IBEW Rank and File Rally for Union Democracy - President Hill and Rank and File Group Engage in Spirited Debate

Send to friend

AUD was invited to observe and report on a rally by a group of IBEW rank and file, on April 15th in front of the IBEW international headquarters in Washington D.C. This is the group's second march on D.C., with the rallying cry this time being “Take Back Our Union.”

A group of about 50 rank and file IBEW activists from around the country converged on IBEW International Headquarters on April 15th. Organized through social media technology such as Facebook, ralliers represented a cross section of U.S. and Canadian IBEW rank and file. The day began with a march through the streets of D.C.-- supporters carried signs demanding the right to vote, and they wore bright orange T-shirts that artfully displayed the group's issues for all to see. The march to the IBEW HQ was followed by a rally, with speakers and then music. During the rally, International President Ed Hill emerged from the HQ office with a few assistants and engaged in a spirited debate with the protesters.

Why did these electricians travel hundreds of miles during a workweek to Washington, D.C.? According to their press release, it was "to protest a lack of democracy within the organization," and "to demand the right to vote for the head of their union." IBEW members are not allowed to vote for International President, rather "the president is elected every five years at a union convention dominated by full-time union officers. The president has the power to remove any union officer or eliminate local unions, makes national policy and important appointments within the union," the release states.

The "One Man One Vote" (OMOV) campaign of the group calls for the direct election of International officers. Currently officers are elected by delegates to the International (many of whom are hand-picked by the International officers themselves). The procedure to change the method of election of international officers involves amending the IBEW constitution. Locals from fifteen different states must approve the proposed measure, and then a union-wide referendum may be held on the question of amending the constitution But beyond this fundamental demand, rally speakers raised five other issues having to do with both IBEW policy and hiring procedures. Not in order of importance, they were:

1) No Double Booking: Double booking occurs when so-called "travelers" write their names on several out of work lists, then get called to work by one of the locals, and, rather than remove their name from the other list(s), keep their name on. There is an honor system within the IBEW that such travelers should remove their name from the other lists, but many do not adhere to it.

2) No transfers: Similarly, the group objected to the practice followed by some union members who make arrangements with contractors to have themselves transferred from one work site to another after the original job is finished, thereby bypassing those on out-of-work lists.

3) No portability: This practice, which varies by local, involves allowing contractors to bring in their own workers from another local to a job site, rather than fill the work from the local's out-of-work list For example, an Arizona contractor gets a construction job in Indiana, but rather than hire the Indiana local's union members through that hall, they are allowed to move workers from the Arizona site to the Indiana site.

4) Fringe benefit packages should follow the worker. For example, a wireman who normally works in Missouri takes a job at a union site in New York. If the prevailing wage and therefore pension credits are higher in NY, the electrician gets the wage differential but is not allowed to keep the differential pension credits. S/he only gets the credits that s/he would have earned working a job in Missouri. Excess credits are "kept" within the NY local. The group wants the worker to be able to get the credit--hence the phrase "benefits should follow the worker."

5) What many were most upset about was in fact a creation of the International, the so-called CW/CE worker --"Construction Wireman/Construction Electrician". These workers were created by an initiative of International President Hill to increase "market share" of the unionized electrician workforce and allow it to compete with nonunion contractors. The new class of electrician is created through a "Small Works Agreement" with certain contractors, and it allows, purportedly only on small construction projects, a contractor to bring in its own "electrician workforce." These workers, not hired through the IBEW apprenticeship program, work on these "small projects" at wage rates of $8.00-15.00 per hour, far less than the journeyman and also substantially less than the apprentices. The new class of workers are given training by the union apprenticeship program, with union funds, but it is a watered down, fast-track training. One electrician told AUD that for some contractors, even the IBEW apprentices were "making too much money." So in order to keep them "union" this initiative allows them to use this new class of electrician.

But from the protesters' viewpoint the new "electrician" is undermining their hard earned trade, and taking their work. One told AUD that they often had to fix or clean up the work of the CW/CEs. Another asserted that CW/CEs were now being found on major projects, not just small jobs, and were even spotted in nuclear power plants.

Pres. Hill is now forcing the program on the entire Pacific Northwest. One local that was resisting was told by Hill that unless it got on board, the International would start up another IBEW local in that one's place. Hill did not deny the statement when confronted by a member of the rank and file group (he did say he regretted saying it). Hill defended the CW/CE program, arguing it was necessary to increase the union's "market share" in the current business environment, where union contractors were going nonunion.

The debate moved to the direct democracy question. When asked by a rank and filer "Why can't I vote for my President?" Hill responded that under direct democracy, turnout in a U.S. political election (around 50 percent) would become the norm for IBEW elections. In the delegate setup, Hill argued, there is always 100 percent turnout so members' interests "are better represented." Ralliers were not convinced. The debate continued for over an hour, and then Hill invited the group into the union offices to discuss issues in depth.