Leaders Uncomfortable with Speed of Free Speech

More than 2600 websites are blocked in the People's Republic of China under the country's policy of Internet censorship.

The dictators ban such sites as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, because the dictators know it is a powerful tool to spread information and it’s packed with democratic power.

With Blogs called microblogs, or weibo in China, the government launched its strongest official measure yet to quell electronic expressions of discontent that threatens to undermine its leaders' firm hold on power.

In the name of defending Chinese cyberspace against "harmful information," the Beijing city government require users who post microblogs to register their real names with the microblogging services—to be verified by government authorities—sweeping away the anonymity that has helped cloak dissidents online.

Even more vexing for officials has been the speed with which information can spread on microblogs.

And the same holds true with some UBC officials. Leaders are nervous and uncomfortable with the quantity and speed of information posted on this blog, they are accustomed to a monopoly of access to the membership and control of information.

Seeing a threat, their instinctive reaction is to attempt to silence by threating to file internal union charges claiming among other things, information posted is "confidential" information about UBC "business" and that by distributing ("or leaking") such "harmful information" to the general public, including employers and media, members have violated the oath (page 91) of membership, acted contrary to his/her responsibility to the UBC, and interfered with the union's performance of its legal or contractual obligations.

Nothing could be further from the Truth.

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, is the federal law that provides rights for union members.

Sections 101(a)(1) and (2) of Title I guarantee equal voting rights and rights of free speech and assembly to "every member of a labor organization," and § 609 of Title VI makes it unlawful for a union "to fine, suspend, expel, or otherwise discipline any of its members for exercising any right to which he is entitled" under the Act.

Section 102 provides that any person whose rights under Title I have been infringed by any violation thereof may bring an action in federal district court for appropriate relief.

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 was the product of congressional concern with widespread abuses of power by union leadership. The relevant provisions of the Act had a history tracing back more than two decades in the evolution of the statutes relating to labor unions.

Tensions between union leaders and the rank-and-file members and allegations of union wrongdoing led to extended congressional inquiry. As originally introduced, the legislation focused on disclosure requirements and the regulation of union trusteeships and elections. However, various amendments were adopted, all aimed at enlarged protection for members of unions paralleling certain rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution; not surprisingly, these amendments -- ultimately enacted as Title I of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411-415 -- were introduced under the title of "Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations."

The amendments placed emphasis on the rights of union members to freedom of expression without fear of sanctions by the union, which in many instances could mean loss of union membership and, in turn, loss of livelihood. Such protection was necessary to further the Act's primary objective of ensuring that unions would be democratically governed and responsive to the will of their memberships.

Example of Exercising The Right of Free Speech

UBC carpenter, Kevin Price, has long challenged the decision by council of leadership to charter a local meant to challenge the dominance of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1 at area construction projects.

Local 57 "is anti-union, it's anti-labor and it destroys (labor) unity," Price said in a telephone interview from his home in Dongola, Ill., population 780. The town is 100 miles southeast of St. Louis.

"We didn't have a say-so (on Local 57) and we didn't have a vote," Price added. "Then they stifled our voices. And they always succeeded. Until now. I called them on it."

Terry Nelson, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Carpenters Council, supports Price's right to speak his mind.

But he questions whether the Constitution guarantees Price the freedom to exercise that right at a workplace guided by union rules.

"He publicly displayed the sticker on one of our job sites and we took exception to it," Nelson said.

"Sometimes, your freedom stops at the end of my nose. That's why we call this America."

Price drew the line after a council business representative ordered him to remove the anti-Local 57 sticker from his truck, parked outside a Carbondale work site on Aug. 9.

When Price returned to the site with sticker intact the next day, the representative followed up on a threat to bring Price up on "union charges."

A month later, after a review of the incident, the council executive committee ordered Price to answer allegations of dissent before an internal "trial committee."

Price responded by suing the council, alleging the demand that he remove the sticker violated his right to free speech.

"I know what the Constitution is," said Price, a Navy veteran. "My dad was in World War II, my uncle in Korea, my brother in Vietnam and my son has served two tours in Iraq. The U.S. Constitution, to me, (supersedes) all the other constitutions."

U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan concurred.

In his decision, Reagan wrote that Price may "vehemently disagree(s) with certain policies advocated by his current union leaders — policies he believes are antithetical to the best interests (of the council.) But he is not sponsored by (or sponsoring) a rival union. He has not joined a rival union and is not encouraging others to do so. His expression of anti-Local 57 views occurred squarely within the context of his desire to reform (the) union's policies from within..."

Citing an infringement of Price's "right of free speech," Reagan issued a preliminary injunction preventing the council from convening the trial committee to hear the charges against Price on Oct. 19.