THE LAW IS THE LAW
MF said: "Justice Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods (1962), 'Members only contracts have long been recognized.'”
Except when the usual Stalinist labor unions have to do their self-pity act of claiming otherwise.
Matt must be pleased to learn that his conviction that unions are being required by law to serve free-loading non-members is mistaken. I'm confident he'll be writing back to endorse right-to-work laws.
It’s simply not true.
Again, a teacher (for example) who stops paying fees is still employed under the terms of the union’s contract. They get the same pay and benefits as union members.
When a teacher whose “free speech” currently consists of not paying fees also includes refusing the terms of a union contract, MF and SL’s claims will finally be true. Until then, such an employee is a freeloader.
IT'S ELEMENTARY MY DEAR WATSON!
Matt needs to look in the Recognition section of government collective bargaining agreements (CBA).
They typically say:
"Management recognizes the union as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit."
Then the CBA goes on to define the bargaining unit.
And the CBA will often times have language about "fair share" payers.
But all these contract terms are bargainable, they're not written in stone.
And all labor union leaders know this.
So if they don't want to represent "free riders" then they simply don't have to.
In fact that Operating Engineers declaratory judgement suit in Illinois about this was just a scare tactic.
Because what's to stop any labor union from negotiating a contract for their dues paying members only?
Imagine a non-unionized employee suing a labor union in court for not representing them.
You can already hear the Judge say:
"If you want to swim in the Country Club's pool then you have to join the Country Club, case dismissed."
Matt said: "Again, a teacher (for example) who stops paying fees is still employed under the terms of the union’s contract."
No she is not, she is employed under the terms of her own individual employment contract with the School.
That's the contract she first signed when hired by the School before joining the union.
Matt said: "They get the same pay and benefits as union members."
Only if she and the School agree to those terms.
As I mentioned before,non member can still be represented by paying union for services.
Does this happen often? No.
Why, because like MSEA the service paid for is so poor it is cheaper to be a member with no more chance of success on issue being dealt with.
DAT'S A FACT JACK!
BL said: "As I mentioned before,non member can still be represented by paying union for services. Does this happen often? No. Why, because like MSEA the service paid for is so poor..."
And as long as the "contract bar rule" is in place MSEA will not have much incentive to do better.
Because that is the nature of all state sponsored monopolies.
And again if someone could please explain to me how this serves the greater good I'd appreciate it.
You know your pretzel-logic hypothetical is evasive. If a non-union teacher is employed at the same pay and benefits because the employer is willing to pay them and the teacher is willing to accept them, how does that equate to a union oblligation to serve that teacher? Her relationship with the union is terminated.
So you're against right-to-work if individual workers are free to bargain for and receive the same compensation as union workers. For you, right-to-work means freedom of choice except when it doesn't. I'm beginning to suspect you're not entirely sincere about your preference for freedom of choice. "Sit anywhere you want. DON"T SIT THERE!"
No doubt some transitions from union shop to free agency have included no immediate change in the employer's offer of wages and benefits. So what? This doesn't mean that unions remain required by law to serve free-loading non-members. That was then, this is now.
WHY UNIONS LIE ABOUT "FREE RIDERS"
Economike said: "This doesn't mean that unions remain required by law to serve free-loading non-members."
And why would any labor union want to serve "free riders" when they (the unions) know they don't have to?
Oh right, it's the usual self-pity routine that plays well with their gullible members who think unions are being victimized.
Kind of like the damsel in distress who is always feigning distress for her very own self-aggrandizing ends.
Matt seems to think that non-union workers owe unions in perpetuity for sunk costs of negotiations. Therefore right-to-work can never be fair, ever.
My guess is that unions need to serve - or pretend to - free riders because if individuals are really free to negotiate terms of compensation, the result will prove that unions don't provide any advantage to their members.
END STATE SPONSORED MONOPOLIES!
Economike said: “Matt seems to think that non-union workers owe unions in perpetuity for sunk costs of negotiations. Therefore right-to-work can never be fair, ever.”
Lenin and Stalin said same about their October 1917 counter-revolution against the Mensheviks.
That is, the Russian workers owed the Bolsheviks in perpetuity for the sunk costs of that counter-coup.
And for those that couldn't or wouldn't pay it was off to the Gulag for them.
Economike said: “My guess is that unions need to serve - or pretend to - free riders because if individuals are really free to negotiate terms of compensation, the result will prove that unions don't provide any advantage to their members.”
Oh, but they can and sometimes do provide collective bargaining advantage to their members.
Reference your own statement about the “…sunk costs of negotiations.”
And if the result of that sunk cost is a better contract for workers then that’s an advantage for them.
So, I very much see, at least in theory, where unions can help a lot of workers.
Just as I think you’re normally better off in court with a lawyer than without one.
But I also see how unions can and do hurt a lot of workers by doing little or nothing for them.
Just like a lousy lawyer can and will hurt your case by doing little or nothing for you.
Which is why I say workers should be able to dump their unions without needing the State’s permission.
Same as being able to dump your lousy lawyer without needing the State’s permission.
Such a free market remedy would in time clear the field of lousy labor unions and keep on clearing it.
Just like the free market remedy will and does clear the field of lousy restaurants, law firms, dentists, etc.
Especially when the so-called Negotiating Teams include major political activists for SEIU. One such list is posted at https://www.facebook.com/pg/MSEASEIU1989/posts/?ref=page_internal
Mr. Laymatina -
Good point. I should have written that "the union doesn't necessarily provide an advantage for its members."
The unique status with Sate and collective bargaining ( monopoly) stems from the begginings of collective bargaining between state and unions.
There were several things hat were questionable at the start that had long ranging impact on process that were agreed to by both parties , for various
Original agreement only recognized 5 bargaining units which lumped all employees into the group. Supervisors for example were in same unit with employees.
As a supervisor I could start discipline action on a employee and then go to a meeting and sing union song and decry management fro trying to take action!
In the beginning it was easier for state to not to have to deal with many contracts etc..
Neither party really were to concerned until other unions (alleged real ones) like AFSCME came into play and MSEA made the mistake of affiliation with SEIU .
I share this perspective because I witnessed the advent of coll. bar. as well as representation before it w/MSEA.
CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
B.L. said: "Supervisors for example were in same unit with employees."
That more or less says it all about MSEA-SEIU.
And supervisors are still in the same MSEA-SEIU "union" with their subordinate employees.
Former MSEA-SEIU President Bruce Hodson was even a State Human Resources Director.
And former MSEA-SEIU President Ginette Rivard was a Supervisor in the State HHS Department.
So MSEA-SEIU is clearly a management union for the State of Maine.
All the more reason for workers having the right to dump it without needing the State's permission.
That has been very true for many years, but here's a new article that adds a new twist:
HERE’S SOME VERY GOOD NEWS FOR THE UNHAPPY MEMBERS OF SEIU….
Labor board deals a blow to unions, makes it easier for workers to sue for negligence
Full article at: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/labor-board-deals-a-bl...
PRAISE THE LORD AND FILE THAT DFR COMPLAINT!
MF said: "(National) Labor board deals a blow to unions, makes it easier for workers to sue for negligence."
This is good news!
But unionized workers in Maine have always had the right, for what it's worth, to file DFR complaints.
That is they can file complaints with the State Labor Board claiming their union...
Failed in its Duty-to-Fairly-Represent the member by say failing to file a grievance timely or at all.
Criminal Defendants also have a similar right to file complaints in Court against their negligent lawyers.
And shareholders have a similar right to file shareholder derivative lawsuits against lousy corporate management.
But from what I can see not enough people know about this or if they do aren't too bothered to care about it.
SL nailed it with this: "But from what I can see not enough people know about this or if they do aren't too bothered to care about it."
But do not ask why.
The prime reason is the vast majority are willing to pay for what they get for membership .
Generally the work force in Maine particularly rabid union advocates
Pay and benefits: Completely dependent on budget ,which is ultimately dependent on legislature ,no budget no paycheck.
Benefits are pretty well a given ,as they are not a major focus of unions since they are basically carried over from pre collective bargaining times
and agreed to by unions.
Contract protection: The most common use of these is probably employee discipline process agreed to by both parties . Plan and simple
if one does not screwup one will never be subject of them. If one is disciplined and not punished chances are it is management who screwed up, not the unions' fault that they followed the agreed upon procedures.
In the end there is not a huge amount of enthusiasm to be a really active member. My experience with MSEA showed they really didn't want a lot of active members, those purple T shirts are expensive.
I always loved it when there was a cry to protest and picket on some issue. It doesn't work in July , but could in December ,but one has to remember to block second drive way available for Teamster driver to use so they won't cross picket one !
Trouble is there is huge number of staff who just aren't going to joining cause. Wave a couple benefits in fronton them and they will be happy.
Want a real lesson go to State House cafeteria at break time.
SOMETHING FOR LITTLE OR NOTHING
B.L. said: "The prime reason is the vast majority are willing to pay for what they get for membership."
I would have thought prior to Janus the prime reason was people just paid the union to get and keep their jobs.
Their forced union membership was just the toll they had to pay to get thru the gate.
After that it was just inertia, apathy and indifference.
Because for most people MSEA-SEIU is just a cobweb in their daily existence.
So it can be easily ignored and or brushed aside.
I knew a conservative anti-union Republican State Trooper who didn't even know he was in the FOP.
And when I pointed this out to him he felt ill.
Then I asked him how he could not have known since they deduct their dues from his paycheck?
And he said in all his 20 years he'd never been in trouble since he obeyed all lawful orders and rules.
Moral of the story: a lot of unions thrive on this kind of no nothing apathy.
Since it's all money in for them and no money out.
Can anyone guess which labor organization is currently listed as a "Top Donor" for the extreme Far-Left PAC called Working Maine?
HINT: You've probably been hearing the related radio ads lately for Senate candidates like Laura Fortman, former Commissioner for the Maine Dept. of Labor. Her interesting Far-Left bio is posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Fortman
Check out the Working Maine PAC on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/workingmaine/
Follow-The-Money for this PAC at https://mainecampaignfinance.com/#/exploreCommitteeDetail/300713
Hmmmm, does anyone happen to know why certain organizations tend to make lots of political donations under a variety of different names or variations of the same general name?
It just seems fishy that some political contributions get posted with abbreviations in the organization's name, while other donations have all/some of the words in the name fully spelled out. I wonder if they purposefully do that in an attempt to make it more difficult to track all of their political payments... and several of our local and so-called labor unions seem to do this quite a bit.
CAST A GIANT SHADOW
MF said: "Hmmmm, does anyone happen to know why certain organizations tend to make lots of political donations under a variety of different names or variations of the same general name?"
To cast a giant shadow as if there is more support for their political cause then there is and to cover their tracks.
Wow, I can't believe it either!
Clearly optic nerves have been struck.
11/8/18 WSJ article: “Is Big Labor Anti-Worker?”
“Office workers say the AFL-CIO and SEIU treat them poorly.”
“This is the charge that hourly employees are now leveling against Richard Trumka’s AFL-CIO and Mary Kay Henry’s Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The workers, who range from janitors to accountants staffing the Washington offices of these unions, are themselves represented by the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU).”
Full article @ https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-big-labor-anti-worker-1541719268?fbclid=...
This WSJ article has exposed an internal issue at SEIU and AFL-CIO that could lead to some interesting changes... time will tell.
M.F. said: “Office workers say the AFL-CIO and SEIU treat them poorly.”
Lenin and Stalin didn't treat Russian workers very well either.
And isn't it interesting that AFSCME & SEIU's employees won't join AFSCME or SEIU.
Kind of like Ford and General Motors' employees not driving Ford or GMC cars.
Sonny it certainly says a lot i.e. membership choice !