HI Paul,
I agree with you here. No question that it should be just as easy to quit a
union as it is to join one. I am no friend of the Freedom Foundation which I
believe to be an excuse to transfer power from workers to employers. But, in
Rose's case, the SEIU was no better. Any organization that puts
self-preservation above the interests of members isn't worth the time of day.
Unions are much like other organizations run by humans. They are subject to the
negative aspects of human nature such as greed, corruption and the desire of
some to benefit at the expense of others. Yes, I am of the belief that humans
are basically selfish creatures.
But I will always remember that unions have provided tremendous benefits to
working people when taken as a whole. IT is easy to find examples of greed and
corruption in for-profits, non-profits, governments and unions alike.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Wick
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] What's wrong with unions?
To those of you who think trading unions are the greatest thing since sliced
bread…
Worker quits union but union won't quit (charging) her .
The Oregonian Feb. 17, 2016
Harris v. Quinn gave home care workers the ability to cancel union memberships
and dues. Maybe the Service Employees International Union hasn't heard As
offensive as this scheme may be to those who believe government should operate
transparently and in good faith, some observers might be inclined to shrug and
point out that it also ended up helping workers. After all, the addresses of
home care workers are no longer subject to public disclosure thanks to the
passage of House Bill 3037. But those who take such a charitable view of events
should consider the experience of a single home care worker, Maryann Rose, who
has tried to disentangle herself (and her wallet) from a union that sought the
passage of HB3037. Sticking up for the little guy, indeed. Both events - the
stalling and the attempted disentanglement - occurred in the wake of a June
2014 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Harris v. Quinn, the court
determined that personal assistants like home care workers aren't full-fledged
public employees in that they are hired and fired by their private-sector
clients. For that reason, the unions that represent their bargaining units
cannot charge nonmembers fees in lieu of dues, as is common practice in public
employment in many states, including Oregon. The practical effect of this
decision is that home care workers can now save money by either dropping their
union memberships or not joining in the first place. Gurney is the Oregon
coordinator of the Washington state-based Freedom Foundation, which dislikes
public employee unions about as much as Cookie Monster likes cookies. Gurney
requested the names and addresses of home care workers in order to explain
their rights under Harris v. Quinn. One such worker is Rose, who in February
2014 - months before the Supreme Court's decision - signed a Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) membership application that permits the deduction of
dues from her paycheck, according to a federal lawsuit filed on her behalf last
week by the Freedom Foundation. So far, no problem. But the application
contained a provision making the deduction authorization "irrevocable for a
period of one year from the date of execution and from year to year thereafter.
To revoke her authorization, Rose was required to send the union a written
notice during a 15-day window that opened only once a year on the anniversary
of her authorization's execution. Given the ease of signing up for membership
and the difficulty of stopping dues payments, you have to wonder whether the
SEIU consulted the playbook used by people who peddle cellphone contracts. Or
maybe it's the other way around. Anyway, at the time Rose joined the union, the
financial reason for doing otherwise wasn't very strong. After all, the SEIU
still had the ability to charge nonmembers in-lieu-of fees that were comparable
to union dues. But Harris v. Quinn gave home care workers like Rose the ability
to save money by canceling their union memberships and ceasing dues payments.
And that's exactly what Rose tried to do, according to the suit, which was
filed in federal court Friday. In November 2015, Rose sent the union a letter
resigning her membership and asking that deductions for dues cease. She
received a letter from the union in December confirming the resignation of her
membership in SEIU. However, the letter continued, "deduction of dues will
continue until such time as you revoke the dues check off authorization you
signed ... in the manner and in the time periods set out in that authorization.
According to Freedom Foundation attorney Nick Dagostino, the deductions had not
ceased as of early February, notwithstanding the fact that Rose is no longer a
member of the union. This behavior is illegal, he argues. If unions may not
collect fees in lieu of dues from nonmembers, why would it be OK for them to
collect dues from nonmembers? Heather Conroy, executive director of SEIU Local
503, declined in an email to discuss the lawsuit, except to call the Freedom
Foundation "an organization dedicated to dismantling unions like SEIU" and to
dismiss its chances in court. Time will tell whether Conroy's legal
prognostication is correct, but her union's treatment of Rose (and, according
to Dagostino, many other workers like her) speaks volumes about its respect for
the very workers it represents. Shouldn't it be just as easy to quit a union
and stop paying dues as it is to join and start?
Sent from my iPhone
