Past Issue Archive

We endeavor to archive as many issues of Stage Call as possible. If you see an issue that is missing, and you have a decent looking copy – please let us know, so we can scan and add it! Thanks!

In the beginning – Brad Wilson was president

Vol I.1, May 2005 Vol I.3, January 2006 Vol I.4, May 2006

Volume II began under President Keith Harris

Vol II.1, September 2006 Vol II.2, January 2007 Vol II.4, August 2007

Vol III.1, January 2008 Vol III.3, September 2008

Vol IV.3, September 2009

Stewards Corner: Health & Safety Basics

The editor of Stage Call, Sister Cowan, asked me to provide something on this topic, and so I will attempt to bring out some details that are not only beneficial to 205 Stewards but to the membership in general. Some of this info I have presented on our stewards/discuss web site in the past. I would also like to explore some fine points in greater detail.

Last year, several Local 205 officers & members attended the IATSE Training Trust general entertainment safety class. The instructor was Kent Jorgensen, a name you see quite often in the IA Bulletin. Upon completion of the class, we received our IA Safety Officers’ certification cards along with completion cards for attending the10-hour OSHA general industry safety & health training course. What follows is the curriculum from that training session:

First, there is only what can be described as a confusing “patchwork” of laws and agencies that govern workplace health & safety matters. However, they are all very important. Why?  Because there are six-thousand American workers killed on the job each year. Accidents occur, but far too many deaths are unnecessary and preventable. The best known health & safety law is OSHA, the Occupational Safety & Health Act.  It is administered by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Half the states administer their own federally approved programs for public sector employees. Not for us. In Texas our first line of defense is OSHA. Also, the Environmental Protection Agency plays a role in oversight. There are many different sources for these rights and responsibilities in this area, but the general standards and principles apply across the board. They cover things like temperature, air quality, lighting and cleanliness in the workplace, exposure to hazardous substances, electrical guidelines, carbon monoxide exposure, noise levels, back injuries, scaffolding hazards, fall protection, stress-level reduction, personal protection equipment requirements. This includes respirators, safety goggles, hard hats, harnesses, gloves, ear plugs, and the like. FYI, lifting injuries are the single largest Workers Compensation expense in North America.

Federal OSHA law says employers have a “general duty” to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that are “likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” This is referred to as: the General duty clause (Section 5 of the OSHA, public Law 91-596).

According to the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is required by law that employers display the official OSHA poster that describes everyone’s rights and responsibilities under the law. Your steward can answer your questions or will know where to go to find someone more knowledgeable. Once again, I have asked the e-board to put in place a Health & Safety committee, which would mean there is a knowledgeable group of individuals to deal with these concerns. They would help to insure that no possible hazard is taken for granted. Most of our employers are just as concerned about preventing on-the-job injury. For those that aren’t, this committee could help to “push” and persuade employers to take corrective action. It would benefit us all if some members took on the task of learning about this highly technical area. You don’t have to become an expert overnight. Just commit to begin this journey of learning and help provide security & protection that safeguards our members. One great source for learning is COSH. It’s a national network of twenty-five union-based Coalitions on Occupational Safety & Health. It’s website is: <www.coshnetwork.org>. The New York website of COSH is packed with a lot of good information.

The National Institute for Occupational Health & Saftey (NIOSH), an arm of the federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, is also a good resource. They are part of the Dept. of Health & Human Services. They are at:  <cdc.gov/niosh>

It is almost always best to work through your union, but individuals have the right to contact OSHA if they feel the employer is negligent. You can get answers about your rights or how to file a formal complaint requesting an inspection about hazardous conditions. It is possible to do this and have your name withheld from the employer. You have some legal protections against reprisal if you exercise any of your legitimate rights. Again, my advice is to work through your union and get the full benefit of the power of the Bargaining Unit. Strength in numbers. And always remember that it’s the employer’s legal responsibility to keep your job safe and healthful.

You also have the right to information. Your employer is required to maintain and keep available for inspection certain types of documents. This also applies to the agencies who administer the laws. Documents you can obtain include:

*The Log and Summary of Occupational Injuries, known as OSHA Form 200. Your employer is required to keep these records for five years.

*Copies of the standards, rules, regulations, and requirements that apply to your workplace. This includes the OSH Act itself.

*Information on workplace health & safety incidents as well as the relevant medical records about on-the-job injuries. Plus information as to what measures the employer is taking to reduce improper or dangerous job-related injuries.

Under OSHA and NLRA guidelines, you and your coworkers may refuse unsafe work under certain conditions. Be careful though. You must have a “reasonable” belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious injury. You will strengthen your legal position if you notify your supervisor before stopping work.  Also, alert the union and your co-workers beforehand to enlist their help for collective action. IMPORTANT: You’re best off if you don’t refuse the assignment outright; instead, say you will do the job, once it is made safe.

Occupational Health & Safety hazards can be found in every type of work setting. Because they are sometimes hard to detect, many threats go unnoticed until they become extremely dangerous. In some cases they can be fatal. Just recently we heard of a fall at the Super Bowl that resulted in a death. This caused sorrow for all of us working in this trade. It is critical that we all stay vigilant in observing our surroundings. Because in the end, no law, no power, can protect us without informed, aggressive self-defense.

Work Safe, Work UNION PROUD!

Jim Ford
Stewards’ Committee
IATSE Local 205
Austin, Texas

Stewards Corner: Pushing Back

”Today, we say that when you pick a fight with any of us, you pick a fight with all of us! And that when you push us, we will push back!”

-speech by Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer, AFL-CIO, 10/26/1995

The American Labor Movement has progressed slowly and painfully through the last century. From this effort there have been many successful gains for the American worker. Perhaps the most significant would be the cornerstone of US labor law, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), sometimes called the Wagner Act. Here’s a short chronicle of events leading up to it being enacted by Congress. Before the passage of the NLRA in 1936, employers were free to spy on, interrogate, discipline, fire, and blacklist union members. During the Great Depression workers engaged in general strikes. On numerous fronts and workplaces they battled police and private security forces. They had next to no rights or privileges insured by law. After much effort by organized labor, benefits slowly evolved; 40 hours, vacation pay, medical benefits, weekends, etc. These are undeniable facts that come directly from efforts by unions & the American Labor Movement. But now union-busting groups and the politicians they own tend to interpret historical events in a light shaded toward management. They promote the idea that unions impeded the growth of American industries, increased costs, and hampered free-trade and capitalist principles, in general. Basically, that trade unionism was un-American. SO NOT TRUE! I feel that the best of today’s historians think Congress instigated the Wagner Act to steer unions away from potentially revolutionary confrontations. Because of the NLRA, by 1945 union contracts covered one third of the private sector workforce. A great wave of strikes hit the US in 1945-1946. Business interests petitioned Congress to amend the NLRA. This resulted in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 that weakened many union protections. And then the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959 imposed additional restrictions. Our agenda for the future is clear: we need to continue to fight for and advance these workplace protections and, at the same time, create new strategies and tactics for the battles of the new century.

-ARE UNIONS DEAD?

Quite often these days you see reports saying UNIONS ARE DEAD. It is true, there has been a decline in unionized numbers. There is strong anti-union sentiment in all parts of this country backed by corporations. They feed off these reports. We must fight back against these anti-union arguments. The average person these days knows more of these “un-truths” than the real story of what benefits come from unions. Here are some facts and ideas for rebutting these common complaints against unions:

-GREEDY UNIONS?

Corporations blame unions for rising prices of consumer goods, plant shutdowns and the decline of entire industries. But they never mention bad management decisions, or competition from state-subsidized nations, or corporations moving abroad to pay less wages, or corporate greed.  Consider this, in the 1970’s, the average chief executive officer of a major corporation was paid 41 times what his average worker was paid.  By 2004, the average CEO in a large corporation was paid a whopping 431 times what his company’s average hourly wage worker was paid.  Mind blowing statistics, and still growing. Undeniable CORPORATE GREED.

-ALL UNIONS CORRUPT?

Yes, it’s true a few union leaders have been convicted of illegal activities. The vast majority of union leaders are honest and hard working folks. They have to be, unions are one of the most democratic institutions in the country. Union failings are nothing compared to what goes on in American business. I looked up some old numbers by the US Chamber of Commerce, and the estimate for the total cost of white collar crime in 1997 was $338 billion dollars.  Keep in mind that the Chamber of Commerce is hardly an organization that wants to make US corporations look bad. And the numbers are higher today in.

The annual costs of anti-trust & trade violations is more that $250 billion. Compare that with all the Union dues collected in a year, approx. $7-$10 billion a/year.  Corruption in big corporations makes all other things insignificant. Think greedy scandals with giants like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia, Global Crossing, and the banking scandals, to name a few. A good juicy corrupt union scandal gets all the media coverage. As long as corporations own the mass media, that’s the way it will be.

-UNIONS: ARE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP?

Of all the anti-union arguments, this is the worst. That we just cater to our own special group of unionized labor. Look at what unions have done for all Americans. Union support helped pass laws to achieve SOCIAL SECURITY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, CIVIL RIGHTS, VOTING RIGHTS, AND WORKER SAFETY. Even after passing of ACA, Unions still continue to fight for HEALTHCARE for everybody. Unionized workers earn not only one third more on average than non-union, but also have more job security, health benefits, pensions, and protection against UNJUSTIFIED DISCIPLINE.

This reveals a simple truth: unions are good for ALL American workers. To make this point clear, John F. Kennedy spoke on this topic in one of his speeches on the Labor Movements in this country. To quote President Kennedy, “Our Labor Unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours, and provided supplemental benefits. Through Collective Bargaining and Grievance Procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor”.

-A CALL TO ARMS?

When you hear news on these topics from the media, try to discern the facts from a labor perspective. The gains made in this last century are significant. Now, as in the past, large corporations have made efforts to roll back any progress made for the American worker. It will take a concerted effort of all unionized workers to push back. Our strength is in our organized numbers, but individual efforts are crucial. Stand up and be counted. Join in the effort to PUSH BACK.

Jim Ford

Stewards Committee

 

Stewards Corner: Stewards Basics 101

Glad to see that Stagecall is back up and running.  It is an important way for our members to stay connected with each other, as well as disseminate information and ideals to the workers in our trade.  A big “thank you” to the newly organized Newsletter Committee and it’s editor for jump-starting this periodical.

As the Stewards Committee has been actively involved in educating and bringing along a new crop of qualified job site stewards, I have received some interest from members about stepping up to represent their brother and sisters as an advocate in the workplace and becoming an IA Steward.  Perhaps at this point it would be best to outline some of the basic requirements, qualities, and responibilitites of becoming an effective job site union steward.  Laying these out in one issue here would be next to impossible.  So, toward that end, I will elaborate on these topics through subsequent issues of Stagecall.

Stewards face a variety of problems: the mechanics of grievance handling, the wide variety of problems that members bring them, dealing effectively with management, and keeping in touch with union leadership.  The following are a few thoughts to help the new steward get through their first introductions to the job and become an effective advocate for the union and the contract.  Lets call it “Stewards Basic 101.”

1) Enthusiasm
One of the problems you’ll encounter is negative attitudes from some co-workers.  This could be from former officers, members with more seniority, or just plain anti-union folks.  They’ll tell you that your efforts are fruitless, things never change, you’re wasting your time.  All organizations need new caring people to keep them strong and growing.  You have every right to be enthusiastic about your local.  Don’t let naysayers discourage you from your duties.

2) The Long View
A good Steward does not develop overnight.  It’s a process that takes time.  You’ll have to learn to be patient.  Remember that your goal is to develop your skills over time, and in the process you’ll build respect from your fellow members and management.  Like the old sage, take the Long View.

3) Learning Attitude
You’ll have a lot to learn: the contract, past practices, and the way your union and management operate.  You aren’t expected to know all the answers, but you must be the kind of person that enjoys finding them.  Ask questions, and then keep asking them.  You’ll learn a lot about people, the nature of working attitudes, unions and labor relations.  So these things should appeal to you.

4) Dealing with Management
Management will often test stewards to see how well you represent your co-workers.  This comes in many forms: denying you reasonable time to carry out your duties, refusing to give you extension of time to research a first step towards a grievance.  They may deny you access to records in a clear-cut case of injustices in a disciplinary complaint.  All this is clearly a breach of the contractual agreement, as well as Federal Law.  Learning to work with the particulars of each management situation, while enforcing the contract can be tricky.  Your skill at this, with time, will improve.

5) Organizing Approach
As stated, you don’t need to know answers to all questions posed to you.  Learn to organize your co-workers varied skills and then access them with your problems.  The whole point of the trade union movement is power in numbers, working with others to achieve common goals.

I hope this article helps anyone contemplating becoming an advocate and steward for your fellow co-workers.  As mentioned, I will be laying out more on this topic in future articles in an attempt to answer some of the questions about this union function.  With hard work, a determined and positive pro-labor attitude, and a willingness to teach and mobilize your brothers and sisters, you will become a vital part of a prosperous and vibrant union.  Not a small task, but certainly worthy of great respect for stepping up.

Yours in Solidarity,
Brother Jim Ford, IATSE 205

Winter 2012

Stewards Corner: Weingarten Rights

One of the most valuable protections a worker has is the right to representation when called in by your employer or management. A steward’s presence as an union advocate can sometimes mean the difference between someone being railroaded out of a job or falsely accused, and not having justice prevail. Weingarten Rights are key when discussing representation. In 1975, the US Supreme Court said that during an investigatory interview, employees have the right to request union assistance and can refuse to answer questions until the request is honored.

Under Weingarten, in order for the worker to have the legal right to representation during a meeting with management, the following conditions must be met:

1) Is it an investigatory interview?

If the employee is expected to answer questions concerning wrongdoing that might lead to his dismissal or discipline he is eligible for union representation. Discussions pertaining to job performance do not automatically include the right to representation. The right entails only in situations where it could lead to discipline.

2) Does the employee believe that the discussion may lead to discipline?

Whether the belief is reasonable or not,it is a judgement call based on the circumstances. If the employer merely wants to convey info to a worker then representation is not necessary. However, the burden falls on the worker to decide motive.

Unlike the police MIRANDA RIGHTS, where your right to silence is given prior to speaking, employers have no legal obligation to advise a worker of their right to representation. It is up to the individual employees to know their rights. So, a good rule is to stay cool, quiet and respectful, if urged by employer to discuss the matter.

Call for your Rep and present the following Declaration:

‘WEINGARTEN DECLARATION’ (aka Weingarten Rights)

For workers’ own protection, workers should be instructed to read or hand this statement to management before the start of any meeting that could lead to discipline:

“IF THE DISCUSSION I AM BEING ASKED TO ENTER INTO COULD IN ANYWAY LEAD TO MY DISCIPLINE OR TERMINATION, OR AFFECT MY PERSONAL WORKING CONDITION, I ASK THAT A UNION STEWARD, REPRESENTATIVE, OR OFFICER BE PRESENT. UNLESS I HAVE THIS UNION REPRESENTATION I RESPECTFULLY CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DISCUSSION’.

In the future, we will again be distributing ‘WEINGARTEN RIGHTS’ cards for each union member to add to their tool kit. Know your rights and use them when needed.

Jim Ford

Stewards Committee

IATSE Local 205

Stewards Corner: Sexual Harassment

As a steward faces many challenges daily, there is an important topic that they must learn to handle in a professional manner: it’s called sexual harassment in the workplace. And the responsibility falls not only on stewards but all of the members of the union, as well.

Incidents involving sexual harassment are particularly challenging. The incidents involve strong emotions, misuse of power, and the tension that historically surrounds men and women in our society. Our union has an obligation to insure that its members are sensitive to the issues of sexual harassment.  Additionally, it must create an environment where victims are comfortable turning to someone in the union for assistance. This means we must build an educated membership on this topic. Also, we need stewards who know how to investigate for possible follow up grievances.

So first off, here’s a brief definition of Sexual Harassment:
“Any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, or any verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”1  Sexual Harassment,  a form of gender discrimination, includes “lewd proposals, sexual jokes, and unwanted physical contact.”2  So in some cases this falls under legal heading of civil rights laws.

As good brothers and sisters we must be sensitive to the victim’s concerns. Victims, most of whom are women, can feel powerless, anxious, or even guilty. Standing by them sends a powerful message of unity. Stewards need to listen, record, and document all the details of any incident, and other members should immediately report these situations to their steward. As members we must show support to all victims and create a discrimination free environment.

If the supervisor is the offender, he may deny he made advances. He may blame the employee’s poor work performance or make other excuses. If it’s by a co-worker, he may claim their behavior was “in good fun,” or she “just can’t take it.”

Here you might remind them that if it was his daughter, wife, mother, or sister, he wouldn’t want her treated like that. Sometimes members are just ignorant about the issue of harassment. I say ignorant, not stupid. Ignorant means lack of knowledge.

The best strategy for dealing with this issue is a proactive one: we must educate ourselves on this subject before incidents occur. Legally the employer is responsible for the atmosphere we work in. However, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves and our brothers and sisters to stand up against this offending conduct.

Why? Because it’s the right thing to do.

Jim Ford, Chair, 205 Stewards’ Committee

 

1 Legal Rights of Union Stewards, 4th edition, Robert M. Schwartz

2 The Union Steward’s Complete Guide, 2nd edition, David Prosten

Stewards Corner: Zero Tolerance Policy

STEWARDS CORNER

                In past articles I have tried to shy away from fluff pieces that just mimic old inefficient policies of dealing with important topics. Our members need perspective and honest appraisals on important issues that face our workers today. With that in mind, I have tried in the past to address the issue of lax and less than forceful representation by our leaders, sexual harassment in the workplace, and political activism.

This piece involves the complicated issue of suspension and termination from your job, due to drug test failures and drug use by our workers, either in the work place or on your personal time.  This issue tends to be very divisive in its opinions by our members.  There are strong feelings for and against the implementation of heavy-handed drug policy with vigorous enforcement clauses. I make no moral judgments on anyone’s opinion either way.  I will simply attempt to lay out some legal aspects maybe not commonly known by our members; and yes, I will try to point out some improvements that can be brought to bear.  My only motives are to educate and to keep our technicians on the job and working.

—Zero Tolerance Policy—

                Bosses LOVE “zero tolerance policies.”  One arbitrator called them “the last refuge of weak managers.” In my opinion, he should also to include weak union negotiators in his statement.  Hard to believe, but several of our current contracts rely on a zero tolerance policy regarding what might be called egregious behavior in the workplace.  This could refer to fighting, threatening violence, stealing, drug test failures, verbal abuse, sexual harassment, felony convictions, etc.  For our discussion purposes, let’s narrow our view to drug test failures.  This could mean just using pot, not just the harder drugs which are in no way acceptable to our professional standards. Hey, come on, some have called out liberal Austin as a marijuana local.  Be that as it may, these discipline policy issues are on the rise.

A ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY provides that workers who commit a specific infraction (failed drug test) be immediately discharged with no consideration for mitigating circumstances such as an employee’s long standing seniority or past record.  Worse yet, if an accident occurs they test all parties, even those collaterally damaged by the incident. These workers are clearly victims in the incident, only to be re-victimized by having to pass a urine test.

If the union questions the policy, the employer is likely to cite contractual language which gives it the right to issue rules and regulations.  This is part of the “managements rights” section in most contracts.  Management can set rules, policies, and regulations for employment.  Arbitrators generally uphold these rules when they are used to maintain production quotas and insure a safe working environment (something they are legally bound to do).

However, even if the contract’s management rights clause waives the union’s right to negotiate on the contents of the rule, the employer must allow the union to bargain on how it will be applied.  I believe this tactic has eluded our leadership.  Our representatives simply look to a strict interpretation of contract language for what they can and can’t do. But, as labor attorney and writer Robert Schwartz shows, there is a tactic to combat, somewhat, even the strictest of contract language. I believe Local 205’s negotiators are not aware of this tactic and simply say “it’s not in the contract,” believing they can’t argue, discuss, or negotiate on the contents of the rule; or bargain on how it’s applied. To clarify, we have an option to challenge the conditions of the violation and we are not doing it. I believe our negotiators just look at strict contract wording, which is very limiting as the final word.   And apparently Schwartz agrees with my interpretation.

These overly broad zero tolerance policies can lead to grossly unfair punishments.  And some of our working brothers and sisters have suffered because of them.

Let me explain.  When an employee whose conduct should result in a warning or short suspension is discharged because of a zero tolerance policy, the union should assert – through the Business Agent and Stewards’ Committee (Grievance Committee) – that the policy violates the Just Cause clause of the contract.  Fair notice, disparate (uneven) treatment might be a good reasonable argument.  This is one of several possible tactics to argue against a mandatory drug test. At the very least, it may mitigate the severity of the punishment.  It would be to our benefit for our contracts to have language – that employers deem reasonable – more clearly defining the union’s contract interpretation.

Summary discharge is contrary to the basic principle of just cause for discipline.  Outdated as it is, it’s the old master vs. servant attitude that employers constantly try to enforce.  Not to mention, if discharge was instituted before test results or a good faith investigation of facts, we can argue the employee did not receive due process.

It is widely accepted that the just cause concept compels an employer to weigh the gravity of the offense, consider the mitigating and extenuating circumstances, and apply the least severe penalty that is likely to lead the employee to correct his or her mistakes.  A disciplinary firing and drug test failure can have long term negative effects on an employee’s career.

Zero tolerance unilaterally extinguishes these just cause-bargained protections.

Union Silence on the Issue

                The union will have a hard time contending that zero tolerance violates the contract if it has failed to object before the current discharges.  The employer will undoubtedly argue that past practice shows agreement with the policy.  Management will never want to appear to condone illegal recreational drug usage by its employees.  As a tactic to overcome that contention, we, the union, should distinguish the current cases from the earlier cases, stating that current cases more clearly violate the just cause standard.

Other Arguments

                Unions can use the wording of zero tolerance policies against the employer.  A policy might state that a violation “may” lead to immediate discharge.  This can be interpreted to mean that dismissal is only one of several possible alternatives.  Similarly, if a policy states the offender is “subject” to discharge or punishment “up to and including discharge,” the union may have some wiggle room.

It is hard to believe that our International and local representatives signed on to this overly broad zero tolerance policy.  Although we as stewards, reps, and advocates can raise defenses such as lack of evidence, lax of enforcement, disparate treatment, and due process, we will be fighting a battle with one hand tied behind our backs until we get some basic change at the contract level.

Until then, in my opinion, it’s nothing short of a crapshoot to spend time and money taking these kinds of situations to arbitration.

I found a case recently in researching arbitration cases of mandatory dismissal in drug cases:

COMPARE BIOLAB INC., 114 LA 279 (BRODSKY 2000) “If required by the contract, a discharge based on a positive drug test is likely to be upheld in arbitration even without evidence of impairment.”  (*3)

GES Contract Wording

Our agreement with the Tradeshow employer GES has this kind of extreme zero-tolerance policy. I would hope the International and IA Reps would listen to our pleas to change this policy in future contracts or give us support, in both time and monies, to properly process these kinds of dismissals through the Grievance Procedure. It would surely go all the way to arbitration and that is an unfair burden on a small local like ours. Or, a much easier remedy would be to strike it from future contracts all together.

 

 

Jim Ford, chair
Stewards’ Committee
IATSE Local 205
Austin, Tx
j…@hotmail.com
JUST CLAUSE: A UNION GUIDE TO WINNING DISCIPLINE CASES by Robert Schwartz was the primary source for this article.

 

***A good contract with a good union is good business***
—John T. Dunlap, US Secretary of Labor