A discussion is taking place in Peace and Freedom Party cyber-circles as to whether it is legitimate for their candidates to use the terminology “Labor Donated” on their literature.
I used to be the investigator for the Southern California Allied Printing Trades Council and for Graphic Communications International Union District Council 2, which takes in the entire Western United States from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. I also served in capacities with Local 69 of the Newspaper Guild up to and including First Vice President under two presidents. As far as I know, Local 69 was the only Guild local member of an Allied Printing Trades Council.
The term “labor donated” is not subject to interpretation by left wing organizations who want to pretend that they are being politically correct when they don’t utilize a legitimate union label print shop. For the most part, and I emphasize that there are exceptions for some locals and some Allied Councils that are corrupt, the only legitimate union labels for leaflets are GCIU and Allied Printing Trades Council labels. Although you may find print shops that have UAW, IWW, or even Iron Workers labels (for examples), that doesn’t mean they’re considered legitimate or that they should be. The UAW labels started cropping up after the GCIU won an election and a GCIU official turned down a bribe for a substandard contract in Sacramento. Next thing you know, a corrupt UAW local signed the precise substandard contract that the honest GCIU official turned down.
IWW shops — which tend to operate as collectives — have wages and working conditions that undermine legitimate, standard GCIU contracts (GCIU is now part of the Teamsters and has tens of thousands of printer members as opposed to the International Typographical Union which is part of CWA, and which has considerably shrunk from its days of glory).
The bottom line is, printers don’t make cars and put Allied labels on them; the UAW shouldn’t print and put automobile labels on printing. There are legitimate reasons for keeping jurisdictions like that separate based on trade, in spite of left rhetoric about having “one big union” or “industrial” all inclusive unions. Simply put, a union with a larger segment of a particular industry under contract can get a better contract, not to mention that they will know the ins and outs of the industry’s wage, benefit, and working conditions structure at the negotiating table.
The terminology “labor donated” applies to a piece of paper that has been produced at a union shop under contract in which the workers at the shop donated their labor. Nothing less. That means that it has been fabricated to end product by union labor. You cannot get an Allied Printing Trades Union label approved unless your shop is wall to wall union under contract. “Labor donated” is a term that was invented by and defined by the printing trades.
Just because somebody tells an anecdote about some printing trades official somewhere authorizing a deviation from this accepted usage and practice doesn’t make it legitimate. That union officer should be brought up on charges for violating Allied Printing Trades rules, which govern the usage of the label as a federally registered trademark and for breaching fiduciary duties to the union’s members.
The way to be honest about printing’s source when it is not printed by legitimate printing union members under legitimate contracts from beginning to end is to label it “self printed” or “computer generated” or something along those lines. That will not imply to printing union represented members that their fellow unionists donated their labor when that is not the case.
You must log in to post a comment.