General discussion

a diferent union story

Recalcitrant Teamsters Union Faces New Federal Charges for Abuse of Anheuser Busch Workers
Union officials thumb noses at NLRB settlement agreement, refuse to provide complete audited statement of union expenditures

FOR RELEASE: February 22, 2005

E-mail this page
Free e-mail alerts
Fairfield, Calif. (February 22, 2005) - A local employee of Anheuser Busch has filed a fourth round of federal charges against a recalcitrant Teamsters union Local for again violating the terms of a settlement agreement by failing to provide an audited statement detailing how workers? forced union dues are spent.

Catherine Anderson, a part-time employee at Anheuser Busch?s Fairfield facility, filed the unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. Teamsters union local 896 officials have repeatedly committed unfair labor practices and have reneged on settlement agreements.

Union officials recently provided workers with a financial ?statement? consisting of pages 10-13 of a larger report on the union?s expenditures. These fragments are a ?schedule? of expenses claiming an unsubstantiated 96.06% of union dues money was spent on ?collective bargaining? costs. This ?schedule? does not provide any financial disclosure to justify the affiliation fees with the Teamsters International union and two Teamsters International union councils. Teamsters officials also continue to claim that 100% of union staff salary and overhead costs are chargeable to nonmembers, even though the disclosure shows resources were spent on non-chargeable activities. Anderson?s complaint challenges both claims.

As a result of earlier federal charges filed by Anderson and a co-worker in July 2003, September 2004, and October 2004, Teamsters union local 896 officials settled the cases with a requirement that they properly inform workers of their right to refrain from financially supporting the union?s political and ideological causes. Teamsters officials had also agreed to cease illegal threats to have workers fired for refusal

Discussion is locked

Reply to: a diferent union story
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: a diferent union story
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
what's different about that?

sounds like business as usual (or at least what unions regard as "usual").


- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) i was trying to be sarcastic
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You beat me to it!
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) nyah nyah... (and a good morning to you, Evie) ;-)
- Collapse -
Hey ...

... start your own Walmart Union thread (oh right ... you have started more than one you could regurg). No need to hijack Mark's thread exposing the abuse of another union!

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yes Maam, you da man!
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) evie what do you expect from a union lover
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) and woopty doo

CNET Forums

Forum Info