Right-to-work's practical implications: Ann Arbor labor law attorney predicts it will hurt public sector unions
The passage of controversial right-to-work legislation by Michigan Republicans left the state heavily divided this past week, but what will happen when the law takes effect?
Robert Boonin, an Ann Arbor-based labor law attorney with the Butzel Long law firm, predicts there'll be more division in workplaces as some employees opt not to pay union dues any longer.
"I think we will see some kind of stigma attached to people who are exercising their newfound right not to pay dues," he said. "The union, of course, has the obligation to represent people whether they're members or not. That aspect of the law hasn't changed and won't change."
The Michigan Legislature's lame duck session saw the passage of many controversial bills, chief among them the state's new right-to-work law.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Olson said the unions will need to better communicate with their members what benefits they're providing, and they'll probably have to enhance their transparency to rank-and-file members.
To the extent that unions cannot do that, Olson said, then the exodus of members could be greater with the stigma of non-membership eroding.
"At the local level, I think we won't really see that much of a change on the ground, except perhaps I think the public-sector bargaining units are more vulnerable to people saying they're not interested in paying dues," Boonin said. "Some of the dues are pretty heavy, particularly in the public sector, and I think you'll see more people exercising their right not to pay more in the public sector."
The law, which gives Michigan workers the freedom to choose whether to pay union dues in workplaces that are currently closed shops, is expected to take effect around April 1 and will cover all public and private employees in the state, with the exception of police and firefighters.
It won't affect existing union contracts, only contracts that take effect or are renewed after the law's effective date. Until existing contracts expire, all employees covered in union contracts at workplaces with closed shops must continue to pay union dues.
Once those contracts expire, employees will be free to decide whether to pay dues, but they still will be covered by union-negotiated contracts either way. That's why many organized labor supporters have called right-to-work the "right to freeload" law.
"How do you justify giving somebody a benefit that somebody else fought for?" said Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, chairman of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners.
Robert Boonin
"Most employees work for employers without a union," he said. "And I think most employers try to be good employers, and most employees just don't need unions. If it weren't for the public sector, you're really only looking at 7 percent of the private sector that's unionized across the country."
Boonin said the practical implications of right-to-work are that the labor movement is going to be weaker, unions will lose members, and Democratic candidates will have less money for their political campaigns. That's not a criticism on his part, he said, just the fact of the matter.
"I think people can pull and twist the statistics in any which way, whether or not this is good for the economy or the state," he said. "I think the use of those economic studies from either side are flawed. At the end of the day, this is a political issue and not a public-policy issue."
Right-to-work, at the very least, means an employee is not forced to choose between supporting a union and accepting a job, Boonin said.
Smith said he's not sure how county employees will react, but he's fairly certain the board of commissioners as a whole stands behind labor organizations in opposing right-to-work.
He said the county's labor unions have willingly and graciously opened up their contracts and made major concessions in recent times to help the county solve its financial problems.
"We don't need right-to-work coming between us and the labor unions with whom we have a really strong working relationship," he said.
A total of 1,048 union-represented county employees paid nearly $455,000 in dues last year, or about $434 on average, according to data provided by the county.
The county has seven collective bargaining units that pay different amounts. For example, AFSCME members paid about $440, while workers represented by the Michigan Nurses Association paid about $550, sheriff's deputies paid about $440 and public defenders paid about $240.
Smith said he hopes the county's unions retain enough members to be able to do good collective bargaining when contracts come up. He said the administration could have the upper hand in negotiations if the unions don't have the resources for legal support and expert analyses.
Tom Crawford, the city of Ann Arbor's chief financial officer, said the city has about 470 employees who have union dues taken directly from their paychecks. Records show the city has eight collective bargaining units whose members paid nearly $250,000 in union dues last year.
That included $123,772 from AFSCME members, $39,840 from police officers, $40,942 from firefighters and $29,748 from Teamsters members, among others.
AFSCME members in the city pay about $500 a year in union dues, while firefighters pay about $530, police officers pay about $480, and Teamsters members pay north of $800.
Over the next two years, most of the city's labor contracts are coming up for negotiation. Crawford said that's one of the city's financial uncertainties going forward.
Gary Wilson, president of AFSCME Local 369, the city's largest collective bargaining unit with nearly 250 members, said he's hoping his union doesn't lose members after right-to-work takes effect, but he said it's too early to speculate what might happen.
"As of right now, I really don't have too much to say about it, because there's a whole lot of information that's floating around that I still need to decipher," he said.
Rick Fitzgerald, a spokesman for the University of Michigan, said U-M has about 11,800 union-represented employees. Information about their dues wasn't immediately available.
Members of the Eastern Michigan University Federation of Teachers, the school's full- and part-time lecturers union, currently pay 1.8 percent of their gross teaching pay in dues.
"People are concerned that this will undermine their ability to have a say in their teaching conditions," EMUFT Staff Organizer Robert Vodicka said of right-to-work.
Boonin said teachers pay some of the highest union dues out there — in some cases, $800 to $900 a year — and they still have had to take concessions in recent years. Given how expensive it is to be in the union, he thinks the Michigan Education Association is particularly vulnerable to losing members.
The MEA is among the groups blasting Gov. Rick Snyder and the Republicans for making Michigan the 24th right-to-work state in the nation. It argues workers in right-to-work states have a lower standard of living, bring home less pay and go without health insurance more frequently.
"That hurts small businesses as consumer spending is reduced, causing a ripple effect that will further hurt Michigan's economy," said MEA President Steve Cook.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Bill Sloan
Tue, Dec 18, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.
Not to try to predict the future, but I wonder what sort of attitude shift will occur when employers and employees have meetings of the minds on many issues within the workplace and non-union employees do a good deal better than those represented by unions with much less of the adversary and acrimony that seems to occur when the specter of THE UNION hangs ominously over the discussions. (Sorry, grammar and syntax police. At least three sentences in one!) This sort of civil, mature and responsible mutual interest cooperation is already widespread and , I believe, will continue to grow.
Judy
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.
"How do you justify giving somebody a benefit that somebody else fought for?" said Conan Smith. Mr. Smith it is done every day by hard working people in the form of my tax dollars go to people on wellfare who get money for doing "nothing" for it.
TommyJ
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 3:48 a.m.
If unions are such a great thing to be a part of, why would people opt out of them? Bottom line, if things were so great in the unions, these laws would not have an effect. But if people want out, and it hurts the unions, maybe the unions aren't serving a purpose then. It's called a free market. If the unions have to force people to be a part of them and can't survive the freedom to choose, then they shouldn't be there to begin with.
talker
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 4:44 a.m.
As long as employees are able to opt out, some employers could pressure them to leave unions. In many cases, employers exert much more power over employees than any union ever did.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt Basically, even the author of the New Deal, the man who led the effort to set up the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, recognized that public sector unions were a bad idea.
easy123
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.
The UAW has a $50 billion dollar fund for Veba , generated from the profits of the big three. They are burning $5 billion a year, within 10 years they are going to have their hand out for more money. Guess where that is coming from.
easy123
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.
Good!
shepard145
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 10:42 p.m.
Which will it hurt more, their rich retirements, lifetime healthcare, limited work hours, massive days off, protection for incompetence or high pay over the private sector? Oh the horror.
Chris
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.
I think it would be very beneficial to those who think they're citing the Taft Act correctly to read up on it a little. An article publish by Forbes shows that many don't truly understand what they are talking about when citing it. The article I'm referring to can be found here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/11/right-to-work-laws-explained-debunked-demystified/
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 12:09 a.m.
"For those early birds who decide to drop out of the union protection, they will probably be the first to lose their jobs, as it will be much easier to release them." It will also be easier to involve them in the changing needs an employee experiences. When an employer needs somebody to adapt their work to changing needs, a union employee will respond with, "You can't make me do that. That's not in my job description" while a non-union employee will see it as an opportunity to expand his skills and advance his career.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:56 p.m.
I seriously doubt the "early birds" (those that drop out) will be let go. Most people who drop out believe they will not need to be "protected" and will let their job performance speak for themselves. Those that need to be protected, will keep paying their fees.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:52 p.m.
Chris, Those that chose not to join the union, but were forced to pay a monthly fee because the union elected to represent all employees in their contract, are not the ones likely to use the services of the union or else they would have been a member of the union. Now it is up to the unions to decide whether they will represent members only or if they will choose to represent all employees. I believe the unions will rewrite their contracts with the companies to say they represent only members since they won't be getting any money from the non union members anymore. But obviously the author of the article doesn't understand Taft Hartley because he says unions still have to represent the non union members. Which is not the case at all. Taft Hartley gave the unions a choice to represent just members or all employees (with a fee). And very wisely the unions chose all employees because it brought in more money for them.
Chris
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:52 p.m.
For those early birds who decide to drop out of the union protection, they will probably be the first to lose their jobs, as it will be much easier to release them. I expect this to be one of the fall outs the republicans were hoping for.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.
Now the question is, will the unions change their contracts with the companies to represent only those that pay their dues, or will they continue to represent all employees like they have chosen to do?
Chris
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:40 p.m.
maallen, The non-union employees that are being supported through the union will still pay fees at some point. The difference is that they do not have to pay these fees until they use a service offered by the union. So when they enter into collecting bargaining with the union they will have to pay fees for this specific instance but they won't have to pay a re-occurring fee like due paying union members.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.
Chris, Unions didn't choose to represent all employees because it gave them more "bargaining power." They chose to represent all employees because it brought in more money for the unions. The union's "bargaining power" comes from how many members are in their union. Those that chose not to be in the union are not counted as a member for the "bargaining power."
Chris
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:25 p.m.
Maallen, Yes, it is true that Unions have the option of not supporting non-union employees wholly or to support them wholly (there is no middle ground for support). If the union does include any non-union employees into their collective bargaining those non-union members are entitled to the same rights as paying union members, regardless of whether they pay dues or not. Most unions will support those non-union employees because it ultimately gives them more bargaining power and overall more control in their areas of work. Ultimately unions being able to choose who to accept becomes a moot point if they wish to keep their ability to bargain.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.
Chris, Let's use the author's logic in the op/ed piece. He claims the Taft Hartley Act requires unions to represent all employees and the non union employees must pay a fee. If that is the case then the Supreme Court is wrong because in 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that the unions have an option of representing only union members OR all employees. And if they represent all employees, then they must collect a fee from the non union members. If the author is right, and the Supreme Court is wrong, then the state of Michigan's RTW law and the other RTW states laws are in direct violation of the federal law and therefore illegal. Becaue the RTW law says non union members don't have to pay the fee which is in direct contradiction of what the federal law states that unions must represent ALL employees and collect a fee from non union members.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 10:40 p.m.
Chris, And this is written by a far left person who is against the RTW. What the author failed to recognize is the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that Unions have an option of having a "members only bargaining" or represent all employees agreement. And the author also ignored that even President Clinton's NLRB chief, who is also a union attorney, said that federal law allows unions to have a "members only bargaining" agreement. So it is the Unions choice as to whether or not they want to represent just union members or all employees. Read teh Taft Hartley Act yourself.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.
I am shocked Robert Boonin, as a labor law attorney, doesn't know his labor laws. The unions have no obligation to represent those who are not members of the union. The Taft- Hartley Act lets unions choose whether they want to represent just "member only bargaining" or all employees in the workplace. Also, the Act states if they choose ALL employees, then those who are not members of the union must pay a fee. In 1962, the Supreme Court upheld that unions have a choice whether to represent "member only bargaining" or all employees. Besides the Supreme Court's decision, even Presiden Clinton's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chief, William Gould (union attorney), said federal law permits unions to represent "member only bargaining." Over the years, the unions have CHOSEN to represent all employees so they could collect more money trhough member dues and fees for non members. However, the unions are not required to represent ALL employees. When unions write a contract with the company they decide whether to represent only those in the union or represent all the employees. So, now the choice is up to the unions whether they want to represent only members of the union or also to include nonmembers.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 7:16 p.m.
Also Local Guy, In 1961, in the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. NLRB, the Court ruled that recognizing a minority union as an exclusive representative violated the NLRA as amended by 1947's Taft-Hartley Act, but also found that bargaining with a members-only union would not violate the amended NLRA if there were no exclusive representative. That's another piece of evidence that unions have the right to set up as either a member's only group or as an "exclusive group" (representing all employees. The Supreme Court has set clear distinctions in these cases and has said the unions have a choice as to how they set up their agreements with the companies. But I am sure you can agree with me that most unions, if not all, choose/set their agreements to be "exclusive" (representing all employees). However, the federal law does not require them to set up this way, but gives them a choice to do so.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 7:07 p.m.
Local Guy, It is quite obvous that you did not read the cases, nor did you read the Supreme Court Justice William Brennan's words when he delivered the court's unanimious decision. The Taft-Hartley Act gives unions the right to set up "shop" as an exclusive (representing all employees) group, or a "members only" ( onlythose paying union dues) group. The unions have that choice as to how they set their contract with the employer. Now with that said, how do unions typically set up? They set up as an exclusive (representing all employees) because that way they get more money coming in. The federal law does NOT require them to set up this way. They CHOOSE to set up this way and therefore their current contract says they have to represent all employees. But there is no law forcing them to represent all employees. Even William Gould, a union attorney and past Chief of the NLRB says federal law permits unions to represent "member only bargaining." As a labor attorney that you claim, I am suprised that you would get confused with what the federal law says and ALLOWS the unions to do and what the unions CHOOSE to do under federal law when they write their contract with the company.
local guy
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.
Maallen is dead wrong. The cases he cite regard other legal issues and do not alter the rule that an employer can only collectively bargain with a union that's an exclusive representative of all employees in the unit and that neither the union nor the employer can discriminate against non-union members. Boonin and the Supreme Court don't disagree, but the Supreme Court was not talking about bargainng with minority unions or allowing collective bargaining agreements (as opposed to other agreements) to apply to any group other than ALL members of the unit (whether or not they belong to a union). Maallen is obviously not a labor law. I happen to be one. See my reply to Craig Lounsbury, above, for more.
ribs1
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 7:07 p.m.
I predict the Lions will not win the super bowl this year. Also, the sun will probably come up tomorrow although less likely than the lions winning the super bowl.
p-sowers
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:46 p.m.
I have an idea: I'll stop paying taxes and Gov. Synder can keep representing me!
outdoor6709
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.
why is it the political party that hates "BIG" business, loves big unions?
1bit
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.
Of course it's all about the money, and that is entirely the point. If the unions had given ones to GOP interests, the RTW law wouldn't have happened.
Krupper1
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 1:56 a.m.
Big campaign donations.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:28 p.m.
Especially, when the UAW has over $1 billion in assets and over $250 million in revenue coming in each year. Yet they only employ 800 people. But yet the political party hates when a company has $1 billion and has tens of thousands in employees.
Tim Brown
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:39 p.m.
This is Michigan, folks. Let's act like it. How did this law ever pass in Michigan, of all places?
sayzme
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 6:04 p.m.
Michigan was hijacked by tea party extremists, bought and paid for by Koch and DeVos...that's how...They said jump, and tricky ricky said "how high"?
mr_annarbor
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 1:17 a.m.
This happened because our House and Senate districts have been gerrymandered to favor Republicans. If you think our political process is democratic, think again. Read _Who Stole the American Dream?_ by Hedrick Smith.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.
"Even if we vote 100% for Rebekah Warren, she only gets one vote" Thank God for that!
Basic Bob
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
While a slim majority of voters are Democrats, the majority of state representative and senate districts are Republican. The Democrats are heavily concentrated in a handful of cities. Even if we vote 100% for Rebekah Warren, she only gets one vote. It's just like winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college in a landslide.
Tom Todd
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.
To Continue the Race to the Bottom.
Mick52
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.
My opinion on this is one thing, that is if becoming a RTW state brings more jobs, more business, Michigan needs it. The way it was before this legislation is the opposite, bad economy, no jobs and people moving which cost us a critical electoral vote. Nation wide, RTW states are doing better than union states. Get employment back up and tax revenue will increase and that will help solve education funding, etc. It's all based on employment. I do not think though that unions should have to represent non union employees. You get what you pay for and you should not get what you don't pay for. I have seen union defend members who stole from the employer and harass another union member who reported the crime and call them a liar. How on earth can that happen? They paid dues too. Are you supposed to look the other way when a union brother/sister steals from your employer? If you have a good boss and you have a good employer you do not need a union. Either of those facts tilts toward bad, join the union.
Boo Radley
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.
Whenever there is an article (like this one)) about "right-to-work" vs, unionization, someone always brings up the incident when Chrysler workers were reinstated to their jobs after being caught drinking on the job. It is then used as evidence that unions are evil and horrible organizations. …. WRONG! The apparently common view of that is completely wrong. Union officials often do not want bad employees rehired any more than anyone else, but they are obligated to represent them in any and all disciplinary actions. Just like a defense attorney must provide the best defense possible to an accused who the attorney may know is guilty. Just like the Judge and jury who often find guilty parties not guilty, the same thing happens in employment hearings. It was not the union officials who made the decision to reinstate the employees, it was an independent arbitrator.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 2:43 a.m.
Boo Radley, It was about public image, that is why Chrysler went through what they did. Chrysler doesn't want to bring back intoxicated workers. The unions want to protect all workers no matter what because it is also PR for them. People see that they helped workers get their jobs back and so they have more workers wanting to join the union therefore keep the money flowing. First, it was a union backed arbitration. Second, here's the quote for you: "While the company does not agree with the ultimate decision of the arbitrator, we respect the grievance procedure process as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement and our relationship with the (United Auto Workers union)," the company said." The procedure process in the collective bargaining agreement got their jobs back thanks to the union backed arbitrator. And this is after they were fired and been off the job for two years.
Boo Radley
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:59 p.m.
If the union negotiated a contract which stated that employees drinking or intoxicated on the job must not be disciplined and/or terminated, you will have to show me that language. It went to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator ruled against the company. If the contract language was that clear, why would it have reached the arbitration stage? Arbitration is expensive for both the employer and the union.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:26 p.m.
Boo Radley, It wasn't the independent arbitrator that decided to reinstate the employees. It was the CONTRACT that the unions had with Chrysler that dictated that the employees needed to be hired back. All the independent arbitrator did was read what the contract stated.
ClaireRobinson
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.
How do you ruin your approval rating? By governing with a sledgehammer. Great job Rick...
shepard145
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:26 p.m.
What do you know about Proposal 2 trying to put "union rights" into Michigan's constitution? Was that a SLEDGEHAMMER? Union MANAGEMENT broke their word and are not paying the price. This has nothing to do with the workers - wake up.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
"The union, of course, has the obligation to represent people whether they're members or not. That aspect of the law hasn't changed and won't change." As another poster has pointed out this is the part that needs to be fixed. If folks want to opt out of the union they should be on their own with regard to pay, benefits, grievance representation etc. That would make the thing fair.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 6:42 p.m.
localguy, Obviously you did not read the Supreme Court decisions, nor William Gould's assessment and he is a union lawyer! Anyway, the point you are missing is the Supreme Court says the Taft-Hartley Act gives the union the RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether to be representatives of all employees or representatives of members only. The unions have a choice. Over the years unions have always CHOSEN to represent all employees (exclusive) because that way they get more money coming in. But they are NOT REQUIRED to represent all employees. That is, sir, the federal law. Now do you understand?
local guy
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
Maallen is dead wrong on the law. He's obviously no lawyer. Once the employees vote in a union (and that only takes 51% of those in the unit who vote), the union is the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit. As such, the cannot choose to only represent union members. That's the law. The cases Maallen reference are not regarding collective bargaining agreements or unions who've been elected to be the exclusive representative. Those cases just don't stand for the concept he's advocating. Bottom line - once a union is voted in, the union must represent all in the unit and the employer cannot deal with minority unions. Neither can discriminate against or in favor of non-union members. No employer would deal with a union regarding collective bargaining terms unless the union was the official exclusive representative. As to other issues, though, as in those cases cited by Maallen, it is conceivable that there could be discussions. Those will not be about wages, hour or other terms and conditions of employment. That would be illegal. I'm a labor lawyer and these are the most basic rules. Boonin and the others are correct.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.
In another ruling back in 1961: International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. NLRB, the Court found that recognizing a minority union as an exclusive representative violated the NLRA as amended by 1947's Taft-Hartley Act, but also found that bargaining with a members-only union would not violate the amended NLRA if there were no exclusive representative. So as you can see, it is up to the union whether they are representing the employees "exclusively," meaning all employees, or if they are representing "members only," meaning those that become members of the union. However, unions always go for the "exclusive" route because it gives them the right to be the ONLY union representatve (keeping competition out) and representing ALL employees so they can collect more money.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 3:45 p.m.
The Supreme Court case: Retail Clerks vs Lion Dry Goods. Justice William Brennan delivered the unanimous decision recognizing exclusive contracts representing all of the workers AND recognizing members-only contracts representing some of the workers as it relates toTaft-Hartley Act. Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations [Taft-Hartley] Act, 1947, which gives federal district courts jurisdiction over suits "for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting" interstate commerce, applies to a suit to enforce a strike settlement agreement between an employer in an industry affecting interstate commerce and local labor unions representing some, but not a majority, of its employees. In his 1993 book Agenda For Reform, Stanford law professor & former union lawyer William Gould, who served for 4 years as Clinton's Chairman of the NLRB, acknowledged that federal law "permits 'members-only' bargaining without regard to majority rule or an appropriate unit and without regard to exclusivity."
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 12:48 p.m.
here is a link to an AFL-CIO web page in Indiana that agrees with the 2 lawyers I sited. http://in.aflcio.org/statefed/?action=article&articleid=6beb1f5e-53a4-4928-bfbc-51685c44a97e
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.
maallen, I would stick with a Supreme Court decision too. But throw me a bone. Site the case, provide a link. I did for you. I sited my sources, one in this story, the other I gave a link to the source. Do the same for me. I don't pretend to be any sort of legal scholar. So I went with 2 seperate legal sources. In fairness to me your just a pseudonym on the Internet. So please give me a source and I will agree with you the two sources I quoted are indeed wrong.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 3:29 a.m.
If we look at it from your view point that by federal law the unions are required to represent ALL employees, in which the federal law also stipulates that the employees must pay a fee. Then Michigan's RTW law along with the other RTW state laws are illegal as they go against the federal law. Since Michigan law now says you don't have to pay for it, but federal law says you do have to pay for it if you are being represented. Then all these states are in the wrong and their laws are null and void. But, that is not what the federal law says, and the Supreme court even says that unions do not have to cover all employees. They may choose to cover member only bargaining. Gotta love the Supreme Court!
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 3:23 a.m.
So, you're saying the Supreme Court in 1962 is wrong when they said that the unions have a choice as to who they represent? And President Bill Clinton's NRLB Chief (also union attorney) who says the unions have a choice as to who they want to represent is wrong? At the very least, I will stick with the Supreme Court's decision. Now, with that said, since the Union's were given a choice to whether to represent member only bargaining or all employees, the union's when writing their contracts with the companies, always chooses to represent all employees, because they bring in more money that way. As such, the Supreme Court sated there is no federal law stating that the union has to represent all employees. They may choose to, but don't have to.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:53 p.m.
maallen, the guy I quoted is a labor law attorney. I also found the same information at the Miller Canfiled web site. An international law firm that has been around since 1852. In their site with the link I provide they say,.... " Q: Does a union still represent employees who refuse to join or pay union dues? A: Yes. A union still has the legal obligation to represent employees who refuse to join the union or pay union dues in collective bargaining and grievance and arbitration proceedings. If an employee does not join a union, however, the employee will not have the right to vote in union elections or for ratification of collective bargaining agreements." http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/michigans-workplace-fairness-and-equity-73484/ So i have 2 legal experts saying the same thing. It seems unlikely they would both be so wrong.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.
Craig, the individual you quoted is sorely mistaken. Even the Supreme Court has said so in 1962. The unions have no obligation to represent those who are not members of the union. The Taft- Hartley Act lets unions choose whether they want to represent just "member only bargaining" or all employees in the workplace. Also, the Act states if they choose ALL employees, then those who are not members of the union must pay a fee. In 1962, the Supreme Court upheld that unions have a choice whether to represent "member only bargaining" or all employees. Besides the Supreme Court's decision, even Presiden Clinton's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chief, William Gould (union attorney), said federal law permits unions to represent "member only bargaining." Over the years, the unions have CHOSEN to represent all employees so they could collect more money trhough member dues and fees for non members. However, the unions are not required to represent ALL employees. When unions write a contract with the company they decide whether to represent only those in the union or represent all the employees. So, now the choice is up to the unions whether they want to represent only members of the union or also to include nonmembers.
Brian York
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
"The passage of controversial right-to-work legislation by Michigan Republicans left the state heavily divided this past week" Deeply divided? Only 40% of Michiganders supported the unions on right-to-work legislation. This whole thing started when the unions tried to pass Proposition 2 this year. This proposition was crafted by the unions and would have amended the state's constitution to guarantee public and private-sector employees the right to organize and collectively bargain. Labor spent $21.5 million promoting it, and yet it lost by a margin of 58% to 42%. The people spoke. The unions lost. THAT'S what brought this issue front and center. And THAT'S what prompted Governor Snyder to do an about face on passing right to work legislation after pleading with the unions not to proceed with proposition 2. In essence, the unions were hoisted by their own petard. I truly hope that unions continue to lose power. Especially the teacher's union, whose members have been doing such a bang-up job in Detroit that only 7% of public school 8th graders are reading proficient, and only 4 percent are proficient in math. Neighboring Indiana became a right-to-work state on Feb. 1st. Since the start of the year, the state has welcomed many new employers and added 43,300 jobs, while Michigan has lost 7,300. One example is Caterpillar, which announced shortly after Indiana's decision that it would move its London, Ontario, plant to Muncie. Indiana. Indiana is not alone. Between 1980 and 2011, total employment in right-to-work states grew by 71%, while employment in non-right-to-work states grew 32%. Btw, Governor Snyder has lead Michigan out of the deep dark deficits that were commonplace during the Democratic Governor Jennifer Grandholm's tenure. In fact, he has created a $457 million surplus here in Michigan. God bless him.
Brian York
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.
@shepard145 Well said. Republicans know how to close ranks and get things done. Remember how the state Democrats "participated" in thorough debate in Wisconsin? Probably not. Because they didn't. They ran across the border and hid in Illinois for weeks instead of facing the music. They knew they were outnumbered so they ran off like the cowards they are. So let the Dems in Michigan whine. The RTW law would have been passed regardless in 2013, since the Republican have retained majorities in the state house and senate.
shepard145
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 5:27 p.m.
Yea, we've heard that angle over and over in the press. Fastenating how fussy democrats are about decorum and proceedure when they're not the ones ramming through the legislation. After eight years of leadership that had Michigan on the talk shows as the laughing stock of the country - right in there with California - it's time to marvel and applaud Republicans who have pulled the states job creation from 50th to 6th in less then two years. ....or you can be a democrat zombie who supports failure over an over, hoping the stench will turn to roses one day.
Judy
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 2:28 p.m.
talker, "Some people who voted in favor of the law won't be in the State House next year." This happens at after many elections.
talker
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 4:38 a.m.
Check some of your figures about what has happened in other states. Also, the law was hurriedly passed during a "lame duck" session instead of thorough discussion leading to a vote in the session beginning in 2013 and with some newly elected members suggest that some powerful foes of unions and foes of the wishes of recent Michigan voters . The Koch Brothers and others want to dictate to employees and don't want unions in the way. Snyder went along with them and wanted the legislature to pass the "Right to Work" law before some new Democratic members of the state legislature replaced some Republican members. Snyder used his power to erase the will of the voters. Some people who voted in favor of the law won't be in the State House next year.
shepard145
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.
Another myth pushed by UNION MANAGEMENT. Wages are 11% higher in RIGHT TO WORK states. Sorry but other then lies, there is no bad news except for the UNION MANAGEMENT confiscating worker money and funneling it to their puppet masters in the democrat party. Weep for the UNION BOSSES because their seats at the democrat table of pork power are in jeopardy without that union WORKER DOLLARS FLOWING INTO THEIR POCKETS.
actionjackson
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.
Between 1980 and 2011, total employment in right-to-work states grew by 71%, while employment in non-right-to-work states grew 32%. Check out the Asian and Middle Eastern employment rates while you're at it. Huge growth for the same reason. Lousy pay and no benefits.
Deborah Broomham
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:18 p.m.
My understanding ( according to our union president in a teacher's union) states that while non paying people will benefit from the "contract", they will NOT have "representation. So any conflicts, grievances,etc, will be "on their own". Keep that in mind money is only part of this situation!
masticate
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 6:02 a.m.
@maallen No, it's okay. Soon she will wonder why all of her non-union coworkers are enjoying their jobs even without paying dues to the overlords.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.
Deb, You need to stop relying on your union president and start doing research on your own and form your own opinions and view points. When you rely on one person or one organization to provide you with all the information you are only going to get one side of the story.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:08 p.m.
My understanding from a legal FAQ I read, if one opts out of the union or opts out of dues, what they lose is the right to vote in union elections and the right to vote on a collectively bargained contract. All other aspects they get to keep. Including what ever was bargained with respect to pay and benefits and union representation if needed.
Basic Bob
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.
Per Mr. Boonin, "I think most employers try to be good employers, and most employees just don't need unions." And the rest should make sure their dues are paid in full.
JBK
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.
The passage of controversial right-to-work legislation by Michigan Republicans left the state heavily divided this past week, but what will happen when the law takes effect? Say what? I think Ryan (the author) needs to go back and do a fact check. The State as he proclaims is NOT heavily divided. The voters thumped Prop 2,...... 58 to 42 which in my opinion is a beat down!:) The UAW, teacher unions, and other unions contributed more than $23 million to the Proposal 2 campaign. YOU LOST! Get over it. Move on! Take your marbles and go home! :)
Judy
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
The only good part about Proposal 2 was the $23 million dollars that was put into the Michigan economy in forms of adds and postage!
Unusual Suspect
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
To be fair, Basic Bob, it is possible to have those kind of number when Democrats vote multiple times.
Basic Bob
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:02 p.m.
58+42=100% 58+52= hearing problem
Deborah Broomham
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.
I heard the vote was 58 to 52! not 42. so it was close.
jondhall
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:48 p.m.
"How do you justify giving somebody a benefit that somebody else fought for?" said Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, chairman of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners. Ask the American Veteran that that came back from Vietnam! Ask the veteran that came back from Iran! Ask the children that have the loss of a parent! Mr Democrat (Smith) are you a real person? Do you vote for entitlements ? Or do you vote to retain your position? I suggest the latter. What benefit have you fought for? Your position? Thank you veteran thank you for MY FREEDOM.
LAW
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.
Unions stand in the way of innovation. They are reluctant to allow their members to be on teams where they might do something different than their job description. But the worst thing is they use their money to support politicians and pay administrators high salaries. I grew up in a unionized coal mining camp and have worked in both unionized and non unionized organizations. Workers should be rewarded for working and contributing to the organization's bottom line not for fighting for the best contract.
masticate
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 5:59 a.m.
Spot on.
treetowncartel
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.
Can professional athletes and federal employees opt out?
shepard145
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
The unions started this with Proposal 2 power grab and Rick Snyder ended it. Enjoy the payback.
dsponini
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
Good ol revenge politics...way to go GOP your true colors are showing
shepard145
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:24 p.m.
It's about politics and breaking agreements. Our Governor was trying to get along with organized labor and they shoved it in his face with Prop 2. Big mistake for union MANAGEMENT, who are the only ones with anything to lose because it will be now more difficult to stuff their pockets with worker dollars.
Ivor Ivorsen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
"Payback"? I thought this was about freedom.
shepard145
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.
He's all for UNION WORKER RIGHTS, but not that many rights! ...too many rights hurts UNION MANAGEMENT stuffing their pockets and buying mansions with WORKER DOLLARS as they funnel the rest to their Puppet Masters in the democrat party. This has nothing to do with workers and everything to do with power for union MANAGEMENT and worker's money confiscated and paid to the democrat party.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
Contracts are a set of agreed upon rules that govern business transactions. They define and set expectations. Executives almost always work on contract. And yet many would prefer the workers have no such agreement. In many cases, the only thing that keeps employers from screwing over employees on a continuous basis is a contract. And also the threat of a union - if you abuse workers enough, they can form a union. Collective bargaining is the only way workers get the protections of a negotiated contract. Right to work is just a corporate scheme to boost profits, at a time when corporations already have record profits. It is an effort to de-fund unions, and shift the balance of political power and elections more toward corporations and foreign interests. It is the embodiment of corporate greed.
masticate
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 5:57 a.m.
Your candyland view of unions is really quite misled. There was a time when we needed unions, when workers were uneducated and unaware of the poor working conditions or how to go about fixing it. Now we live in an age where the average worker is well educated, and is paying attention to their surroundings. What does this mean? It means that businesses must compete with each other to provide for employees. We're smarter now. We know what our labor is worth, and we know when we're getting screwed. Businesses now must offer good benefits, a fair wage, and safe conditions. If they don't, workers will leave, and the business fails. Unions are no longer necessary to ensure these things for workers. They have become everything that we hate about politics: corrupt, irresponsible, inefficient. They foster a culture of mediocrity and do not incentivize excellence. They are the anti-business. And really, at this point in Michigan's economic slump, we don't want the anti-business around.
G-Man
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
Unions have been too greedy for too long........ Give the honest working people a chance.....
actionjackson
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:55 p.m.
G-Man, Are you implying that only dishonest working people are unionized?
Tom Todd
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
Unions helped give honest working, non-union workers a higher rate of pay, now we will have more lower paying jobs that don't help the economy or housing values.
Dog Guy
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:37 p.m.
Many of us teachers look forward to a kinder and gentler MEA, one not so quick to skim health benefits dollars or to support anti-human politicians and programs.
Tom Todd
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
Groovy bigger raises for administrators.
masticate
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 5:49 a.m.
You realize that most of the union leaders are "1%"ers, right?
ekimecir
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.
Asking out of curiosity...what might be the long term implications for U.S. workers as they compete for jobs with workers overseas?
masticate
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 5:50 a.m.
Unions have done more to drive jobs overseas than anything else in this country. Maybe those jobs will come back now that businesses care to afford local labor.
Unusual Suspect
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
As long as you believe you have less because the rich have more you will doom yourself to a life of stagnancy.
David Paris
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.
Simply, the great divide between U.S. workers and the Super Rich accelerates to astronomical levels. Nothing good will come of this.
GoNavy
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
Coupled with your next question, which should be "what are the implications for global prosperity as other countries become wealthier?" Low wages only remain that way for so long, as you can now see in countries like China (who are losing manufacturing jobs to "low wage" countries like Vietnam). Eventually, wage differentials become insignificant and other costs of business - cost of regulations, cost of shipping, tariffs, etc. - take over.
GoNavy
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.
While I support private unions, public sector unions are among the worst structures for both this state and the country. To quote President Franklin Roosevelt: "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
Tano
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 5:25 a.m.
Once again, GoNavy, he speaks here of limitations on what the unions can do - they cannot expect to engage in collective bargaining in the same manner that they do in the private sector - that much is obvious given that the legislature sets salaries and their may be other conditions of work that established in law. But that does not mean he opposes the existence of unions, nor their right and responsibility to represent the interests of workers in those areas that are consistent with the nature of public-sector employment.
GoNavy
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:04 p.m.
@Tano: Unfortunately, no. To quote the paragraph immediately preceding this one (I've included the link for you as well): "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445
Tano
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:21 p.m.
The FDR quote quite plainly reveals his denunciation of strikes or other "militant tactics" by federal worker unions; he gives no indication that he opposes the unions themselves.
jjc155
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
I have not been able to find this anywhere, maybe someone has some insight, Why are police and fire unions exempt? I am in a member of a police union and hate (and always have) that my money is used for political donations to causes and/or canidates that I do not agree with. Only thing I can think of is that they do not want divison in the depts along the lines of "that guy doesnt pay dues, we're not gonna back him up on that call." Is it that nanny statish or is there something else to it?
jjc155
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.
@mid america wow, that is all!
Middle America
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.
Well, you aren't a very good union member if you don't know much about your own union. "Please provide intelligent rebuttal" I copied and pasted something you posted; that doesn't require rebuttal. "Anything else?" Yes, cut it out with the "LOL"s unless you are a junior high school student.
sayzme
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
Because Snyder needed his own private army to head off RTW protesters/opposition. If RTW is such a good thing, NO UNION SHOULD BE EXEMPT
jjc155
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
@Mid america, LOLOLOL You should try to re-read my posts and attempt to comprehend what I have said? 1) No where did I say that I "did not know police cant stike" Please provide where I have. 2) No where did I say that I think that no one would back me up if I didnt pay, I did hypothesize that was .gov's thinking (again reading comprehension). Here is what I said: "Only thing I can think of is that they do not want divison in the depts along the lines of "that guy doesnt pay dues, we're not gonna back him up on that call." Is it that nanny statish or is there something else to it? Please provide intelligent rebuttal, lol. 3) POAM member since 1995 and counting, lol Anything else?
Middle America
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
You think no one would back you up if you don't pay union dues and you were unaware that you are not allowed to strike, jjc155? You aren't in a police union or any other sort of union.
Boo Radley
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:02 p.m.
JBK - I thought that was pretty much what I said.
jjc155
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:44 p.m.
@JBK thanks for the reply. So I guess since we can not lawfully strike their rational is that we MUST pay a union to "protect" us.
JBK
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.
jjc - Amazing! Numerous replies to your post, yet no one comes close to answering it! Public Act 312 states police officers, firefighters, emergency medical service personnel and 911 operators cannot strike and must, instead, go through binding arbitration to resolve labor disagreements.
jjc155
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3 p.m.
@clown, while the union members may and often more right leaning than left, the union leadership knows how to get the bread buttered. I have requested my unions political endorsment/contribution info for the past election cycle so we will see. I know from past years (for some reason they did nt do it this time around) they have sent out cards to each member with "suggestions" on how to vote on canidates/proprosals etc and in close to 20 years, it has been overwhelmingly pro democrate. @don, oddly enough a vast majority (atleast where I work), whether they voice it or not in public, feel the same way I do so I would not be worried about the locker room, it would be potential pressure from the "home office" might register on my give a darn meter, lol
DonBee
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
jjc155 - You have the answer. You know you can ask for the political part of your dues back, but you also know what would happen if you did in the locker room.
clownfish
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:54 p.m.
Could it have anything to do with police/fire unions occasionally donating to the GOP? Nah, that cannot be it. I noticed that in order to "protect" themselves from union protests, the MI GOP called out union cops and forced the taxpayers to pay for it.
Boo Radley
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:49 p.m.
There has been a difference in public safety unions for many years ... ever since the law was passed making it illegal for police and fire to strike. Throughout union history, labor strikes have been a tool used by unions when negotiations have broken down. Police and fire department members have never had that tool (and rightfully so), so there are differences in the laws regarding public safety unions.
Pat
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:40 p.m.
I think you pretty much nailed it.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson Unions should move to tiered dues. Check this box for basic union administrative fees. Check this box for an additional charge that will go to the union's political activities.
Middle America
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.
"That's because most [people don't like having the legs broken." You obviously learned about unions in movies, so your opinions are worthless.
Unusual Suspect
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:16 p.m.
"You are supposed to be able to ask for any political dues back. In reality, few people do." That's because most [people don't like having the legs broken.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.
ruminator said: "Your quote from Jefferson is exactly the way I feel about the Michigan income tax withheld from my pension." I thought paying taxes was patriotic. At least that is what BHO keeps saying.
jondhall
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.
Change the union or change the job?? It's all about CHANGE....chain... Chain..chain of FOOLS
BHarding
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.
Your Jefferson quote also describes how many people feel about taxes. Taxes finance the military machine, many people object to that, and taxes support the elderly and disabled, and many object to that.
Robert Granville
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
That is exactly the way it was before Right to Work.
ruminator
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.
Your quote from Jefferson is exactly the way I feel about the Michigan income tax withheld from my pension.
DonBee
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
SonnyDog09 - You are supposed to be able to ask for any political dues back. In reality, few people do. If you do you become an outcast in your workplace. For this same reason very few people will choose to work in a union shop and not be a union member. If you think some of the issues with women in the workplace on shop floors and people of color - wait until this really starts to take effect. I would not want to be the first person in a shop to decide not to join the union.
ekimecir
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
"Boonin said the practical implications of right-to-work are that the labor movement is going to be weaker, unions will lose members, and Democratic candidates will have less money for their political campaigns. That's not a criticism on his part, he said, just the fact of the matter." Another fact of the matter would seem to be the continuing redistribution of wealth.The rich get richer and the middle get...?
DonBee
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
ekimecir - Look at the new hire Honda (non-union) wages and the new hire GM wages (union) and you tell me.
Dalex64
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
If it isn't a closed shop, is the union still forced to accept non-paying members? The law should have given you the choice about whether or not to join the unions, not just opt out of dues.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:13 p.m.
The unions have no obligation to represent those who are not members of the union. The Taft- Hartley Act lets unions choose whether they want to represent just "member only bargaining" or all employees in the workplace. Also, the Act states if they choose ALL employees, then those who are not members of the union must pay a fee. In 1962, the Supreme Court upheld that unions have a choice whether to represent "member only bargaining" or all employees. Besides the Supreme Court's decision, even Presiden Clinton's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chief, William Gould (union attorney), said federal law permits unions to represent "member only bargaining." Over the years, the unions have CHOSEN to represent all employees so they could collect more money trhough member dues and fees for non members. However, the unions are not required to represent ALL employees. When unions write a contract with the company they decide whether to represent only those in the union or represent all the employees. So, now the choice is up to the unions whether they want to represent only members of the union or also to include nonmembers.
outdoor6709
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.
At this point in time, non-union auto factories in the south pay higher wages than UAW shops in the north.
Unusual Suspect
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.
"Not joining the union and not paying dues would have to mean being paid less wages and covered by less benefits." This is only a biased assumption.
outdoor6709
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.
Exclusive bargaining is in federal law. It is there because unions lobbied for it.
Robert Granville
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:40 p.m.
Not joining the union and not paying dues would have to mean being paid less wages and covered by less benefits. I do agree though. If you're not willing to pay, you shouldn't benefit from collective bargaining.
outdoor6709
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
Would one of you pro-union people like to explain why this is good union policy? "Chrysler workers who were fired or suspended two years ago after a MyFoxDetroit investigation found them drinking and goofing off during lunch break are back on the job. MyFoxDetroit first aired the footage of the Chrysler workers in September 2010. Video showed them in a park during the work day, drinking alcohol from bottles covered in brown paper bags and smoking what appeared to be marijuana. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/08/chrysler-workers-canned-for-drinking-on-job-reinstated/#ixzz2FDgo2onK
masticate
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 5:47 a.m.
@David Paris: No, this IS in fact one of the REAL problems about unions. They protect and foster this misbehavior and underperformance. They create absurd inefficiencies and hiring rules for companies that effectively bankrupts them (see: Michigan's automotive industry.) Yes, the statistics on state with Right to Work are so convenient to look at but none of it has been adjusted for cost of living, so the numbers are really worthless to us.
David Paris
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
"Would one of you pro-union people like to explain why this is good union policy? " Allow me. Articles like the one you link to are pure sensationalism just to piss people off. That's the way the media operates. If you were to ask anyone else in that plant, or union, they don't like it any more than you do. The only people that like it when the union gets a drunk brought back on the job, are those that directly benefit from it. But it's such a minor story in the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't get too worked up about it. The real problem is that those states that are right to work are some of the lowest paid states in the country, when they shouldn't be. If you're not making a million dollars are year, you really shouldn't support this law, it hurts all of us!
outdoor6709
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:11 p.m.
Clownfish is it your position everyone who drinks should be fired? So then why do you defend these drinkers?
clownfish
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
Except for maybe GW Bush who was fined for being a drunk driver, or John Barnes or Tom Burcham or Johnny Nugent or Lana Oleen or multiple other politicians that were found to be drunk and then were re-elected. Or Jack Welch, or Al Dunlap of Sunbeam, and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco. Other than that...
SonnyDog09
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:10 p.m.
clownfish, any non-union employee that embarrassed the company like the Chrysler workers did, would be fired and not brought back. The taxpayers dropped billions of dollars to keep Chrysler in business, and those UAW employees made the company look like idiots.
clownfish
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.
I know I have never seen a manager or other office type worker having a beer at lunch. Nope, never happens. Never in my life have I seen a deal closed over a martini, nope, never happens. I have never seen a business deal struck on a golf course, with beers in hand, nope, never happens. NO ONE but union members drink at lunch, it is a known fact.
outdoor6709
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 12:59 p.m.
Mr Smith said "How do you justify giving somebody a benefit that somebody else fought for?" How about we substitute work for the word fought. Then ask any liberal if it is OK to tax someone's earnings and give it to someone else who did not work for the money.
jondhall
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.
The veteran fought the rest watched from a distance ? Canada sound familiar?
DonBee
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.
outdoor6709 - So if you are a new hire and part of the union, you should not get the benefits either, to use your logic? That sounds like an "at will" shop where each person negotiates their own deal. The people who fought for most of the benefits we get today in jobs, the laws and regulations that make our work places safe have retired, many have passed away. While the Mr. Smith argument sounds good on the face, looking at it carefully it is full of holes.
Pat
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
That is exactly what liberals believe in so they won't have any problem with that. I believe Joe Biden has referred to it as wealth re-distribution. When you take from Peter to give to Paul, you will have the full support of Paul.
Boo Radley
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 12:26 p.m.
"The union, of course, has the obligation to represent people whether they're members or not. That aspect of the law hasn't changed and won't change." And there you have it ... the main problem with this law summed up very neatly.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 2:26 a.m.
Topher, Exactly. Those who want to pay the union fee and be part of the bargaining agreement may do so and continue to be represented by the unions. Those who choose not to be part of the bargaining agreement and be represented by the union no longer have to and no longer have to pay the fee. If the unions provide such a wonderful service to its people, then they have nothing to worry about.
maallen
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 2:21 a.m.
The article that Chris is referring to is not even an article. It is an op/ed piece. In other words, someone's opinion. What the author of the op/ed piece fails to mention is the Taft-Hartley Act gives the union's a choice of "members only bargaining" or include all employees. Also, the Taft Hartley Act says, if the union chooses to represent all employees then they can collect a fee from those non union members. So of course the unions put in their contracts with companies that they will represent all employees. They aren't stupid, they get to collect money this way. This nonsense that unions are required by federal law to represent all employees is false.
Topher
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.
maallen - Thanks for clarifying. So my idea of two separate contracts could actually be feasible? Or even more than two - a sort of "each employee on his/her own" scenario where that individual negotiates independently with the employer. It seems like it would be a headache for the employer, but I think I would totally support a union only representing those in the union. Those not a part of the union can fend for him/herself and fight for a living wage.
Chris
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 10:18 p.m.
I think it would be very beneficial to those who think they're citing the Taft Act correctly to read up on it a little. An article publish by Forbes shows that many don't truly understand what they are talking about when citing it. The article I'm referring to can be found here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/11/right-to-work-laws-explained-debunked-demystified/
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.
The unions have no obligation to represent those who are not members of the union. The Taft- Hartley Act lets unions choose whether they want to represent just "member only bargaining" or all employees in the workplace. Also, the Act states if they choose ALL employees, then those who are not members of the union must pay a fee. In 1962, the Supreme Court upheld that unions have a choice whether to represent "member only bargaining" or all employees. Besides the Supreme Court's decision, even Presiden Clinton's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chief, William Gould (union attorney), said federal law permits unions to represent "member only bargaining." Over the years, the unions have CHOSEN to represent all employees so they could collect more money trhough member dues and fees for non members. However, the unions are not required to represent ALL employees. When unions write a contract with the company they decide whether to represent only those in the union or represent all the employees. So, now the choice is up to the unions whether they want to represent only members of the union or also to include nonmembers.
Topher
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:24 p.m.
p.s. In many private education settings, salaries are determined on a case-by-case basis where each teacher has a conversation with the principal in order to determine their salaries. Since there has been much talk over the years about moving towards the private model, I wonder what this would look like if we moved towards this.
Topher
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 6:22 p.m.
I don't understand why there can't be two contracts - one that the union negotiates for members of their union and another for people who choose to not be in the union. As a teacher I would love for there to be two contracts. Those who don't want to be a part of the union negotiations can not pay dues and can negotiate on their own terms with the employer. I feel like I'm missing information as to why this scenario couldn't happen. Thoughts?
clownfish
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.
Remember, the GOP ran on opposing "takers", those members of society that take more then they give. Now they have created more people that can receive benefits but not pay for them. . Isn't that great! The conservative Media has a term for that, I think they call it "core values".
1bit
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.
Here's are the fixes needed for the law to be fair: 1. It should apply to all unions 2. If you opt out of the union, then you don't get any union benefits, union representation, nor the union contract. You're on your own. There you have it, not so hard. Now why wasn't this done? I know what's been said, but as the joke goes: How can you tell a politician is lying? They're moving their lips.
1bit
Mon, Dec 17, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.
Thanks for the info, maallen.
maallen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 9:05 p.m.
Pat and 1bit, Federal law does not say that unions must represent non-union members. And in 1962 the Supreme Court reiterated that. The Taft- Hartley Act lets unions choose whether they want to represent just "member only bargaining" or all employees in the workplace. Also, the Act states if they choose ALL employees, then those who are not members of the union must pay a fee. In 1962, the Supreme Court upheld that unions have a choice whether to represent "member only bargaining" or all employees. Of course over the years, the unions were going to write in their contract to represent ALL employees because it generated more money for them. Besides the Supreme Court's decision, even Presiden Clinton's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chief, William Gould (union attorney), said federal law permits unions to represent "member only bargaining."
garrisondyer
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.
@Pat, I'd be interested to know why this is the case. It seems like if it's federal law, there must be some sort of back story that led to this being the current law. Any insight? Because 1bit's 2 points are exactly how I've been thinking of this law too, but I'm all for knowing my history, so any info you've got on this would be welcome.
1bit
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
Pat: Fair enough, strike that part.
Pat
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.
One problem with point #2, federal law says that unions must represent non-union members as if they are union members. And if the non-union members are dis-satisfied they can sue.
ChelseaBob
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : noon
Ask any teacher, and they'll tell you the teachers unions are one of the biggest impediments to better teaching. They destroy any flexibility in the classroom, and their fat cat leaders spend big bucks on politics many of their rank and file don't agree with. I don't see local school boards hosing teachers in negotiations and underpaying them, because parents want good, well paid happy teachers teaching their kids and parents are voters. Teachers will do as well financially with or without the union. If the MEA suffers we'll all benefit. Other unions offer more benefits to their members for less and are not likely to suffer much. Free loaders will face "moral suasion" and are likely to be few and far between, as long as the union is really serving it's members.
garrisondyer
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 7:58 p.m.
Well, as a teacher, I'll pipe up. My union is absolutely NOT one of the biggest impediments to better teaching. On the contrary, it sticks up for what would help my colleagues and I do a better job teaching: reasonable class sizes, reasonable pay for amount of work done, and reasonable expectations from the administration regarding meeting times vs self-directed time. I absolutely value what my teachers' union stands for, and am having a hard time thinking of any of my colleagues who thinks otherwise.
Ivor Ivorsen
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.
Chelsea Bob- I just asked a teacher. He tells me that the loss of state funding and an increasing emphasis on standardized test-taking is killing flexibility and better teaching in the classroom. He said you know nothing about teaching or education.
jondhall
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.
Bob, your on top of it thanks!
Robert Granville
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.
So every teacher agrees with you.... guess I'll just accept that as true.... not.
HappySenior
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.
From the article: Smith said he's not sure how county employees will react, but he's fairly certain the board of commissioners as a whole stands behind labor organizations in opposing right-to-work. He said the county's labor unions have willingly and graciously opened up their contracts and made major concessions in recent times to help the county solve its financial problems. "We don't need right-to-work coming between us and the labor unions with whom we have a really strong working relationship," he said. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Is that an open threat from Commissioner Smith?
Basic Bob
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.
"He said the administration could have the upper hand in negotiations" Since dues must be paid until the end of the next contract, the union will still be fully funded when negotiations take place. But he's making sure that he takes away that "advantage". Conan Smith, you are not labor - you are management. How can we trust you?
hermhawk
Sun, Dec 16, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.
Yes the law will hurt public sector unions as well as private sectors ones. Rep. Olson admits that too, but being one of the main advocates of the law and a lame duck to boot, he doesn't care. That has been the intent all along and Olson and his cohorts are rejoicing in their heinous actions.