Why the UAW brass like "no strike" contracts

[Hannah Bell]

Why would a union leader recommend that his members ratify a contract that contained a “no strike” clause? Why would a union leader want to deprive his members of the only bargaining leverage that they possess? What’s the pay off for a “no strike” clause?

Article 16, Section 14 of the New UAW Constitution ( STRIKE FUND )

“An amount, not in excess of

(1)seventy-five (75) percent of the interest and earnings on investments received by the International Strike Assistance Fund, may be set aside as the Organization, Education, and Communication Fund to be expended as authorized by the International Executive Board for such purposes. Beginning on July 2006 and continuing thereafter, unless otherwise directed by the International Executive Board,

(2)the remaining twenty-five (25) percent of the interest and earnings on investments received by the International Strike Assistance Fund shall be allocated to the General Fund, the Organization, Education and Communication Fund or to such other purpose as the International Executive Board shall determine to be in the best interests of the UAW.

(3) On each of June 22, 2010, and the third Tuesday in June 2011, 2012, and 2013, the International Executive Board may transfer up to a maximum of twenty-five million dollars (25 million) from the International Strike Assistance Fund to the General Fund of the International Union.”

(4)“The International Executive Board shall have the authority to make additional, limited withdrawals from the International Union Strike Assistance Fund, provided that (a) such additional withdrawals shall not exceed sixty million dollars (60 million) between any two consecutive Constitutional Conventions, and (b) such withdrawals shall be permitted only to support specific purposes or projects such as major organizing drives or other initiatives intended to increase UAW membership, strengthen the UAW’s ability to bargain effectively and/or promote the interests of the membership and working people generally.”


There you have it.

(1)75% of interest and earnings on the Strike Fund go to operating expenses which include salaries and benefits for International reps, and the remaining

(2)25% of interest and earnings on our strike fund go to the General Fund which includes salaries and benefits for International reps.

(3)$25 million will be transferred from the Strike Fund every year to the General Fund which may include salaries and benefits for International reps. And another

(4)$60 million dollars can be withdrawn for additional expenses which may include salary and benefits for International reps.


Why would UAW International officials want the principal of their investment, their cash cow, our Strike Fund, to be depleted by strikes?


http://www.factoryrat.com/factoryrat/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12310


This bulletin is put out in the interests of informing workers and renewing the fighting power of organized labor. Please send your comments and your on-the-job, on-scene reports to:
[e-mail]

[xchrom]

1. Recommend -- all institutions need shaking up

Now and again.

[madrchsod]

2. my wife is the sec- treasurer of her local public sector union

depending on different factors they get back around 5-10% of the dues. the money is sent to the top then filtered back to the state,regional,then local unions.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Locals in the UAW keep 38% with rebates making it higher.

[Gaedel]

4. "No strike" clauses.

A "no strike" clause is usually negotiated into the contract by the employer. This prevents the occurrence of local "wildcat strikes" which disrupt production. They are a very common item in most contracts. The union saves its strike funds for a big strike (if necessary) when a new contract is being negotiated. If a union member doesn't like "no strike" clauses, just vote against accepting a contract which contains such a clause.

As far as your other point regarding transfer of funds, if incoming dues are down because of layoffs and lower employment, the union hierarchy may well transfer funds from a strike fund to the general fund to keep the national and regional offices funded. The first instinct of any bureaucracy (government, union, or business) is self-preservation.

[Hannah Bell]

5. lol. They wrote themselves permission to steal the entire strike fund.

Is there no end to the apologetics?

[Gaedel]

6. Not apologetics

Just stating the obvious.

Any Bureaucracy puts (and pays) itself first. If it comes down to depleting the strike fund or failure to make payroll in the union national and regional offices, the strike fund is going to go.

Same in the schools. Do we lay off an art teacher at West Podunk Elementary or do we lay off a "curriculum specialist" at school district headquarters? You make the call!

[Hannah Bell]

7. the bureaucracy's salaries aren't paid from the strike fund; the strike fund is a new

ADDITIONAL slush fund for the bureaucrats, & this rule is new, from 2006.