Paul and All Who Are on the Fence
You put your finger on the real issue. And it is a huge issue. We,
the people, hand off our responsibilities. Whether it is regarding
our government, our unions, our churches, or even our families. We
allow others to take charge. In effect, we subject ourselves to the
Will of others. And then we bitch and whine over how they are running
our lives.
When I was an official state employee, I joined our state union. I
went to my first union meeting expecting to be joined by a large
number of my co-workers. Only our shop steward showed up. The
majority of people at that meeting were from the General Agency, and
they did not fret over the needs of the Blind Agency. So they voted
for their own agency needs. Our staff bitched for days over how
nobody took our positions forward.
We elect leaders to our unions, but does that mean we just hand off
our involvement? If we do, then we get what we deserve.
Same with our government, our churches, our public education and our
families. Honestly, I worked with grown men who would grumble, "My
wife won't let me do this or that". I'd go on, but you get the idea.
Never take responsibility if you can shove the blame on "the little
lady". One of my employees would have his wife call in and say he was
sick. The second time it happened, I told her that I would mark his
absence as unexcused unless he called in for himself. What a big
chicken. He whined to the director, saying that I was forcing him to
crawl out of his sick bed to call in. She told him that if his wife
could call in for him, then she could also carry the phone to his sick
bed. After that he called in on his own. And his attendance
improved, too.
In 2008, I voted for Barak Obama. Many reasons were involved in his
inability to carry out many of his campaign promises, but in 2012, I
voted for Jill Stein. Sure, Obama still won and business went forward
as usual, but I had made my position clear. I will not support anyone
who does not support the majority of the people's needs.
If each of us, or at least more of us, became involved on our own
behalf and took responsibility for what went on in our various
organizations, then there would be real change.
I'd ramble on, but my wife is telling me...
Carl Jarvis
On 3/11/16, Charles Krugman <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In many industries and public entities supervisors or managers are free to
organize and collectively bargain so if they choose they have the potential
to organize and become a union member.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Wick
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 11:16 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Carl,
Questions: is someone who for example make $50,000 a year and supervises
people still a member of the working class?
I'm not opposed to collective-bargaining, I actually think it's great - in
theory. My beef however is that unions even in friendly territory make few
attempts to expand their membership-base. Being content to exercise the
political influence they have over us in blue states, and not caring that
their way of life is funded by tax dollars (in the form of public employee
salaries) paid by people who will never enjoy the same kind of benefits etc.
that's not workers solidarity it's "we've got ours, sucks for you."
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 8, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chuck,
Well put. Even sheep know the value of herding together. Far too
many working class folks have been hood winked into thinking they are
rugged individuals. What they are is isolated fools.
The Ruling Class is organized. It would only stand to reason that we
working class folk get ourselves organized.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/4/16, Charles Krugman <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
well as a blind person I got much further ahead through public sector
union
jobs than jobs in the private and public sector that weren't union jobs.
Without union jobs being available I had to take risky offers and settle
for
working with fly-by-night employers and many questionable circumstances.
Some of those I was able to turn around and others I walked from so its
not
a question of any conspiracies, it is a question of reality. Many white
collar workers have had an attitude that they were above belonging to a
union as they were professionals that didn't need it. This was
especially
true with many social workers and attorneys that I have come in contact
with
over the years.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Wick
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 4:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Chuck,
As noted in yesterday's (2/28) New York times union membership in
Wisconsin
has plummeted precipitously since union membership was made optional for
public employees. There is no conspiracy unless one is politically
active;
people just want to pay their bills, and bread must come before ideas.
The
age-old question in politics is what have you done for me lately? All
the
union movement can answer is victories achieved when my
great-grandparents
were raising their children; you can only live on the fumes of past
glory
for so many years. I might feel differently if unions were out there
trying
to organize private sector workers; but they don't even bother except
scattered victories with janitorial workers in Hotels etc. in
California –
they don't even bother with white-collar private sector workers who form
the
backbone of those who are already unionized i.e. government workers.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender
"ckrugman"
for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
the problem is that in many places they are prevented from joining
unions
by politicians that further their agendas by being antiunion. Michigan
and
Wisconsin are prime examples and there are similar attempts in other
states in the midwest and south. Unions need to be given a level
playing
field which has been taken from them by draconian measures in states
like
Michigan and Wisconsin.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Wick
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
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> 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
