Miriam,
I consider myself well read, and I have a law degree, but if I was in the same
position as a home care worker with limited resources I would choose to save
money too. Adding and subtraction from one's bank account don't take great
mental powers or an education.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 19, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This right wing organization found someone willing to be used in their
ongoing efforrts to thwart unions. I have no idea what this woman wants or
what she understands. It isn't "classist" of me to know how elites
manipulate people to act against their own interests. Trump is doing it very
successfully.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Wick
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
Miriam,
But the worker (we call them personal support workers in Oregon) doesn't
want to be represented. Isn't it classist of you to presume that she must be
represented? Just like taxes, when people don't see the tangible benefit in
their lives of sucking money out of their paycheck it's human nature to want
to save money.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
reported in the story.On Feb 19, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
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
by the U.S.
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
Supreme Court. In Harris v. Quinn, the court determined that personalhad the ability to charge nonmembers in-lieu-of fees that were comparable to
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
union dues. But Harris v.
Quinn gave home care workers like Rose the ability to save money bymany other workers like her) speaks volumes about its respect for the very
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,
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
