, connect your dots and cross your tee's...don't fall under the constructive termination conditions, self terminate or just fall on the cross fire. One last thing, look up Constructive Termination on Wikipedia and know what is all about, remember you are an at will employee without a Collective Bargaining Agreement...be wise and organize.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Get hurt and lose your seniority


Attention Con-way drivers, as many of you already know, there's a new "policy" in place at work. If you get hurt at work and you miss time while recovering, don't count on coming back to your same spot, or even same terminal. Apparently the company will at the least, send you to the bottom of the roster. Think that's bad enough? No, they will even make you go to work at a different terminal! You applied to work at a certain terminal because it was close to home. Say you live in San Fernando, well the company will send you to work in San Bernardino. Don't like it? Then quit! That's the point. They want you to know that the penalty of getting sick or getting hurt will be to lose your spot or your job. That's why we need a union contract, stuff like this wouldn't be happening.

Love Twinkies ?


Wall street vultures are blaming workers for getting rid of your sweets—and that’s just not right.
You might have heard that Hostess Brands, the company that makes Twinkies, Ding Dongs and other desserts, filed for court permission to go out of business, and that its blaming a worker strike for the shutdown.
The Wall Street hedge fund managers who run the company have squeezed every cent out of Hostess for eight years. And they’ve put their friends with no experience in the baking industry in high-level management positions.
Hostess workers believe in their company, and we need to stand with them—sign our pledge to support workers, not greedy CEOs who will cut and run for a quick buck.
What’s happening here is a classic Bain Capital-style assault—blame the little guy to cover the greedy corporate policies that are gutting the middle class.
It’s not just happening to the workers who make the great products Americans love. What’s happening at Hostess is happening to workers all over this country. It’s wrong. And it has to stop.
Crony capitalism and poor management drove Hostess into the ground, not the workers who are now paying the price. In this struggling economy, the greedy corporate executives are willing to let 18,000 people lose their jobs—just so they can pad their pockets.
Hostess' executives are now blaming workers who’ve offered their company multiple concessions and want it to succeed. This is what’s wrecking our country.
Workers have borne the brunt of bad decision-making by executives who didn’t know anything about the baking business. And they’re the ones getting fired?
These brave workers need to know we stand with them—and we’ll stand with everyone who will take a stand against the corporate race-to-the-bottom.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Learn About Unions

Members of the National Taxi Workers Alliance receive their AFL-CIO charter. A union is a democratic organization of employees in a workplace who choose to join together to achieve common goals. By forming unions, employees can work collectively to improve working conditions, including wages and benefits, hours and job safety, to resolve disagreements of employees and employers and to find the best ways to get the work done.Unions also represent members and all people who work by advocating working family-friendly laws and policies through legislative and political action. Most people who work in this country have the right to form and join unions under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which encourages union formation. Yet millions of workers, such as farm laborers, domestic workers and managers, are not covered by the NLRA. Many of them, though, are organizing and partnering with the AFL-CIO to gain workplace rights.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Wal-Mart walkouts: New ballgame for labor?

Wal-Mart doesn't seem to have a lot of friends as lightning strikes and walkouts spread throughout the country in the past few weeks. The Naked Capitalist yesterday ticked off the actions (overlooked as usual by the mainstream media) taken in support of the workers. She commented, ...nobody in the press seems to be quite sure how big this thing is.

 Here are some clues:
The opening of a Walmart Neightborhood Market in San Ramon last month is one of the reasons some Walmart workers went on strike at five Bay Area stores on Tuesday, union organizers said.

 ...there have been protests in Dartmouth, Raynham and Fall River the past few months over Walmart's labor practices.

 About 75 South Florida Walmart employees on Thursday joined the hundreds nationwide that have staged protests outside Walmart stores and corporate headquarters over the past few days.

 About 90 workers walked off their jobs from 12 cities on Wednesday including Dallas, Miami, Orlando, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles. Others walked off their shifts in Tennessee and Kentucky.

Raw Story explains how the Wal-Mart walkouts show why conservatives should support unions: They allow workers to bargain for living wages so they don't have to depend on the government. One of the problems striking workers cite is the lack of access to full-time working hours, which prevents them from obtaining even the meager health benefits the company offers. The National Consumer’s League (NCL) told Raw Story that Walmart’s refusal to provide those benefits by exploiting part-time labor leads to a number of spillover costs that taxpayers ultimately pick up. “Many Walmart workers are dependent on public assistance programs due to their low wages and not having access to full time jobs and being denied benefits because they’re not working the number of hours required to get access to those benefits, or the benefits are just so expensive that on their low wages they just can’t afford them,” NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg said in an exclusive interview. “Walmart has a record of even working with employees to sign them up for public assistance programs, which we think is really atrocious.” She added that Walmart’s position of keeping wages low in order to pass the savings along to consumers doesn’t wash either: “Companies that pay a decent wage and provide benefits to their workers help create a middle class that is able to buy the kinds of products that Walmart sells,” Greenberg explained. “It is actually a plus for companies if they provide fair compensation to workers. It’s also better for consumers when they’re able to actually afford housing, healthcare and have access to benefits of the kind we think Walmart, with all its success and profits, ought to be able to pay workers.

 Support Wal-Mart workers by signing this declaration here http://forrespect.nationbuilder.com/sign_the_declaration

Friday, October 5, 2012

This is what we union THUGS do when Catholic Charities needs help

We fill their trailers with donations and then we drive them to Northern Maine. Maine Teamster THUGS (Those Helpful Union Guys and Gals) are coordinating with Catholic Charities to get two trailers from southern to northern Maine next week, carrying donations to benefit those in need. The Joint Council 10 truck will do the hauling. Here's an email from a grateful Dixie Shaw, program director for Maine Catholic Charities Home Supplies & Food Bank: This is the second happy dance this year thanks to the Teamsters! First we had the record- breaking food collection that the Teamsters did in July and now a mere two months and two weeks later! Another happy dance as you all come to the rescue of our poor often forgotten County up here at the top of Maine!!!! I had such a challenge ahead of me. We received some grant money to purchase two trailers which we got in Scarborough for a great deal but now we needed to get them to the County! I called all my resources, some of my personal friends with trucks, you name it, and I pretty much had tried it until last Saturday when who should happen in my path but Traci Place and Teamsters Local 340. I thought, hmmmm I wonder? Well now you look! We have a coordinated effort that not one but both of the trailers will be hauled back to the County by the Joint Council’s beautiful truck. Everything we do is to ultimately Feed The County and this is a BIG DEAL to us. Thank you Teamsters 340 for all you have done for the people of Aroostook County.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Here's how a union creates jobs

Jack Taylor posted his dad's union card from Teamsters Local 299 on our Facebook page. His message was so important we're sharing it here too: I was cleaning up old records from my parents house today. I came across my dads membership card to Local 299 signed by Otto Wendzel. Thank you Teamsters for helping my dad to provide me with a good home, food on our table and a college education. Without the unions my dad would never had been able to do all of that with an eighth grade education. He was never rich, but he was paid a fair days wages for a fair days work. Thank you Teamsters........ I will always be a union man even though I'm not an employee but an employer and job creator. Thank you, John.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Thanks to the Teamsters, CDL drivers can go to traffic school.

Teamsters Sponsored Bill Signed Good news. One of our sponsored bills was signed.

AB 1888 (Gatto) would allow commercial drivers who get a ticket in their personal vehicle to attend traffic school every eigthteen months to eliminate a "point" from being placed their driving record.

This is a big deal because federal law, until recently, prevented commercial drivers from in any way masking citations or attending traffic school. The US DOT issued an advisory opinion allowing states to let commercial drivers who get a ticket in their private vehicle (not the commercial vehicle) to eliminate the point associated with the violation by attending traffic school. This could stop a driver from sliding into "negligent operators status," which could result in a license suspension and loss of employment.

We actually co-sponsored this with the California Trucking Association, in a rare show of labor-management cooperation.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Should the 401(k) Be Reformed or Replaced?

By 
Published: September 11, 2012




JOHN GREENE worked for 30 years at an Oscar Mayer plant in Madison, Wis., deboning hams and loading boxes of hot dogs. His401(k) plan grew to $60,000, and soon after retiring he began withdrawing $3,600 a year from it, money that allowed him and his wife to take what he called a wondrous two-week trip to Scotland, his ancestral homeland.
But when the financial markets plunged four years ago, his 401(k) dropped to less than $18,000.
“We lost more than 70 percent,” he complained, even though a highly recommended investment firm was managing his 401(k). “They’re very risky.”
For Mr. Greene, 77, the money he withdrew each year provided him and his wife some breathing room — and comforts — on top of the $29,000 they receive annually inSocial Security and pension payments.
But though it has rebounded a little, his nest egg has declined so much that he withdraws far less than he used to. The result: “We can’t do trips like Scotland anymore,” he said.
Like millions of Americans, Mr. Greene has suffered losses from his 401(k) even as such plans have largely supplanted traditional pensions and become the central pillar of America’s employer-sponsored retirement system, with 60 million workers participating in them.
Now, although Social Security and Medicare generate far more political heat, a quieter, more nuanced debate of large consequence engulfs 401(k)’s, the voluntary, privately financed plans that some see as a savior of American retirement and others see as an impediment: Should 401(k)’s be fine-tuned and expanded or should they be replaced entirely? And for many looking to retirement after the Great Recession, there is this pressing question: What to do about woefully underfunded 401(k)’s now.
David L. Wray, president of the Profit-Sharing/401(k) Council of America, an association of companies that sponsor retirement plans, said that 401(k)’s — and the Individual Retirement Account system that many people roll their retirement money into — worked well, despite some shortcomings. These 401(k) plans now hold $3.3 trillion in assets, seven times the level two decades ago. “If the goal here is to accumulate money, this system has accumulated more money than any system ever,” he said. “It’s been an incredibly effective accumulator of assets.”
But many investment experts and economists give the 401(k) system low marks. They note that fewer than half of the nation’s private sector workers are in 401(k) plans and that nearly a quarter of businesses with more than 100 employees do not offer 401(k)’s. Moreover, many Americans put only 3 percent of their earnings into 401(k)’s when investment experts often recommend saving 10 or even 12 percent.
The typical worker age 55 to 64 had just $54,000 in a 401(k) in 2010, according to a new report by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, and households with workers in that age group had $120,000 in retirement savings on average, if the money rolled into I.R.A.’s was included. That $120,000 is less than one-fourth the savings recommended by many retirement experts. Moreover, the center calculated, that $120,000 would provide an annuity of a paltry $7,000 a year.
Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at the New School and a leading critic of 401(k)’s, said, “Every good retirement system needs to have adequate accumulation for individuals, the money needs to be invested appropriately and the payout needs to meet the needs of retirees for life. Unfortunately, 401(k)’s fail in all three categories.”
She criticized giving $80 billion in tax breaks annually to 401(k) participants to nourish a system that does not provide secure retirement savings for all. Moreover, she said, 60 percent of those tax breaks go to the top 10 percent of earners — people who would probably save even without the tax breaks.
John C. Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard Group and an esteemed figure in the world of investing, also voiced sharp criticisms. “We have a 401(k) system that is profoundly flawed even as it has moved to the position of pre-eminence in our retirement system,” he said. “There are elements of the 401(k) system that are just unacceptable if you’re trying to build a system that accumulates for retirement.”
In his new book, “The Clash of Cultures: Investment vs. Speculation,” Mr. Bogle rattled off a list of 401(k) shortcomings, among them excessive Wall Street fees, misguided asset allocation and failure to deal with longevity risk; for instance, someone living to age 92, but emptying a 401(k) by age 82.
Mr. Bogle ridiculed how easy it was, despite withdrawal penalties, to take money out of 401(k)’s — whether for a down payment on a house, to send children to college or to buy a new rug. Likening 401(k)’s to savings plans, he said making it so easy to withdraw money was the opposite of what retirement plans should do.
Even fierce critics like Mr. Bogle readily give advice on what investors should do to improve their chances for adequate retirement savings. An early champion of index funds, he recommends them for 401(k)’s; they typically have lower annual fees than, and perform as well as, many aggressively managed funds.
Mr. Bogle said many investment funds charged around 2 percent in annual fees, although he noted that some index funds charged one-twentieth of that — just 0.1 percent a year. He calculated that if one obtained a 5.5 percent annual return when inflation was running at 2.5 percent, then the net return would be 3 percent. With considerable chagrin, he noted that a 2 percent investment fee “would consume fully 67 percent of that annual return.”
study by Demosa liberal research center, found that a median-income couple that invested in 401(k)’s for 40 years with fees averaging 1.6 percent a year would achieve $354,850 in assets at average savings rates, but only after paying $154,794 in investment fees.
Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Boston College center, recommends that people jump at the opportunity to join 401(k) plans as soon as they can. “The trick is to contribute from Day 1 if your employer has a plan, and leave the money there,” she said. She voiced concern that 21 percent of workers whose employers offered plans declined to participate and that for those age 20 to 29, 40 percent declined.
Stephen P. Utkus, director of the Vanguard Center for Retirement Research, said most Americans saved far too little. “Certainly by your 30s, you should be saving 10 percent,” he said
He said many Americans emptied their 401(k)’s after they were laid off, leaving them with far too little savings for retirement. “You can’t invest your way out of a savings problem,” Mr. Utkus warned. “To catch up, you have to save more or maybe work longer. My general advice for people is, save 3 percent more of your income each year and plan to work three more years.”
He advised 401(k) participants to put money in balanced funds, like target-date funds, that decrease the ratio of investments in risky stocks as investors age. But Mr. Bogle warned that target-date funds often charged one percentage point a year more than other funds.
According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, 38 percent of 401(k) participants age 55 to 64 have 80 percent or more of their 401(k) assets in stocks — even though many experts say it is unwise to invest heavily in stocks so close to retirement age because a large chunk of one’s savings could quickly evaporate in a market downturn.
Jack VanDerhei, research director at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, recommends that all Americans, as they age, step back and do a thorough assessment of their retirement savings and retirement plans — perhaps at age 50. He suggested visiting a financial planner or using a Web site on retirement planning.
“Figure out where you think you need to be at whatever age you think you want to retire,” Mr. VanDerhei said. “Then figure out what that’s going to translate into in terms of what you’re going to need in 401(k) accumulation at that time.”
Mr. VanDerhei stressed that all 401(k) participants should invest at least the amount needed to qualify for the maximum employer match to avoid leaving money on the table. In other words, if an employer is offering a dollar-for-dollar match up to 6 percent of pay, then an employee would be ill-advised to put just 3 percent in a 401(k).
As the debate continues over how well 401(k)’s function, some policy experts have called for scrapping the 401(k) system and replacing it with a more universal, less risky system. One system might, like Social Security, require that some percentage of an employee’s paycheck be withheld to finance a new, government-managed retirement plan. But other critics, convinced that Congress would never enact such vast changes, call for enacting incremental steps to improve the system — for instance, steps to encourage more small businesses to offer 401(k)’s, like allowing them to aggregate their plans to save on administrative costs.
Professor Ghilarducci has won the backing of many labor and liberal groups with her proposal for “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts,” which would require that 2.5 percent of each worker’s pay be withheld to finance a new retirement plan on top of Social Security. (A $600 refundable tax credit would help soften the hit.)
She also calls for requiring employers to match that amount, a mandate that businesses would surely oppose. Such a system would be managed by the government and subsidized by it and would guarantee a 3 percent annual return. Ms. Ghilarducci said her plan would give Americans nearly 25 percent of their preretirement earnings. In other words, someone who retired after earning $75,000 a year might receive $19,000 a year in Social Security and another $18,000 annually from this new plan.
Ms. Munnell of the Boston College center also supports creating a new tier of retirement savings by requiring new deductions from employee paychecks. But unlike Professor Ghilarducci, she does not support a mandatory employer match and she would preserve the 401(k) system, creating a new system on top of Social Security and 401(k)’s.
“We need a new tier,” Ms. Munnell said. “Our retirement system isn’t big enough. Not enough people are in it, and many people aren’t saving enough. No matter how much you try to spruce up 401(k)’s, they’re never going to provide enough retirement income.”
In July, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, proposed a plan that would be financed by pretax funds from workers’ paychecks, although workers could opt out. Employers would have to contribute. Mr. Harkin noted that half of all Americans had less than $10,000 in retirement savings and that 75 million workers were without access to a workplace retirement plan. “We face a retirement crisis,” he said.
Mr. Wray of the 401(k) council said critics were too quick to condemn the 401(k) system and propose far-reaching changes. He said 401(k)’s had many underappreciated advantages. They generally allow people to pass on far more of their retirement money to their heirs than traditional pensions usually do. Another big advantage of 401(k)’s, Mr. Wray said, is that many corporations are embracing them over traditional pensions because pensions, unlike 401(k)’s, can cause companies to owe millions of dollars in unanticipated liabilities when the stock market falls.
“The great thing about 401(k)’s is the enormous flexibility,” Mr. Wray said. “They’re voluntary. You can structure a plan that works for you,” He acknowledged that many people nearing retirement age had not saved enough in their plans, but he said that was because many had saved for only 20 years, not for their entire career.
“If you consistently participate in these programs over 40 years, you’re home free,” he said.
When created in 1978, 401(k)’s were a way for highly paid executives to shield income from taxation. Later Congress adapted them so they could provide supplemental retirement income for millions of workers on top of Social Security and traditional pensions. It was not foreseen that 401(k)’s would evolve into the nation’s main employer-sponsored retirement system.
“This system just hasn’t produced the type of participation you’d like to see,” Ms. Munnell said. “I think this argument that these plans are new is getting old. They’re not new.”
David John, a pension expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, dismisses the likelihood of enacting far-reaching changes like those supported by Senator Harkin and Ms. Ghilarducci. Partly because of industry opposition, he said, “starting something wholly new would be virtually impossible.”
Mr. John argued that it would be wise to keep the 401(k) system, imperfect as it is, and improve it. With some reservations, he praised the automatic enrollment features of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which allows companies that offer plans to automatically enroll new employees,, typically at 3 percent of pay, although workers can opt out.
He also praised the law’s automatic escalation provisions, which enable companies to ratchet up employees’ contribution rate from 3 percent in an employee’s first few years unless workers opted out. He criticized Congress for essentially setting 3 percent of pay as a default investment level. “The 3 percent level is a huge mistake,” he said.
He wants Congress to raise the automatic enrollment’s default participation rate to 6 percent. That, he said, would hardly reduce enrollment and would create a larger nest egg for retirement.
The battle over whether the 401(k) system needs some fine-tuning or radical surgery is still gathering force. “A czar would be able to fix this easily,” Mr. Bogle said. “Whether politicians can fix this is something else again.”
A version of this article appeared in print on September 12, 2012, on page F1 of the New York edition with the headline: 401(?)

Monday, September 10, 2012

Conway mobility...Camera install in tractor

Conway Mobility Conway (page 26)

http://www.freightmobility.com/pdfs/..._8_25_2011.pdf

Monitor for fatigue

http://www.ijest.info/docs/IJEST-NCICT-020-190.pdf

Presented an approach for the detection of fatigue based on biosignals acquired from the driver electroencephalogram (EEG), electrocardiogram (ECG), electrooculogram (EOG), and video monitoring. The majority of relative works is based on in-lab experiments, mainly focusing on face monitoring and blink detection to calculate eye activation [2], while the vehicular experiments serve for indirect fatigue recognition through its impact on driving issues (speed maintenance, steering control). The impact of fatigue on the driver's performance should not be estimated using only driving measures, but additional parameters, associated with the driving performance, are needed (such as perceptual, motor, and cognitive skills)
http://www.ltlboards.com/truckingboards/con-way-freight/79255-conway-mobility.html

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Is this what you want Conway doing to you?




Without a Pension's Security
Once, Americans could expect enough money to take care of themselves after a life of work. The promise was pulled away.

by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele

In “The Betrayal of the American Dream,” Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele revisit their 1991 Inquirer series, “America: What Went Wrong,” in which they forecast a decline of the middle class. Now, they document how actions going back three decades have left millions of Americans in economic ruin. Excerpts from their book continue in Currents every Sunday through Aug. 19.

Of all the statistics that show how the rules are changing for middle-class Americans, here is one of the most alarming: Since 1985, corporations have killed 84,350 pension plans - each of which promised secure retirement benefits to dozens or hundreds or even thousands of men and women.

Corporations offer many explanations and excuses for why they are cutting down a vital safety net for Americans, but it all comes down to money. The money saved by not funding employee pensions now goes for executive salaries, dividends, or some pet project of a company's CEO. Congress went along and even compounded the betrayal by pretending that the change was in employees' best interest.

What this means is that fewer and fewer Americans will have enough money to take care of themselves in their later years. As with taxes and trade, Congress has been pivotal in granting favors to the most powerful corporations. Lawmakers have written pension rules that encourage businesses to underfund their retirement plans or switch to plans less favorable to employees.

These rules deny workers the right to sue to enforce retirement promises. Lawmakers have also written bankruptcy regulations to allow corporations to scrap the health-insurance coverage they promised to employees who retired early - including workers who were forced into early retirement. Congress has enacted legislation that adds to the cost of retirement. One by one, policies that once afforded at least the possibility of a secure retirement to many seniors have been undermined or destroyed, while at the same time Congress has allowed corporations to repudiate lifetime-benefit agreements.

for more information go to:
http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-13/news/33168224_1_retirement-age-pension-rules-retirement-benefits

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Woo-hoo! Another Teamster Organizing Victory In CA!

from Teamster.org


Please welcome our over 200 new brothers and sisters who work at Marquez Brothers Inc. in Hanford, CA. They voted to join Local517 in Visalia on Friday, July 20th. Marquez is the largest distributor of Mexican consumer products in the United States.

The Teamsters represent more employees in California’s food chain than any other union, and with this election victory Joint Council 7 celebrates over 10,000 new members organized in the last two years.

This new unit of employees joins more than 35,000 Teamsters employed in dairy production throughout California and the United States. Work in the dairy industry proves to be both difficult and dangerous, and Teamsters are able to make a living wage with good benefits andretirement security in return. The employees at Marquez knew they deserved the same.

For Marquez Brothers employees, organizing was not an easy feat. The company held daily meetings to try and influence their employees against joining the union. Marquez Brothers is now challenging the election results and spreading fear throughout the workplace in hopes of coercing employees into calling for a new election. Additionally, on the Monday after the election, Marquez Brothers began telling the employees that representatives from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be at the plant on Friday checking immigration status as workers picked up their paychecks.

“99% of the employees at Marquez are Latino,” said Chester Suniga, Secretary-Treasurer of Teamsters Local 517. “It’s outrageous that a Latino company appears to be taking advantage of our broken immigration system to deprive their employees of a voice at work.”

Rome Aloise, President of Joint Council 7 and Director of the Dairy Conference and Food Processing Division, is reaching out to Latino elected officials to ask for their support in future negotiations with Marquez. Joint Council 7 understands that organizing is part of a long-term project to build power for Latinos in the Central Valley. The same week that the employees at Marquez Brothers in Hanford voted to join our Union, a Teamster-supported project registered over 500 Latinos to vote in the City of Hanford itself. “Our Union is steadfastly committed to Latinos having representation at their workplace and in local government,” stated Aloise.

Fortunately, the new Teamsters at Marquez have refused to be persuaded or discouraged by their management. These employees understand and appreciate the many advantages of being Teamsters.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Federal Judge orders Los Angeles recycling firm to stop threatening union supporters and offer reinstatement to fired employees

August 02, 2012
Contact:
Office of Public Affairs
202-273-1991
publicinfo@nlrb.gov
www.nlrb.gov


A federal judge has ordered American Reclamation, Inc., a Los Angeles trash hauling and recycling service, to stop violating federal labor laws by threatening employees with dismissal for supporting a union, among other things, and to offer interim reinstatement to three employees who were fired.

Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued the temporary injunction on Tuesday at the request of the NLRB, while the case is pending before Administrative Law Judge William Kocol. The injunction will remain in effect until the NLRB process is complete.

A complaint issued by the NLRB Regional Office in Los Angeles in April alleged that American Reclamation engaged in multiple unfair labor practices beginning in early October 2011, during a union organizing campaign. The company allegedly threatened employees that they would be fired for supporting the union and that the company would be closed or sold if the employees voted for the union. In addition, company officials unlawfully promised improved working conditions, including better safety equipment, to discourage their support for the union.

Two employees who openly supported the union were discharged in October 2011, and a third was discharged in January 2012 after photographing hazardous materials and encouraging employees to voice concerns about hazardous materials they were handling. The injunction orders the company to offer reinstatement to the three employees, and to read the order to all employees.

Attorneys Juan Carlos Ochoa Diaz and J. Carlos Gonzalez represented the Board in this matter in the District Court.

Monday, July 30, 2012

A Must Read For Organizers, Managers, Supervisors And Kiss A....

July 24, 2012 Contact: Office of Public Affairs 202-273-1991 publicinfo@nlrb.gov www.nlrb.gov

Baked-goods manufacturer Sterling Foods, LLC, has agreed to pay more than $58,000 in back pay and interest to six employees who were discharged in the fall of 2011 following a union organizing campaign. Three of the employees have also accepted offers of reinstatement to their previous jobs.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 455 filed charges alleging the employer engaged in multiple unfair labor practices during and after the union’s attempt to organize about 500 employees at the San Antonio, Texas facility. An election petition was not filed.

Following an investigation by regional staff, NLRB Regional Director Martha Kinard issued a complaint alleging that, in response to the union’s campaign, Sterling Foods unlawfully discharged six employees, threatened to terminate other employees, solicited an employee to report on union activities, offered an employee a financial benefit if he reported the union activities of employees, engaged in surveillance of employee union activities, called the police on employees and union organizers engaged in union activity, prohibited employees from accepting union literature and directed employees to throw away union literature. A hearing on the complaint had been scheduled to start on August 6, 2012 in San Antonio.

The Regional Director had also filed a petition with the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, seeking a temporary injunction against Sterling Foods’ unfair labor practices and an interim order of reinstatement of the six discharged employees. A hearing on that petition had been scheduled for July 19, 2012.

The settlement, signed on July 13, 2012, eliminates the need for both hearings. Sterling Foods also agreed not to engage in such unfair labor practices in the future, to post a notice to that effect at its San Antonio facility, and to mail a copy of the notice to all employees.

Monday, July 16, 2012

THERE IS SAFETY IN A UNION

From Teamster.org

Study Finds Union Representation In Trucking Linked To Higher Safety Performance

In case there was any doubt, a recent study by researchers at the University of Maryland confirmed that unionized motor carriers are superior to nonunion carriers when it comes to safety performance on our nation’s roads and highways.

“Union membership has a statistically positive impact on both driver and vehicle safety performance,” the study found.

Led by Dr. Thomas M. Corsi and his colleagues at the UMD Robert H. Smith School of Business, the researchers looked at existing safety performance data for more than 150,000 interstate carriers to determine if there was any link between unionization and the safety performance of trucking companies.

“After reviewing a substantial amount of crash data and other safety performance indicators that were collected by the federal government, the researchers concluded that unionized motor carriers demonstrate better safety performance than their nonunion counterparts,” said LaMont Byrd, Director of the Teamsters Safety and Health Department.

While it’s not surprising that safety standards tend to be higher among union carriers, Dr. Corsi’s report is the first of its kind to look directly at the relationship between unionization and actual performance data.

In addition to reviewing records from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s SafeStat performance ranking system, the study examined health and safety provisions in Teamster master agreements with carriers like UPS and others covered in the National Master Freight Agreement.

The study has important implications for the trucking industry. Even though fatal motor carrier crashes have decreased over the last 12 years, accidents continue to have a serious impact on the business. And while the 1980 Motor Carrier Act led to a huge drop in union membership, the better safety performance of unionized carriers makes the case for why it is in the public interest to reverse deregulation.

Night and Day

Low rates of safety violations and crashes can be directly linked to collective bargaining. As the study noted, contract language typically requires compliance with government safety regulations related to equipment standards, driver safety, and hours-of-service regulations. Defining “workday” and “workweek” limitations in a union contract goes a long way in reducing the risks associated with driver fatigue.

Dr. Corsi’s research team confirmed what union truck drivers have known for a long time.

“It stands to reason,” said John Hasley, a 33-year veteran carhauler who has seen both sides of the industry. “Higher safety procedures secured and enforced by a contract means better safety performance.”

Hasley, who has since retired, worked as a nonunion owner-operator for several years before becoming a Teamster in 1978.

“The difference between professional and cut-rate carriers is night and day. With a union, the drivers are protected. They can say to the boss, ‘No, this equipment is not safe.’ Without the backing of a union, you could be fired for doing that.”

Of the 157,292 firms whose safety records were reviewed by Dr. Corsi and his colleagues, 78 were union carriers. They consistently had better scores than the non-union companies in data measuring unsafe driving, fatigued driving, driver fitness, vehicle maintenance and cargo securement.

According to the study, the difference can be attributed to formalized safety procedures written into collective bargaining agreements in the industry. For example, the national master agreement for UPS Teamsters prevents the company from requiring drivers to operate unsafe equipment, giving workers the right to refuse to drive a vehicle that is not up to government regulatory standards.

Workers are required to report all accidents and the employer is responsible for investigating reported accidents within a 20-day period.

“Drivers are on their own without a contract,” Hasley pointed out. “At union firms, you have more supervision and other folks checking equipment and making sure loads are secured properly.”

Better overall working conditions secured in a contract are another likely factor that raises safety performance among union carriers.

As Dr. Corsi’s team noted in their report, “Unionized motor carrier drivers contribute to, and help ensure, a more stable and structured working environment which, in turn, contributes to increasingly safe operations.”

Drivers protected by a union contract tend to enjoy better pay and benefits in addition to more regular hours. By contrast, nonunion drivers are more likely to experience dissatisfaction with their compensation and other workplace conditions, resulting in higher turnover rates for nonunion truckload carriers. And high turnover, the study observes, significantly impacts on-the-road safety as companies need to spend more money on recruitment and training instead of transportation safety.

The Union Difference

Dr. Corsi’s study is an academic validation of the union difference. And longtime drivers like Hasley are personal illustrations of that difference.

After more than three decades in the industry, Hasley says he is “living the dream” in retirement, enjoying his golden years at his lakeside home and spending afternoons on his boat. The safety protections that a union brings on the job contribute in no small way to the benefits of a healthy retirement.

“The fact is the companies always want to take shortcuts because of economics,” Hasley said. “The union is really a buffer against these companies’ desire to cut corners for profit. That means the drivers’ desire to ensure the safe delivery of goods is more of a priority. Workers and the public are better off because of that.”

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

THEY ALL HAVE CONTRACTS INCLUDING YOUR C.E.O OF CONWAY.

Wonder if EVERYTHING really is on the table when it comes to cutting the deficit?

Wages

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$450,000 FOR LIFESalary of House/Senatemembers..........$174,000FOR LIFESalary of Speakerof theHouse .............$223,500 FOR LIFESalary of Majority/Minority Leaders .....$193,400 FOR LIFE

Average salary of a soldierDEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN - $38,000

Average income for seniors on SOCIAL SECURITY - $12,000

I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree...

They all have "contracts"
But your GOP leaders and including your CEO of Conway oppose against your rights to have union rights, and a fair contract.
Shame on you Mitch Mcconnell, John Boehner, and your past Presidents.

Monday, June 18, 2012

NLRB launches webpage describing Protected Concerted Activity

The National Labor Relations Board today made public a webpage that describes the rights of employees to act together for their mutual aid and protection, even if they are not in a union.

http://www.nlrb.gov/news/nlrb-launches-webpage-describing-protected-concerted-activity

Sunday, June 10, 2012

We deserve better

Fellow Southern California UFV, UIV, ULA, ULB, ULX, UOR, USB, USD, UVC, now is the time to organize to combat favoritism, discrimination, abuse of power by supervisors, and punishment for insignificant things. It's time for a stress-free environment, to be treated humanely and not as a number. We need to communicate, educate and inform ourselves. We don't need to be in fear of fighting for our working rights. We deserve better treatment, respect, and dignity. Let’s organize to have a voice and stop this hostile work environment.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Myths About Union Pension Plans

You’ve seen the headlines saying that Teamster pensions are poorly funded. That just isn’t true. In fact, the Western conference of teamsters pension plan is a well-designed and responsibly funded pension plans. It provides Teamster members with a way to save for and earn a financially secure future. Let’s take a look at some of the myths surrounding the Teamster pension plans.

Myth # 1: Pensions are poorly funded.
While some pensions have gotten into trouble for not funding their benefits, this is not true of all pensions. The Western conference of teamsters pension plan is nearly 95% funded which make it among the top pension plans nationally.

 Myth # 2: All pensions are the same.
Plan designs among pensions vary. In fact, if we vote to form a union at Conway, we will decide if we want a pension plan and how to manage it. For example, if we want to keep the existing 401k plan we can keep it, instead of getting a pension plan.

Myth #3: All pension plans should be converted to 401(k)-like plans.
Opposition groups (i.e. wall street, corporate interests, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ) have made it their mission to switch pension plans to a 401(k)-type plan under the premise that it is a cost savings measure. The Purpose of this is to put more stock into provide hands and have that serve as a cushion for them when times get rough. If they lose money, you lose money.

Myth #4: Pension plan would go to YRC members
YRC is under the Master Freight Agreement. Conway would not join that contract. The only companies bounded to Master Freight are YRC and ABF. Conway would have it’s own separate agreement and separately funded pension plan.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Monday, May 14, 2012

Can you please show us anti union tactics part 2

Can You Please Show Us Anti Union Tatics Part Two

UNION BUSTING 101

What is a union buster? A union buster is a firm or individual hired by an employer to thwart a union organizing drive by employees.

Why do Companies hire union busters? One simple word . . . control. With a Union, employers lose the ability to totally control the workforce, since employees collectively gain rights with a union.

Why don't we hear about the union buster? This is one of the ways a union buster operates - behind the scenes. If you get letters signed by management that imply bad things happening with a union, you can bet that letter was written by a union buster.

How does the union buster operate? A union buster seeks to achieve two things: One, to create a sense of dissention and division among employees during an organizing campaign; and, two, to spread the greatest amount of misinformation about the union possible.

During EVERY Union campaign, beware of the fact that your Employer DIRECTED BY THEIR UNION-BUSTERS will try everything in their power to deceive you in their attempts to keep control. In principle, no employer wants to give up control to its employees. That is why employers will use every tool at their disposal. They'll use letters, rumors, threats, phony committees, captive audience meetings, special perks, videos, fear, scare tactics, lies about corruption and anything else they can think of to convince you to vote no or not sign a card.

These methods are contained in standard propaganda packages developed and sold by highly paid professional "union-busting" consultants (paid approximately $1,000 -$1,500 a day plus expenses).

They are designed to confuse workers into thinking that they don't want or need a Union. Don't allow some highly paid "consultant", sometimes disguised as Human Resource Personnel to tell you how to think. Don't be distracted - even by a small group of employees who may be misled by management and are campaigning against you and your right to form a Union.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

con-way first quarter profit rises...

Con-way first quarter profit rises, beats estimates

Tue May 1, 2012 5:24pm EDT

(Reuters) - Trucking and logistics company Con-way Inc (CNW.N) reported higher quarterly earnings that beat estimates, boosted by fuel surcharges and new customers for its transportation and warehouse management services.

Trucking companies have had minimal push-back to higher shipping rates, which they have been able to tack on due to a capacity shortage that is likely to intensify as the economy expands.

The company on Tuesday said net income rose to $25.6 million, or 46 cents a share, in the first quarter, compared with $6.9 million, or 12 cents a share, a year earlier.

Excluding items, profit was 45 cents a share, up from 24 cents a share a year earlier. This beat the average Wall Street forecast of 35 cents, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

Revenue for the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based company rose to $1.37 billion, above the average estimate of $1.35 billion.

Con-way Freight, the company's less-than-truckload unit that accounts for more than 60 percent of its revenue, had an 8.2 percent revenue rise to $831 million, driven up in part by fuel surcharges to customers as tonnage rose 1.5 percent compared with a year ago.

In less-than-truckload (LTL) shipping, the company picks up loads, sorts them and makes various deliveries. This differs from truckload, in which one driver picks up a load and stays with it through to its final destination.

Higher revenue was due primarily to increased revenue per hundredweight, or yield, including higher fuel surcharge revenue, the company said.

In the logistics segment, revenue rose 13.3 percent to $419 million, due mainly to new customers for transportation and warehouse management services and to increased freight brokerage volumes.

Revenue rose 8.3 percent in the truckload division due to higher fuel surcharges and improved revenue per loaded mile. Loaded miles rose slightly and empty miles fell to 9.3 percent from 9.6 percent a year earlier.

Con-way's shares closed up 0.8 percent at $32.76, up more than 12 percent so far this year. The Dow Jones Transportation average is up 5.3 percent this year.

Con-way is holding a conference call with analysts on Wednesday before the market opens.

(Reporting By Lynn Adler; Editing by Gary Hill and Phil Berlowitz

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Setting the record straight!

Hey peewee long haul driver from Dallas, TX think twice if you’re against the union. You’re actually not saving up for retirement; your pension plan has been taken away by upper guys. Your sweat hard working vacation taken away again by those greedy ceo’s who are guaranteed 120% double their salary every year, just then your manager and supervisors received in behalf of you a free paid extra vacation week. Must be nice to feel dump by them ceo’s huh so think clearly next time buddy. And sweat your ass for what reason?

Can you please show us anti union tactics part 1

Can you please show us anti union tactics Part 1

Ask Away

I understand that Con-way is using some illegal tactics. I would like to know what they are if they use it at my station. Do you have any information on the subject.

Watch Dogs Response:

Con-way appears to be using some standard material at some locations. Here is some information on union-busting that I pulled off the internet.

Union busting is a practice, considered by some to be unethical, undertaken by an employer when employees are attempting to join a union. It is the process which some employers may use to prevent their employees from joining a labor union. Another form of union busting is firing an already organized workforce and hiring non-union labor.

During a union busting operation, usually a highly paid Labor Relations consultant or a "union buster" as they are informally called, is brought in during a union organizing drive to try and convince workers not to join the union.

Union busting tactics

The following tactics are sometimes used:

Supervisors and managers can deliver letters, speeches, and informal chats, sometimes prepared by a union-buster.

Employees may be asked to attend one-on-one discussions, group meetings, or lectures about the union, during which they will be paid. Employers must be careful not to intimidate their employees, because employees can appeal to the Teamsters, usually resulting in charges and penalties being upheld against the company, and in some cases resulting in the employer being automatically required to recognize the union as the bargaining unit representing employees. At these meetings, employers discuss the negative aspects of a union and try to convince employees not to join.

In some cases, supervisors and managers will walk the floors more frequently and arrange impromptu chats and meetings to find out what their workers are up to. However, this can also be interpreted as intimidation and can get the employer in trouble.

The union-busters may prepare many letters to be signed by administrators, employees, and well-liked supervisors and managers. They may express appreciation for what the employees have done for the company, admit having made mistakes in the past and express an intention to do a better job in the future. They may also paint an ugly picture of the union or suggest that the union is hiding something. Lying to employees however, is strictly forbidden.

To convince employees that they don't need a union to obtain improvements, a company may provide unexpected increases in wages or benefits, although they cannot condition said benefits or wages on union participation or threaten wage cuts.

In extreme cases the union-buster may direct management to play one group of employees against another to generate disunity (e.g. "disloyal" union supporters versus "loyal" union opponents, one department against another, etc.). This would likely result in harsh penalties for the company.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

"Dialing, 112" can save our wives, our daughthers or anyone like you.

Some knew about the red light on cars, but not Dialing 112. It was about 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon, and Lauren was driving to visit a friend. An UNMARKED police car pulled up behind her and put his lights on. Lauren's parents have always told her to never pull over for an unmarked car on the side of the road, but rather to wait until they get to a gas station, etc.

Lauren had actually listened to her parents advice, and promptly called, 112 on her cell phone to tell the police dispatcher that she would not pull over right away. She proceeded to tell the dispatcher that there was an unmarked police car with a flashing red light on his rooftop behind her. The dispatcher checked to see if there were police cars where she was and there weren't, and he told her to keep driving, remain calm and that he had back up already on the way.

Ten minutes later 4 cop cars surrounded her and the unmarked car behind her. One policeman went to her side and the others surrounded the car behind. They pulled the guy from the car and tackled him to the ground. The man was a convicted rapist and wanted for other crimes. I never knew about the 112 Cell Phone feature. I tried it on my AT&T phone & it said, "Dialing Emergency Number." Especially for a woman alone in a car, you should not pull over for an unmarked car. Apparently police have to respect your right to keep going on to a safe place.

*Speaking to a service representative at Bell Mobility confirmed that 112 was a direct link to State trooper info. So, now it's your turn to let your friends know about "Dialing, 112"

You may want to send this to every Man, Woman & Youngster you know; it may well save a life.

This applies to ALL 50 states PLEASE PASS ALONG TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY, IT CAN SAVE A LIFE....

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Safety Comes With Experience

Over 20 employees have been fired at the San Bernardino, CA terminal for safety violations. Violations that include things like driving in the yard without four way flashers on, leaving the forklift forks just inches off the ground and not putting chocks on. These are all minor things, things that wouldn't even cause management to bat an eye in a union barn. Conway just doesn't get it. How do they expect people to be safe when all they do is get rid of people after petty violation? The only way to truly be safe is to work on safety. People learn as they go. Maybe if they were more lenient, then people could come to work and improve at their job and at being safe. Another reason why union companies are among the safest. It's not by accident, it's because they're experienced.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Teamsters Applaud Support For NLRB's Reform Of Election Process


from Teamster.org
April 24, 2012
Hoffa: Today's Vote Showed Who Is On The Side Of Middle-Class Workers
Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa today said he is pleased a majority of U.S. senators voted to uphold National Labor Relations Board reforms that make union representation elections more efficient.
The Senate blocked, by a vote of 45-54, an effort to overturn the new NLRB election rule. President Obama said he’d veto the resolution if it came to his desk. 
“Today’s vote was about one thing: whether American workers should have the right to a fair vote for a union,” Hoffa said. “Now we know which side our Senate representatives are on. Fortunately, a majority are on the side of the American middle-class worker.”
Until the rule change, the NLRB supervised union elections under rules that caused long delays and costly, frivolous litigation. These delays allowed employers to mount aggressive anti-union campaigns, intimidating employees so they would not seek union representation.
“Extremist, anti-worker politicians tried and failed to overturn a common-sense rule that got rid of voting delays and made sure workers had the basic right to vote,” Hoffa said. “You have to ask who these senators represent, American working families or corporations who want to pay their employees as little as they possibly can?”
for more information visit:http://www.nlrb.gov/node/3608

Koch Brothers Say, "Don't Watch this Video"


Thursday, April 5, 2012

Debunking Conway's lies, Q&A with YRC employees

We've heard all the stuff management spews about YRC. We've heard their side, now let's hear it from the people who know the truth, YRC employees. Please ask any questions here regarding anything you've heard Conway management say about YRC and your question will be answered by a YRC employee.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Why unionize?




Why do we need a union in here? Well, things are not good and if anything they’re getting worse. Sure we have an “open door policy,” but I would love to hear from someone who has benefited from it. Let’s look at some of the reasons why we need union representation. As Teamsters we will participate in our contract negotiations and finally have a real say in our future. How about sick days? Imagine having sick days just like the majority of the work force. It's ridiculous that we don’t have sick days, even more so that we get written up or are told calling sick is an unexcused absence. If you don’t want any kinds of warnings in your file you better not get sick. If organized we would be able to use our sick days whenever we want! 
How about better benefits? Currently paying over $100 a week for benefits. Those of us who are supporting families on this coverage kiss 20% of your paycheck goodbye. As Teamsters we would have better health and benefit packages negotiated for us. There would be no way we would be giving up 20% of our paycheck away.
 What about retirement? Yeah, we would actually get the chance to RETIRE from Conway! 401k is a joke, that money being "invested." Anything being tied up to the performance of the stock market is too risky to count on for our retirement. We need a pension that the company puts money into, that we know will be there no matter what. We help this company make record profits and all we get is a 2.5% raise. Then they turn around and will increase what we pay for our health and benefits. 
It’s time to organize!
     

Monday, March 19, 2012

Con-way Management Wiz-Kids Don't Mess With Texas N.L.R.B

Attention Con-way management, today 03-19-12, you have broken the the law by asking employees of Con-way of laredo,Texas about their union concerted activities.
You Wiz-Kids of Con-way violated NLRA...
https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES
Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];
(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act [subchapter], or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act [in this subsection] as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title], in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made, and (ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) [section 159(e) of this title] within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement: Provided further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for non-membership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;
(4) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act [subchapter];
(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title].
(b) [Unfair labor practices by labor organization] It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents--
(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title]: Provided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein; or (B) an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances;
(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) [of subsection (a)(3) of this section] or to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;
(3) to refuse to bargain collectively with an employer, provided it is the representative of his employees subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title];
(4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is- -
(A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization or to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by section 8(e) [subsection (e) of this section];
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 [section 159 of this title]: Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing;
(C) forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the representative of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 [section 159 of this title];
(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work:
Provided, That nothing contained in this subsection (b) [this subsection] shall be construed to make unlawful a refusal by any person to enter upon the premises of any employer (other than his own employer), if the employees of such employer are engaged in a strike ratified or approved by a representative of such employees whom such employer is required to recognize under this Act [subchapter]: Provided further, That for the purposes of this paragraph (4) only, nothing contained in such paragraph shall be construed to prohibit publicity, other than picketing, for the purpose of truthfully advising the public, including consumers and members of a labor organization, that a product or products are produced by an employer with whom the labor organization has a primary dispute and are distributed by another employer, as long as such publicity does not have an effect of inducing any individual employed by any person other than the primary employer in the course of his employment to refuse to pick up, deliver, or transport any goods, or not to perform any services, at the establishment of the employer engaged in such distribution;
(5) to require of employees covered by an agreement authorized under subsection (a)(3) [of this section] the payment, as a condition precedent to becoming a member of such organization, of a fee in an amount which the Board finds excessive or discriminatory under all the circumstances. In making such a finding, the Board shall consider, among other relevant factors, the practices and customs of labor organizations in the particular industry, and the wages currently paid to the employees affected;
(6) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other thing of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed; and
(7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective- bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees:
(A) where the employer has lawfully recognized in accordance with this Act [subchapter] any other labor organization and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under section 9(c) of this Act [section 159(c) of this title],
(B) where within the preceding twelve months a valid election under section 9(c) of this Act [section 159(c) of this title] has been conducted, or
(C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under section 9(c) [section 159(c) of this title] being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from the commencement of such picketing: Provided, That when such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without regard to the provisions of section 9(c)(1) [section 159(c)(1) of this title] or the absence of a showing of a substantial interest on the part of the labor organization, direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be appropriate and shall certify the results thereof: Provided further, That nothing in this subparagraph (C) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public (including consumers) that an employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization, unless an effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed by any other person in the course of his employment, not to pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not to perform any services.
Nothing in this paragraph (7) shall be construed to permit any act which would otherwise be an unfair labor practice under this section 8(b) [this subsection].
(c) [Expression of views without threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit] The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act [subchapter], if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
(d) [Obligation to bargain collectively] For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession: Provided, That where there is in effect a collective- bargaining contract covering employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification--
(1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of the proposed termination or modification sixty days prior to the expiration date thereof, or in the event such contract contains no expiration date, sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make such termination or modification;
(2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed modifications;
(3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and simultaneously therewith notifies any State or Territorial agency established to mediate and conciliate disputes within the State or Territory where the dispute occurred, provided no agreement has been reached by that time; and
(4) continues in full force and effect, without resorting to strike or lockout, all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a period of sixty days after such notice is given or until the expiration date of such contract, whichever occurs later:
The duties imposed upon employers, employees, and labor organizations by paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) [paragraphs (2) to (4) of this subsection] shall become inapplicable upon an intervening certification of the Board, under which the labor
organization or individual, which is a party to the contract, has been superseded as or ceased to be the representative of the employees subject to the provisions of section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title], and the duties so imposed shall not be construed as requiring either party to discuss or agree to any modification of the terms and conditions contained in a contract for a fixed period, if such modification is to become effective before such terms and conditions can be reopened under the provisions of the contract. Any employee who engages in a strike within any notice period specified in this subsection, or who engages in any strike within the appropriate period specified in subsection (g) of this section, shall lose his status as an employee of the employer engaged in the particular labor dispute, for the purposes of sections 8, 9, and 10 of this Act [sections 158, 159, and 160 of this title], but such loss of status for such employee shall terminate if and when he is re-employed by such employer. Whenever the collective bargaining involves employees of a health care institution, the provisions of this section 8(d) [this subsection] shall be modified as follows:
(A) The notice of section 8(d)(1) [paragraph (1) of this subsection] shall be ninety days; the notice of section 8(d)(3) [paragraph (3) of this subsection] shall be sixty days; and the contract period of section 8(d)(4) [paragraph (4) of this subsection] shall be ninety days.
(B) Where the bargaining is for an initial agreement following certification or recognition, at least thirty days' notice of the existence of a dispute shall be given by the labor organization to the agencies set forth in section 8(d)(3) [in paragraph (3) of this subsection].
(C) After notice is given to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service under either clause (A) or (B) of this sentence, the Service shall promptly communicate with the parties and use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement. The parties shall participate fully and promptly in such meetings as may be undertaken by the Service for the purpose of aiding in a settlement of the dispute.
[Pub. L. 93-360, July 26, 1974, 88 Stat. 395, amended the last sentence of Sec. 8(d) by striking the words "the sixty-day" and inserting the words "any notice" and by inserting before the words "shall lose" the phrase ", or who engages in any strike within the appropriate period specified in subsection (g) of this section." It also amended the end of paragraph Sec. 8(d) by adding a new sentence "Whenever the collective bargaining . . . aiding in a settlement of the dispute."]
(e) [Enforceability of contract or agreement to boycott any other employer; exception] It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or cease doing business with any other person, and any contract or agreement entered into heretofore or hereafter containing such an agreement shall be to such extent unenforceable and void: Provided, That nothing in this subsection (e) [this subsection] shall apply to an agreement between a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building, structure, or other work: Provided further, That for the purposes of this subsection (e) and section 8(b)(4)(B) [this subsection and subsection (b)(4)(B) of this section] the terms "any employer," "any person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce," and "any person" when used in relation to the terms "any other producer, processor, or manufacturer," "any other employer," or "any other person" shall not include persons in the relation of a jobber, manufacturer, contractor, or subcontractor working on the goods or premises of the jobber or manufacturer or performing parts of an integrated process of production in the apparel and clothing industry: Provided further, That nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall prohibit the enforcement of any agreement which is within the foregoing exception.
(f) [Agreements covering employees in the building and construction industry] It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building and construction industry to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or who, upon their employment, will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization of which building and construction employees are members (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act [subsection (a) of this section] as an unfair labor practice) because (1) the majority status of such labor organization has not been established under the provisions of section 9 of this Act [section 159 of this title] prior to the making of such agreement, or (2) such agreement requires as a condition of employment, membership in such labor organization after the seventh day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of the agreement, whichever is later, or (3) such agreement requires the employer to notify such labor organization of opportunities for employment with such employer, or gives such labor organization an opportunity to refer qualified applicants for such employment, or (4) such agreement specifies minimum training or experience qualifications for employment or provides for priority in opportunities for employment based upon length of service with such employer, in the industry or in the particular geographical area: Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall set aside the final proviso to section 8(a)(3) of this Act [subsection (a)(3) of this section]: Provided further, That any agreement which would be invalid, but for clause (1) of this subsection, shall not be a bar to a petition filed pursuant to section 9(c) or 9(e) [section 159(c) or 159(e) of this title].
(g) [Notification of intention to strike or picket at any health care institution] A labor organization before engaging in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at any health care institution shall, not less than ten days prior to such action, notify the institution in writing and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of that intention, except that in the case of bargaining for an initial agreement following certification or recognition the notice required by this subsection shall not be given until the expiration of the period specified in clause (B) of the last sentence of section 8(d) of this Act [subsection (d) of this section]. The notice shall state the date and time that such action will commence. The notice, once given, may be extended by the written agreement of both parties.
[Pub. L. 93-360, July 26, 1974, 88 Stat. 396, added subsec. (g).]
REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS

Final Rule for Notification of Employee Rights

Background:
The National Labor Relations Board has issued a Final Rule requiring most private-sector employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act by posting a notice.
Employers should begin posting the notice on January 31, 2012. Copies of the notice will be available on the NLRB website and from NLRB regional offices by October 1.
Similar postings of workplace rights are required under other federal workplace laws. The 11-by-17-inch notice is similar in content and design to a notice of NLRA rights that must be posted by federal contractors under a Department of Labor rule.
The notice of rights will be provided at no charge by NLRB regional offices or can be downloaded from the Board website and printed in color or black-and-white. Translated versions will be available, and must be posted at workplaces where at least 20% of employees are not proficient in English.
Employers must also post the notice on an intranet or an internet site if personnel rules and policies are customarily posted there.

Questions and Answers:
Does my company have to post the notice?
The posting requirement applies to all private-sector employers (including labor unions) subject to the National Labor Relations Act, which excludes agricultural, railroad and airline employers. In response to comments received after the proposed rule was announced, the Board has agreed to exempt the U.S. Postal Service for the time being because of that organization’s unique rules under the Act.
When will the notice posting be required?
The final rule takes effect 75 days after it is posted in the Federal Register, or on January 31, 2012.
There is no union in my workplace; will I still have to post the notice?
Yes. Because NLRA rights apply to union and non-union workplaces, all employers subject to the Board’s jurisdiction (aside from the USPS) will be required to post the notice.
I am a federal contractor. Will I have to post the notice?
The Board’s notice posting rule will apply to federal contractors, who already are required by the Department of Labor to post a similar notice of employee rights. A contractor will be regarded as complying with the Board’s notice posting rule if it posts the Department of Labor’s notice.
I operate a small business. Will I have to post the Board’s notice?
The rule applies to all employers subject to the Board’s jurisdiction, other than the U.S. Postal Service. The Board has chosen not to assert its jurisdiction over very small employers whose annual volume of business is not large enough to have a more than a slight effect on interstate commerce. The jurisdictional standards are summarized in the rule.
How will I get the notice?
The Board will provide copies of the notice on request at no cost to the employer beginning on or before November 1, 2011. These can be obtained by contacting the NLRB at its headquarters or its regional, sub-regional, or resident offices. Employers can also download the notice from the Board’s website and print it out in color or black-and-white on one 11-by-17-inch paper or two 8-by-11-inch papers taped together. Finally, employers can satisfy the rule by purchasing and posting a set of workplace posters from a commercial supplier.
What if I communicate with employees electronically?
In addition to the physical posting, the rule requires every covered employer to post the notice on an internet or intranet site if personnel rules and policies are customarily posted there. Employers are not required to distribute the posting by email, Twitter or other electronic means.
Many of my employees speak a language other than English. Will I still have to post the notice?
Yes. The notice must be posted in English and in another language if at least 20% of employees are not proficient in English and speak the other language. The Board will provide translations of the notice, and of the required link to the Board’s website, in the appropriate languages.
Will I have to maintain records or submit reports under the Board’s rule?
No, the rule has no record-keeping or reporting requirements.
How will the Board enforce the rule?
Failure to post the notice may be treated as an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. The Board investigates allegations of unfair labor practices made by employees, unions, employers, or other persons, but does not initiate enforcement action on its own.
What will be the consequences for failing to post the notice?
The Board expects that, in most cases, employers who fail to post the notice are unaware of the rule and will comply when requested by a Board agent. In such cases, the unfair labor practice case will typically be closed without further action. The Board also may extend the 6-month statute of limitations for filing a charge involving other unfair labor practice allegations against the employer. If an employer knowingly and willfully fails to post the notice, the failure may be considered evidence of unlawful motive in an unfair labor practice case involving other alleged violations of the NLRA.
Can an employer be fined for failing to post the notice?
No, the Board does not have the authority to levy fines.
Was there a public comment period? What was the response?
The Board received more than 7,000 public comments after posting a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. A detailed description of the comments and the Board’s response to them, including responsive modifications to the rule, may be found in the Preamble to the Final Rule.