Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Brad Johnson on June 09, 2010, 04:14:53 PM
-
The options? Pay union dues, pay a "service fee", or be fired The really sad part? Apparently it's state law... join up, pay up, or else.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/marine-refuses-pay-teacher-union-dues-faces-termination/
From Fox News...
Marine Says He Faces Termination for Refusing to Pay Teacher's Union Fee
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published June 09, 2010
| FOXNews.com
Boston Herald
Ret. Maj. Stephen Godin says he could be fired from his ROTC teaching job for refusing to pay union dues.
A retired U.S. Marine who runs a Massachusetts high school's ROTC program says he faces termination if he doesn't pay a $500 union fee by next week, a levy he refuses to pay because he already receives medical and dental benefits from the military.
Maj. Stephen Godin, senior naval science instructor at the Naval Junior ROTC Unit at North High School in Worcester, Mass., told FoxNews.com he has been teaching for the Educational Association for Worcester for 15 years -- including 14 at North High School -- without having to join the union or pay an "agency fee" toward the cost of collective bargaining.
"I just want to save my job here," the 58-year-old father of two said. "I've been doing this for 15 years. Nobody has ever told me to join the union or be terminated."
Godin, who earns roughly $75,000 a year, said he has asked for arbitration no fewer than five times, but has not received a response from the teacher's union. He said he received a letter last month from Worcester Public School officials indicating he will be fired on June 15 if he fails to pay the agency fee.
"It's really nothing," Godin said of the amount. "It's the principal of the matter. I think they're trying to extort money from me. They do nothing for me."
Several messages seeking comment from officials at Education Association of Worcester and North High School, including Principal Matthew Morse, were not returned on Tuesday.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, Dr. Melinda Boone, superintendent of Worcester Public Schools, said she had not issued "any official position statement" to Godin or the union.
"I've asked our legal counsel to research my responsibility and obligations as superintendent in this matter," Boone said in a statement.
An official with the Massachusetts Teachers Association said state law requires public employees -- including teachers at public schools -- to join unions as a condition of employment or to pay an agency fee.
But Godin says he should be exempt from the law since he receives military benefits, including medical and dental insurance.
"So that's nothing to do with Worcester there," he said. "Neither the union nor the Worcester Public Schools have allowed me to make that argument. It's just the union that wants my money."
Godin, who retired from the Marines in 1994 after logging more than 2,000-plus hours flying F-4 Phantoms and five overseas deployments, said he has not hired an attorney.
"That would cost me money, too," he said.
-
The options? Pay union dues, pay a "service fee", or be fired The really sad part? Apparently it's state law... join up, pay up, or else.
Yup.
Once upon a time, I was actually a member of SEIU. That was the deal. You join, or they take the money in fees anyway. I can't say it ever did a whole lot of good for me.
-
I believe there's a little-known law on the books which allows union members to get a refund of that portion of their union dues which goes for political purposes other than collective bargaining or arbitration . . . it's my understanding that unions hate this law as the paperwork and detailied accounting efforts usually suck up more $$$ than they have to refund. >:D
-
Once upon a time, I was actually a member of SEIU. That was the deal. You join, or they take the money in fees anyway. I can't say it ever did a whole lot of good for me
When I worked in a factory in college, they would hire temporary summer help every year. Those hired as summer help had to pay the union for a 'work permit' which cost several hundred dollars per month- union dues were about $50/month iirc.
:mad:
-
in here they got 25% of your pay for the first 90 days then the regular dues thereafter
-
That just screwed up. The first terms that popped into my head were "protection scheme" and "legalized racketeering." Huh, if the situation was egregious enough I wonder if you could get a judge to strike down such state laws and go after the Union under RICO. Anyone with a bit more legal training that I care to chime in?
-
The problem here isn't the union per se, it's the law.
IOW, the problem, as usual, is the government.
-
The problem here isn't the union per se, it's the law.
IOW, the problem, as usual, is the government.
Yep. The Railway Labor Act gives unions lots of power.
-
the choice to be corrupt is not the laws fault says a former shop steward
-
the choice to be corrupt is not the laws fault says a former shop steward
But if the law is protecting those who choose to be corrupt?
-
the choice to be corrupt is not the laws fault says a former shop steward
NO, the law in non-right-to-work-States creates the corruption.
-
the corruption is not restricted to non right to work states.
-
Let's take the case in question here in this thread. Without government backing for the union, he could tell them to pound sand. He could refuse to pay and choose not to collect any of the union benefits. As it stands, though, he may be fired. Why? Government.
We're not talking about corruption, we're talking about power, and the unjust application of it. When government lends some of its power to unions, we have problems like this one.
-
I refuse to believe that unions would hurt the working man like this. Only big corporations do that. [Sheople smiley]
-
Let's take the case in question here in this thread. Without government backing for the union, he could tell them to pound sand. He could refuse to pay and choose not to collect any of the union benefits. As it stands, though, he may be fired. Why? Government.
We're not talking about corruption, we're talking about power, and the unjust application of it. When government lends some of its power to unions, we have problems like this one.
i ran a union shop i va after i left the union and was sent around to deunion shops . it was still the same song and dance. you could opt out on paying but they still set your pay rate and other benefts
-
And what was it exactly, that allowed them to do that? Hint: It was a little more than "collective bargaining."
-
in virginia? they did it because the company/client rolled over for em. its easy to deunion in va. the employees were too stupid to figure out that the union did not serve them. plus the union protected the inept and the drunk. so we ended up with 3 times the staff we needed and the drunk and inept never quit or got fired. lots of good employees got frustrated and quit though
-
plus the union protected the inept and the drunk.
And how did they do that?
-
'represented" them.
it was funny i was very active i the union before i jumped ship so i was problematic for them .
we had a girl fall out drunk puking at 10 am. she'd been there 20 some years and drunk most of it. she got indignant quit when she was confronted. you'd think good riddance right? nope she was brought back the union rep got the client involved and the client rolled over. white guilt at its best. they were good at playing the race card. interestingly enough the nonunion employees with the same time in service made more per hour same benefits. when we closed accounts for the summer the union folks got a reduced partial pay. they thought that was great. it was less than they woulda gotten from unemployment . the look on their faces when i pointed that out was priceless.
mediocrity for all works best with a less bright crew
-
And what was the union's leverage in "representing" the useless workers?
-
From 2001 to 2006, my wife worked in a unionized department at a large bank. Many of the workers in the department were W2 (welfare-to-work) who really didn't want to be there.
They would do things like do literally nothing. Or they would violate company rules by eating at their work stations, listening to music, showing up drunk or stoned...whatever. They did it because they couldn't be fired. The union saw to that.
In the five years my wife worked there, I can recall only one person being fired, and that's only because she called a Vietnamese woman an ethnically offensive name. It seems the only thing people could be fired for was violating political correctness.
-
And what was the union's leverage in "representing" the useless workers?
in va? very lil they actually sold their members out
in dc with closed shops it was very different
-
Without specific government backing they have only the "collective bargaining" stick, which won't get them much. Higher wages, better benefits, maybe, within reason. Employers afraid to fire incompetent or lazy workers? Don't think so.
All of unions' excesses were made possible by government power.
-
plus the union protected the inept and the drunk. so we ended up with 3 times the staff we needed and the drunk and inept never quit or got fired.
See, that's why Texas doesn't need unions; management makes sure we're either horribly over or understaffed, and that the drunks and borderline-mentally-functional have lifelong jobs.
-
Here's a pretty good example of Union/Government conspiracy and collusion. (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/02/11/forced-unionization/)
February 11, 2010 06:40 AM UTC by John Stossel
Forced Unionization
Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI. She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she is now a government employee and union member. It's not voluntary. Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care subsidies the state sends them. The "union" is a creation of AFSCME, the government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.
This racket means big money to AFSCME, which runs the union, writes the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank.
Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in annual dues to the union….
The money should be going to home-based day-care providers — themselves not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once paid to her go to a union that does little for her…
Patrick Wright, a lawyer for the Macknac Center, says the union was forced on the women after a certification election conducted by mail in which only 6,000 day-care providers out of 40,000 voted. Wright told me his clients, like Berry, say they were "shocked" to learn they were suddenly in a union.
They want nothing to do with the union. One of my clients has said, “Look, this is my home, I’m both labor and management here.” They’ve wanted nothing to do with this union and don’t think that it has any purpose besides than to siphon money away from them.
Michigan isn't the only state funding unions this way.
Fourteen states have now enabled home-based day-care providers to be organized into public-employee unions, affecting about 233,000 people.
Mackinac sued Michigan on behalf of the day-care owners, but the case was dismissed. They have appealed. Neither Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, the Department of Human Services, nor the union would talk to me about this. Last month, Michigan Rep. Justin Amash proposed a law that would end "stealth" unionization of private entrepreneurs.
We’ll talk more about unions in tonight’s show on Fox Business at 8pm and 11pm ET.
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/02/11/forced-unionization/#ixzz0qe66GSvp
-
Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care subsidies the state sends them.
Eh, my sympathy for her waned at that last bit there. In my mind, she is a government employee if she's taking free government taxpayer money.
-
Oh, I don't have MUCH sympathy for her. But being suddenly told "Hey... you're a union drone now" has to be major suckage...
-
Eh, my sympathy for her waned at that last bit there. In my mind, she is a government employee if she's taking free government taxpayer money.
Well, she is providing a service, which the government is paying for in lieu of the client. Using your logic, the government should be able to unionize Walmart and Safeway because they do, after all, take food stamps (free government money).
-
Never said I approve of the unionizing thing, I don't, just that I don't approve of the subsidies. If she's receiving them on behalf of specific clients, that's one thing, as I'd view the client as the recipient; but if she just receives a lump-sum for running a day care, that's another thing entirely.
-
:facepalm:
Wait, so let me get this straight...
She runs a business.
She gets government money as a subsidy.
The union starts taking a portion of her subsidy (and others') against (t)he(i)r consent and will.
So the union is receiving government money, simply because it has declared it can do so.
HOW IS THIS LEGAL? :mad:
-
Even the union-loving S.F. Chronicle is catching on:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/13/INSD1DRDIC.DTL
For public employee unions - those representing police, firefighters, teachers, prison guards and agency workers of all kinds at the state and local levels - these are the worst of times.
Despite record high membership and dues, and years of unparalleled clout in state capitols, public-sector unions find themselves on the defensive, desperately trying to hold onto past gains in the face of a skeptical press and angry voters. So far has the zeitgeist shifted against them that on one recent weekend, government employees were the butt of a "Saturday Night Live" skit, and the next day, a New York Times Magazine cover article proclaimed "The Teachers' Unions' Last Stand."
Public unions' traditional strength - the ability to finance their members' rising pay and benefits through tax increases - has become a liability. Although private-sector unions always have had to worry that consumers will resist rising prices for their goods, public sector unions have benefited from the fact that taxpayers can't choose - they are, in effect, "captive consumers."
At some point, however, voters turn resentful as they sense that:
-- They are underwriting, through their taxes, a level of salary and benefits for government employment that is better than what they and their families have.
-- Government services, from schools to the Department of Motor Vehicles, are not good enough - not for the citizen individually nor the public generally - to justify the high and escalating cost.
We are at that point.
In California, government-sector unions, once among the most entrenched and powerful labor groups in the country, mainly have themselves to blame. For most of the postwar period, they were a force for progressive change, prospering by winning over public support for their agenda.
In the 1970s and '80s they backed laws like the Public Records Act and Brown Act to make state and local government more transparent. Because unions enjoyed broad-based political support, efforts to enhance government accountability and responsiveness to voters were seen - correctly - as benefiting the unions and their members. The public interest and public employees' interests were aligned.
But the unions switched strategies. Although the change was gradual, by the 1990s, California's government unions had decided that, rather than cultivate voter support for their objectives, they could exert more influence in the Legislature, and in the political process generally, by lavishing campaign contributions on lawmakers. Adopting the tactics of other special-interest groups, government unions paid lip service to democratic principles while excelling at the fundamentally anti-democratic strategy of writing checks to legislators, their election committees and political action committees.
While not illegal (in fact, such contributions are constitutionally protected), the unions' aggressive spending on candidates put them on the same moral low ground as casino-owning tribes, insurance companies and other special interests that have concluded that the best way to influence the legislative process is to, well, buy it.
Public unions' distrust of voters, and abandonment of government transparency as a union objective, could be seen in their successful push, in the mid-1990s, for a change to the Brown Act, California's open-meeting law. The new provision ensured that the public would have no access to collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by cities and counties - often representing 70 percent or more of their total operating budgets - until after the agreements were signed.
What happens when voters and the press have no opportunity to question elected officials about how they propose to pay for a lower retirement age, better health benefits for retirees' dependents, richer pension formulas and the like? The officials make contractual promises that are unaffordable, unsustainable and, in general, don't come due until after those elected officials have left office. In the case of Vallejo, this veil of secrecy and the symbiotic relationship it fosters led to municipal bankruptcy.
The biggest blow to unions' public support has come from revelations about jaw-dropping compensation and pension benefits. Police have received unwelcome attention for budget-busting overtime and the manipulation of eligibility rules for "disability pensions," which provide higher benefits and tax advantages. Other government employees, particularly managers, have been called out for "pension spiking": using vacation time, sick pay and the like to boost income in the last years of employment, which are the basis for calculating retirement benefits.
Such gaming of the system boosts starting pensions to levels that can approach, and even exceed, employees' salaries. Some examples from the reporting of the Contra Costa Times' Daniel Borenstein: A retired Northern California fire chief whose $185,000 salary morphed into a $241,000 annual pension; a county administrator whose $240,000 starting pension was 98 percent of final salary; and a sanitary district manager who qualified for a $217,000 pension on a salary of $234,000. At a time when most Californians anticipate an austere retirement (if they can afford to retire at all), government pensions are a source of real voter anger.
The harm to the credibility of public employee unions from these excesses is made far worse by the unions' attempts to hide them. The revelations about pay and pension abuses have surfaced only as a result of lawsuits. (The First Amendment Coalition has been a plaintiff in several of these cases.) Public employee unions, could have, and should have, taken the lead to stop abusive pension practices, which mainly involve managers and other senior staff. Instead, they have vigorously opposed disclosure of individual employees' salaries and pension amounts.
Public employee unions need to reboot. The old strategy of cynically buying political influence and excluding the public from decision making has run its course. Unions can rebuild public support by recommitting to an agenda of open government in the public interest. If they don't, they will be further marginalized.
Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a California nonprofit dedicated to government transparency and political accountability. Contact him at www.firstamendmentcoalition.org.
-
Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI. She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry's been told she is now a government employee and union member. It's not voluntary. Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care subsidies the state sends them. The "union" is a creation of AFSCME, the government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.
My response: Oh goody! I'd then proceed to apply for the rest of benefits provided to government employees - medical care, pension, etc...
-
Update:
The Marine "won."
http://foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=327722.proteus.fma
Short version: MA lawmaker adds an exemption to another bill that allows Marine JR ROTC instructors to opt out of unions.