The fact that West Virginia has become a "right to work" state, shows how
completely the agenda of ALEC has worked. Given the fact that West virginia
has a majority of poor and working people and that the coal industry has
dominated there, one would think that if unions could stay strong, it would
be in West Virginia. That's where the SWP should be concentrating its
efforts, not in defending the indefensible in Oregon.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Big push for it here as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:00 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
By the way, West Virginia has just become the latest right to work state.
On 2/23/2016 5:35 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
The right-to-work movement is all about false choices. They wish to
bust unions, and collective bargaining by forcing unions to
collectively bargain for all but not allowing everyone to carry the
freight for dues to the union, the collective bargaining unit. In
other words its just a scam run by the bosses to union bust altogether
and to bleed unions of needed funs.
The woman mentioned will benefit from the collective bargaining, but
doesn't have to put any skin in the game.
In other words she is a freeloader....Hmmm...Isn't that something the
right wing and the ill named "Freedom Works" doesn't like?
By the way here in Michigan the Republicans locked out unions and
protestors, and passed right-to-work legislation in a lame duck
session virtually behind closed doors ... Now that is real democracy
right?
It is the same outfits and institutions who also impeded we protestors
with disabilities at our ADA celebration on the State lawn of that
very Capitol and which arrested me for exercising my constitutional
rights too!
We were fighting in part for equal wages for all PWD!
And by the way Peckham, the giant sweat shop being investigated by the
DOJ and which we were protesting also was sited for violations by the
NLRB in its busting of an attempted union.
Too bad brother Carl isn't on the list right now.
He would be steaming!
He worked years ago at a shelterred shop that attempted to unionixze.
I'll let him re tell the stories when he comes back.
And of course the stories of his father.
I organized a union of para-professionals in the 70's here in Flint.
That was a public sector union in the Intermediate School District. We
were the ones who literally did the heavy lifting of people with
profound disabilities in that era. Without solidarity and being a
closed shop we really wouldn't have had any rights and no real
collective bargaining.
That is the whole point of a union for crying out loud.
This "choice" issue is a total strawman argument.
Here is a choice for those who argue it: Leave the job and the
collective bargaining the union gives you.
Go out in the brave new world of no unions and make it without
solidarity.
See how far that gets you.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Krugman (Redacted sender
"ckrugman" for DMARC)" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:48 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
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
