Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And, as a "fair share" fee paying employee, I asked management one time, where am I at the table? (blank stare) Because I'm not. Management can't recognize me, and the union refuses to. I'm not at the table.
If the union refused to represent you, why didn't you file a formal complaint with the NLRB?
Well here is another salvo in the assault on public unions specifically and unions in general. What may happen here is that a non union member may be able to enjoy union benefits without paying union dues.
I am in a union at work. And I have mixed feelings about this case.
I think that the unions should post a cost of how much it cost to negotiate the current union contract. And any costs of managing things like the union health insurance plan, life insurance and other member perks. And every employee should contribute their fair share of those benefits' costs.
However, I am fine with being able to opt out of the costs of their political rallies that I don't support. Such as their anti-Trump and pro-illegal immigrant rallies.
Other costs that I shouldn't have to bear would be anything to do with translating the union contract rule books into other languages like Spanish, French and Chinese. We just went through that at work. The shop stewards are all fluent in English. The union contract is written in legalese, which means nothing to most of the membership. So the translations are a complete waste of money and paper. We have the shop stewards to go to for an interpretation of the rules and what should be enforced and grievance filed against.
Unions are very wasteful with the membership dues. It's really too bad that employers can just pay fair wages and benefits without the worker having to pay extra for a union.
I am in a union at work. And I have mixed feelings about this case.
I think that the unions should post a cost of how much it cost to negotiate the current union contract. And any costs of managing things like the union health insurance plan, life insurance and other member perks. And every employee should contribute their fair share of those benefits' costs.
However, I am fine with being able to opt out of the costs of their political rallies that I don't support. Such as their anti-Trump and pro-illegal immigrant rallies.
Other costs that I shouldn't have to bear would be anything to do with translating the union contract rule books into other languages like Spanish, French and Chinese. We just went through that at work. The shop stewards are all fluent in English. The union contract is written in legalese, which means nothing to most of the membership. So the translations are a complete waste of money and paper. We have the shop stewards to go to for an interpretation of the rules and what should be enforced and grievance filed against.
Unions are very wasteful with the membership dues. It's really too bad that employers can just pay fair wages and benefits without the worker having to pay extra for a union.
I don't know where you live but if it's in a right to work state you have the option of paying only the portion of dues that go toward collective bargaining, arbitration and grievance representation, that figure should be readily available - if not ask your shop steward.
Here is the 'gotcha' to letting the union determine what activities/costs are political and which are 'collective' bargaining related. The union determines that. It is why Abood will finally get overturned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I don't know where you live but if it's in a right to work state you have the option of paying only the portion of dues that go toward collective bargaining, arbitration and grievance representation, that figure should be readily available - if not ask your shop steward.
Well here is another salvo in the assault on public unions specifically and unions in general. What may happen here is that a non union member may be able to enjoy union benefits without paying union dues.
I'm pretty sure that the court will side with Janus it was 4-4 last time it went to the court, now they have the federalist society tool Gorsuch so it's in the bag
Wouldn't it be easier for the individual states just pass RTW laws rather than going to SCOTUS?
I was in a local government public sector union as a worker bee and later after a promotion to management had to deal with the union. Pluses and minuses to both sides but overall it was beneficial to both sides. I was a worker bee when the union was voted in.
It was not some gold plated job environment some of you folks seem to think public unions are all about.
This was in a RTW state and there was no pro ration of dues for non union members. Didn't want to join? You pay zero. The state was red and where I lived was deep, deep red. Some folks were so far right if Regan were to be reincarnated some would call him a communist.
When the initial organizing was going on the two people screaming the loudest against a union were the highest paid employees-the manager and the attorney. Guess what? THEY BOTH HAD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. Good enough for them but not the rest of us.
It was not some incestous relationship that some here have posted about. The management side of the table were people who HATED unions. The vast majority of time we had the same pay raises and benefits that the other 1000+ non union employees had.
The big advantage was discipline. Management would arbitrarily change rules, ignore ones they didn't like at the moment, and just make stuff up as they went along. Before the union a disciplinary hearing was a charade. The outcome was already decided so the hearing was to give the illusion of fairness. The employer would stack the room with upper management and decide where everyone would sit. This was all to intimidate the employee who sat there-all alone.
After the union there is a set of rules and procedures that both sides must abide by. Employees can have a union rep at a hearing who could remain unemotional and ensure the rules were being followed. When I was a manger at these hearings I did not find the rep to be crazy protective like some here seem to think. They were reasonable as long as management was reasonable.
The thing I find hypocritical is the government management has their own unions except they are called lobbyists. These folks lobby the legislature often in conflict with union lobbyists. Eliminate the union lobby eliminates their competition. I don't get to directly decide where my union dues go-just like I don't get to decide where the politicians spend my tax money for lobbying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
