[blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
- From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:09:20 -0500
That is an over simplification of the situation. It is caused either by
naivete, ignorance, or callous indifference. My father worked in a factory.
The work was very difficult, and it involved the use of chemicals which, I'm
sure, had something to do with the fact that he had a massive heart attack
in his early fifties, and then developed cancer. He was dead by the age of
55. When he first began working in this factory, the men did piece work. In
case you're unfamiliar with that term, it means that they got paid for each
piece of work they completed. When that kind of system is used, workers work
as quickly as they can to complete as much work as they can before the end
of the day so they can earn as much money as possible. The union fought for
years in order for the workers to be paid for a day's work, rather than by
the piece. But by then, the men were so accustomed to working as quickly as
possible that they couldn't change. My father was often home from work by
3:30. He and his coworkers couldn't learn to slow down. But at least he
could take it easy when he got home. He did get 2 weeks of paid vacation
because of the union. I was too young to even know about medical benefits,
but he must have had them. I know that he got workers' compensation when he
became ill. People who discount the necessity for unions don't have any life
experience to counteract all of the anti-union propaganda being spread by
the corporate media.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Wick
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 8:37 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Chuck,
And that assumes that people who take jobs in a unionized workplace do so in
part because of the benefits offered by union representation. People take
jobs to make money.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:44 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender "ckrugman"
for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not real sympathetic because these workers still benefit from union
representation witth regard to their working conditions and other benefits.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Wick
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:03 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
Other related posts:
