sounds like anew organizing campaign has been started and Farmer will be handling it. The organizing deparmtent field staff are circuklating a organizing petition and trying to organizne themselves. Sounds like a repeat of the old days under the ZCarey regime. Furhter information and authorization cardes can be obtained form Charley Stevenson.

Oh no, not again, must be time to rub your nose in your pile of shit. Bad doggy

More silly shit. Organizers cannot comprise a single and distinct unit.

Got to disagree with you on this one. Organizers are routinely recognized as an appropriate unit in other unions. SEIU's are organized into the UUR. IBT Local 995 reps union staff as do many UAW and CWA locals. As you well know, an Intl Organizers job is multi-faceted and organizing is only part of the job description. While most of organized labor is curiously anti-union when it comes to its own staff members right to engage in protected activity, the IBT is one of the unions most hostile to its workers attempting to organize themselves. I don't understand it. I'm curious though whether or not this is bullshit because Farmer is considered management and thus can't be involved(on the"union yes" side) in organizing his subordinate staff.

would agree with you in past cases where the organizewrs were international employees on the interantional payroll.. Farmner has changed that witht the use of project organiziers that are not on the international payroll and come from outside the union. They are employees just like any other employee of any other employer. Now if the past paractice of the being full international employees was in place then you are correct. But as things are now with the way Farmer and the dpertment are hiring off the street employees it looks like anything goes. I would bet that any challlenge by the international to claim the project organizerds are at will employees wold fall flat on it face.

quote name='Barking Dog' date='Jul 22 2008, 11:51 AM' post='257761']
would agree with you in past cases where the organizewrs were international employees on the interantional payroll.. Farmner has changed that witht the use of project organiziers that are not on the international payroll and come from outside the union. They are employees just like any other employee of any other employer. Now if the past paractice of the being full international employees was in place then you are correct. But as things are now with the way Farmer and the dpertment are hiring off the street employees it looks like anything goes. I would bet that any challlenge by the international to claim the project organizerds are at will employees wold fall flat on it face.
[/quote You say that project organizers are not on the Intl payroll. Whose payroll are they on? Are they are on the payroll of a local union receiving an Intl organizing subsidy? What relevance does their coming from"outside the union" have re their eligibilty for unionization? A staff member(except a lost timer) is a staff member irrespective of where they were hired from. A project organizer is usually exempt because it is clearly understood that the worker is hired only for the duration of the project. Unless the staff s/he is hired into has a collective bargaining agreement which calls for time limits on the use of such workers this can be a huge problem. In any case the organizers have a far better case to make for unionization if they are on the Intl payroll than they do as "project organizers". Either way, Farmer can't be involved on the pro union side as you have alleged.

dripping dog dick...it been a long time since you came out to piss on the union....where have you been? is this the best crap you can leave? you must be sick or something.

Where is this shit coming from?

For the record, Projects are not on the international payroll in the respect their paychecks [except staff] are not written in DC. Projects [now called Field Organizers] are paid through their respective locals. This is an agreement not between the IBT and the organizer. It is an agreement between the IBT and the Local, with the understanding the local will issue their paychecks and take care of their health and welfare benefits. The local is reimbursed by the International. Therefore, they are employees of the International Union. Organizers have no verbal or written agreement with the International to only be hired for duration of a project or any other limited amount of time.

Field Organizers are "at will" because they are not represented and do not fall under a CBA.

They have just as much right to organize as anyone and it appears they should.

TW....I believe your statement is incorrect.... If the said employee is paid by the local union and gets their benefits through the local union then they are an employee of that local union, not the IBT and has no rightful ability to petition for recognition within the IBT.

Just must share comunity of lntrest says the board

Hmmnnnn! Sounds like a contrivance to reduce IBT LM2 payroll exposure. Its interesting though and probably a take off from employer developed subcontracting practices. Would definitely need to know more about it before passing judgement. I see its value to Locals yet I do see its infringement on IBT staff rights. Don't like the money laundering connotation as the money comes out of the IBT pocket in either instance. Is the structure working? Is there organizer abuse or a perception of such or self interest at play that is triggering a desire to organize themselves? How would the bargaining unit be defined? Employee status?? Always like expansion of organizing and wonder if this is a useful vehicle/structure towards that laudable goal.

No, not incorrect! Field [projects] organizers are not employees of the local. The local is considered the sponsor of the organizer. The Organizer pays dues to the sponsoring local, making them members and giving them eligibility to participate in the Locals health and welfare program. The Local has no employer rights. The local cannot direct, discipline or dismiss the organizer. The IBT has all employer rights including wage increases. With that said, the international is the employer. There could be no question in that regard. In this case, the prior statements made "it is irrelevant who pays them" is very true.

Yes it is very interesting, to say the least.  I would agree with you, it a very similar likeness to the Labor battles the Teamsters engaged in with FedEx.I don't believe I would call it abuse in the areas of finances.  As far as employee rights, no one appears to have to be accountable, at least not in this case.  The local handles the finances and are accountable to the IBT, in doing so.  Employee rights? well, who is accountable for that.  Because the local isn't responsible and the IBT is not accountable to the local, who keeps who in check.  The local cannot represent the organizer member, so where do they go?

That I would say is the reason for organizing.

As far as the bargaining unit?  The pay scales are the same for all field organizers, the benefits except for the pension contribution and the health insurance are determined by the IBT.  The only reason, I can see, the pension and health insurance differ from organizer to organizer is because of their membership falls under different locals.  With that being said, it appears the only differences here are the memberships.IBT organizers  holiday, vacation and sick days are determined by the international.  They are not determined by the local employees program.