What is the REAL reason for "no raids"?

[Bob Randall]

I have always had mixed feelings about raiding. So many times, over the years our Local 559 received phone calls from a member of another union wanting to get out of theirs' and into 559. "No raid" agreements, of course, prevented that. Being familiar with the other union I knew that the horror stories were not just those of a malcontent. For many years Local 559 had been looked upon as a "reformists Local". Especially as an organizer, it bothered me greatly that I could not try to help those members. It was not so much that I was prevented from bringing new members into our union for the sake of increasing membership. It was that I was prevented from helping them to change their working conditions as well as their quality of life. The "no raid" agreement left me pissed off. I felt, if the union was doing a satisfactory job there was no way that a unit would decertify or change unions. Moreover, I felt, if the union was doing an unsatisfactory job, it deserved whatever it got. Teamsters notwithstanding. I felt that this was not about the union. It was always about the members. Now...if there is an exception to my thought regarding members do not decertify or change unions it would come in the public sector. The relationship between the union and the municipality is much less adversarial. (Usually.) No strikes, contracts signed through binding arbitration, uncontrolled lust and greed for money by an employer absent, etc. The union is often looked upon by the members as a party providing a service paid for by dues. Therefore, a different union often looks attractive to members because it has a different dues rate. Even if the "savings" were as little as twenty dollars per month, I would not be greatly opposed to being without a "no raid" agreement. Another union "peeking in our windows", as well as members running against officers, tends to cause us to take care of ourselves a bit better.

[AlJackson1962!]

Not the same subject as Bob Randall writes of above, but somewhat relevant.

If I understand it correctly, the Teamsters were kicked out of the AFL-CIO because of widespread, documented corruption under Hoffa' Sr.'s leadership in the 1950's; Ron Carey brought the Teamsters back into the AFL-CIO in the 1990's and helped bring in SEIU leader John Sweeney to replace the long reign of George Meany and his successor Lane Kirkland. With AFL-CIO membership, it's understood that member Unions not engage in raiding other AFL-CIO Unions. When Hoffa, Jr. was Teamster GP, he (ironically) led the Teamsters back out of the AFL-CIO and into "Change To Win" a rival Union umbrella organization started by then SEIU leader Andy Stern. Change To Win was ineffective, and certainly did not advance solidarity among US labor Unions.

Many Teamster Locals are regionally affiliated with AFL-CIO Central Labor Councils today. Raiding a bargaining unit already represented by another Union always runs the risk of no Union - the ballot must include that option along with the rival Unions seeking representation rights.

Having been an active TDU member for much of my time in the Teamsters, I'm mindful that workers seeking better representation organize internally to demand contract enforcement and proper and effective representation and leadership - not decertify their existing Union.

What's more critical is maintaining industry standards in the crafts that Teamster Locals represent. Case in point: Local 251 had three master contracts covering construction related employers: Master Heavy and Highway, Master Ready Mix, and Master Attenuator (crash trucks). There were circumstances where Ready Mix employers signed to contracts with other Teamster Locals won bids for jobs because the CBA's covering those out of state Ready Mix employers did not provide nearly the same wages/benefits/working conditions as provided in the Local 251 Master Agreements.

I believe we should be more focused on maintaining consistent area standards rather than raiding workers already represented by another Union. And Bob Randall, Local 251 did participate in raiding public sector bargaining units. Those initiatives came directly from the rank & file members of those bargaining units. It didn't always go as planned either - there was one failure because the Union, under Matt Taibi's watch failed to file a timely bargaining demand notice in accordance with the expiring CBA and state law.

[Bob Randall]

Well, I did not suggest that we "focus" on raiding. One of my points was...if we focus on "maintaining" and "standards" we would not have to worry about raiding. Since we don't, and since we haven't, I simply believe that the workers should be able to decide to change a union or to maintain one. To your point, if members choose "no" union out of the three choices...what's the difference to the prevailing union as opposed to choosing the other union? No greater "risk" to the prevailing union. Your belief that we should focus supports my opinion that we already don't. I strongly suspect that no raid agreements were a creation due to laziness of officers and agents. If unions actually practiced "solidarity" in a meaningful and material way in the members' interests, rather than toss the word around as an empty, feel good, kind of way, we'd be having a different conversation. Until then...Hey! Why should we work harder (or much at all) if we can protect ourselves from raiding instead?"

[Nights]

I have always had mixed feelings about raiding. So many times, over the years our Local 559 received phone calls from a member of another union wanting to get out of theirs' and into 559. "No raid" agreements, of course, prevented that. Being familiar with the other union I knew that the horror stories were not just those of a malcontent. For many years Local 559 had been looked upon as a "reformists Local". Especially as an organizer, it bothered me greatly that I could not try to help those members. It was not so much that I was prevented from bringing new members into our union for the sake of increasing membership. It was that I was prevented from helping them to change their working conditions as well as their quality of life. The "no raid" agreement left me pissed off. I felt, if the union was doing a satisfactory job there was no way that a unit would decertify or change unions. Moreover, I felt, if the union was doing an unsatisfactory job, it deserved whatever it got. Teamsters notwithstanding. I felt that this was not about the union. It was always about the members. Now...if there is an exception to my thought regarding members do not decertify or change unions it would come in the public sector. The relationship between the union and the municipality is much less adversarial. (Usually.) No strikes, contracts signed through binding arbitration, uncontrolled lust and greed for money by an employer absent, etc. The union is often looked upon by the members as a party providing a service paid for by dues. Therefore, a different union often looks attractive to members because it has a different dues rate. Even if the "savings" were as little as twenty dollars per month, I would not be greatly opposed to being without a "no raid" agreement. Another union "peeking in our windows", as well as members running against officers, tends to cause us to take care of ourselves a bit better.

I agree about the mixed feelings. I never feel good about turning away workers who obviously are not being adequately represented. A lot of those calls seem to come from pulic sector employees. Problem is if you try to get them it aways ends badly and puts the workers in an even worse situation. About all you can do is encourage them to change their own union, knowing that the chance of success is slim.

[AlJackson1962!]

An important factor relative to raiding: It's very likely that the raided Union will have little interest in working and acting in solidarity with the raiding Union should that need ever arise. 90+% of US private sector workers have no Union. Running out of opportunities to organize non-union workers, because they're all unionized? Nobody should hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

[Bob Randall]

Well, the cases mentioned above must not involve unions with "no raid" agreements. Otherwise, it would not have "end(s)ed badly. Meaning that the effort proceeded to some extent. In cases such as that the "raided" union is often and independent union. There is never any cooperation there anyway. The independents hate AFL-CIO anyway. As well as those that left the AFL-CIO. The relationship has already been soured badly.