[blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
- From: Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:16:21 +0000
Miriam, good point in the union I am part of there is push right now to force
it to make concessions such as not having the 2 weeks paid vacation and a 3
percent annual salary reduction. All of a sudden some of the folks who poo
poo'd the union have it on speed dial, if you know what I mean.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
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:
