Paul,
It depends on one's value system and on how one views one's self interest.
My feeling is that my well being is bound up with the well being of my
felllow human beings. I want to live in a society in which everyone's needs
are met. In that kind of society, people will be able to be more caring for
each other. We will all benefit. So, for example, I have never invested any
of my savings in corporate stocks or in funds that contain corporate stocks,
even though that would enable me to be a lot more financially secure than I
am now. The reason is that I have always known that corporations are engaged
in activities that hurt people. They make weapons systems an dangerous
chemicals. They develop nuclear energy. They engage in fracking and
mountaintop removal, etc. Contributing money to union dues, even if my
income is small, is analogous. Unions aren't always faultless. But they are
absolutely necessary to help working people defend themselves against
exploitation by employers. When people have little education and barely
enough income on which to live, it may be difficult for them to understand
the necessity for unions. And we live in a time when the corporate elites
are controlling most of the media. This has been going on now for about 40
years. So a lot of people, especially those who don't come from working
class backgrounds, may not understand. My own daughter doesn't. A lot of
people in their 40's and 50's truly believe that their needs should take
precedence and that they achieved what they did, on their own. They haven't
experienced what it's like to live in a world where there are no supports
and where each individual is on his or her own to sink or swim.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Wick
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:14 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What's wrong with unions?
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 Vieniwrote:
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
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
comparable to 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
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,
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
