2. Qualifications for Union Office
In a 1977 decision* involving the United Steelworkers of America, the U.S. Supreme Court by a split vote upset a union rule requiring candidates for local union office to have attended at least one-half of a local’s regular meetings for the 3 years preceding the election. Under the union’s rule, 96.5 percent of the members of the local were disqualified from union office. In its decision, the high court stressed that national labor legislation (and specifically the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959) was designed to promote union democracy without interfering unduly with union internal affairs. It said:
Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that … the anti-democratic effects of the meeting attendance rule outweighs the interests urged in its support. … An attendance requirement that results in the exclusion of 96.5 percent of the members from candidacy for union office hardly seems to be a “reasonable qualification” (as required by Landrum-Griffin) consistent with the goal of free and democratic elections. A requirement having that result obviously severely restricts the free choice of the membership in selecting their leaders.
The minority of the court believed the attendance rule to be a reasonable qualification. It criticized the majority for using a statistical test. The rule was reasonable, it said, because it could encourage attendance at meetings, guarantee that candidates for office had a meaningful interest in the union, and assure that the candidates had a chance to become informed about union affairs.
Do you agree with the majority or the minority here and, in either case, why?
The issue here is whether we need to have democratic values in any rule we may make for elections in Union. The answer to it is embedded in the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959 which promotes Democracy in Unions. So when the Process has to be democratic in nature and Democracy in itself does not restrict people to vote for its leader, there shall be no doubt as to why majority of Union members shall be disqualified for participating in elections merely on the basis for attending the regular meetings. There can be a potential good candidate who could not have attended these meetings because of some personal serious reasons but may be a have genuine concern about Union. It is very subjective and thus in Democracy the majority’s voice has to be heard irrespective of how qualified they are to vote. For making every one attend regular meetings, there can be certain positive initiative and plans can be made but it is unreasonable to bar majority to run for union office candidature.
2. Qualifications for Union Office In a 1977 decision* involving the United Steelworkers of America, the...
Paul Sanchez, a member of Local 1 of the Bartender Union, speaks Spanish and is not sufficiently bilingual to understand the English language in either written or spoken form. Local 1 has 16,500 members, 48 percent of whom understand Spanish only. For several years Local 1 has had its collective bar-gaining agreements, monthly newsletters, and various notices printed in Spanish to accommodate its Spanish- speaking members. At meetings held to nominate union officers and contract ratification meetings, which occur once...