One could say the same thing about government. The point is to do everything
one can to make government work for the benefit of the people and to do
everything one can to make unions work for the benefit of the people, not to
throw out the baby with the bath.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of R. E. Driscoll Sr
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:00 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Paul and Chuck:
There is no simple explanation for the behavior of and the need for trade
unionism. Some is middling good or bad, some is excellent and some of it
stinks.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
On 2/22/2016 11:55 PM, Paul Wick wrote:
Chuck,
So three 95% of the population not unionized are just dupes of the
corporatocracy? No thinking person could refuse to join a union?
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 22, 2016, at 9:48 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted
sender "ckrugman" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
yes, workers like this woman need a union to protect them
from their ignorance as they are preyed upon by right wing groups that use
them to undermine the unions and they don't know it until its too late.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 6:45 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
My feeling is that workers like this one should definately
be represented by
public unions so the original court decision was flawed.
And I suspect that
there are more facts that aren't being reported in the
story.
Miriam
-----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
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
