America's unions are losing power

Smart Liberal

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#96 Dec 14, 2012
DSM Local wrote:
<quoted text>
actually I believe there may be an exception to that rule, the union can vote to allow new workers to work non-unionized, however in exchange they must pay (the union decides how much via a vote) up to 87%(I may be wrong on the number but it is WAY over 50%) of all union dues and whatever else a member would pay, in which case you might as well just join the union.
Thanks for the info. If that is the case, I was not aware of it. Perhaps someone else can take what you offered and expand on it.

Smart Liberal

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#97 Dec 14, 2012
redeemer wrote:
<quoted text>I see that you have never worked in a union shop,management and union makes an agreement that new shop employess under go a probation period to review the new employee preformance standards to include absenteeism,tardiness,safety rules,break and lunch times,etc,etc my probation lasted ninety days
after you pass that period you are a member of the union,my ex union offered medical benefits,life and disability ins.,vacation and sick leave,etc,etc and a permanent job and also or own credit union membership.
Years ago I worked as a union member in my college years and even spent a the better part of a year as an intern with the union itself during college. Today I probably wold have been considered a Community Acivist just like President Obama was.

I know what the probationary period is, and you do not have to be a union employee to be covered by a probationary period.

My question had to do with your statement about having a right not to have a probationary period. That was why I asked if you meant that the employee gets to set the terms of employment.

By the way, you said "the union offered you a permenent job"? Really?

Did the union also give you a paycheck each week? That is the only way they can give you a job. The job comes from the company you work for, not the union.

DSM Local

Ankeny, IA

#98 Dec 14, 2012
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the info. If that is the case, I was not aware of it. Perhaps someone else can take what you offered and expand on it.
Wish I could say more but I've never been a union-member. That doesn't change the fact that the union maintains near complete control though.
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#99 Dec 14, 2012
DSM Local wrote:
<quoted text>
actually I believe there may be an exception to that rule, the union can vote to allow new workers to work non-unionized, however in exchange they must pay (the union decides how much via a vote) up to 87%(I may be wrong on the number but it is WAY over 50%) of all union dues and whatever else a member would pay, in which case you might as well just join the union.
You are way wrong
man,my union dues were about 25 bucks a month and I was earning
2200.00 a month
DSM Local

Ankeny, IA

#100 Dec 14, 2012
redeemer wrote:
<quoted text>You are way wrong
man,my union dues were about 25 bucks a month and I was earning
2200.00 a month
if it's so little why make someone who doesn't want to be part of the union pay them?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#101 Dec 14, 2012
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Al, it has been a long time since I was a union member so I am not up on the changes in the laws over the past few years, but I do know you can not accept a position as a school teacher in a public school without joining the union. You can not be a plumber on staff for the University of MN unless you join the union. You can not go to work at a union grocery store in MN unless you join the union.
You have no choice but to join the union.
Maybe every one of those organizations are in violation of certain labor laws, but I don't think so.
I understand your difficulty I had problems with this at first too. This is how I understand it.

“In the 1963 case NLRB v. General Motors Corp., the Court said that required membership is limited to its ‘financial core.’ That means that the only thing a union can require of the workers it represents is the payment of union dues and initiation fees. No other obligations of membership in good standing can be imposed. In the 1985 case Pattern Makers’ League v. NLRB, the Court said that any union member in good standing could resign membership at any time for any purpose without giving any notice and become a dues-paying represented worker. Finally, in the 1988 case Communication Workers of America v. Beck, the Court said that a worker could be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues and initiation fees used for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures. No worker can be compelled to pay dues for such things as politics, lobbying, and union organizing.”- Charles W. Baird, Foundation for Economic Education

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-myt...

In non-right to work states if a group of employees votes to be represented by a union all employees must get the wages and benefits negotiated by the union. An individual cannot be forced to join the union but can be assessed agency fees (not full union dues) by the union.

In right to work states a group of employees can still vote to be represented by a union and all employees must get the wages and benefits negotiated by the union, but those that choose not to be members of the union cannot be required to pay anything to the union.

There are many non-union tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, etc.) in Minnesota a non-right to work state.

Smart Liberal

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#102 Dec 14, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your difficulty I had problems with this at first too. This is how I understand it.
“In the 1963 case NLRB v. General Motors Corp., the Court said that required membership is limited to its ‘financial core.’ That means that the only thing a union can require of the workers it represents is the payment of union dues and initiation fees. No other obligations of membership in good standing can be imposed. In the 1985 case Pattern Makers’ League v. NLRB, the Court said that any union member in good standing could resign membership at any time for any purpose without giving any notice and become a dues-paying represented worker. Finally, in the 1988 case Communication Workers of America v. Beck, the Court said that a worker could be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues and initiation fees used for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures. No worker can be compelled to pay dues for such things as politics, lobbying, and union organizing.”- Charles W. Baird, Foundation for Economic Education
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-myt...
In non-right to work states if a group of employees votes to be represented by a union all employees must get the wages and benefits negotiated by the union. An individual cannot be forced to join the union but can be assessed agency fees (not full union dues) by the union.
In right to work states a group of employees can still vote to be represented by a union and all employees must get the wages and benefits negotiated by the union, but those that choose not to be members of the union cannot be required to pay anything to the union.
There are many non-union tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, etc.) in Minnesota a non-right to work state.
Al, all I know is that...

If you are a public school teacher, you have no choice but to belong to the union.
If you are a Univ of MN plumber, you have no choice but to belong to the union.
If you are a meat cutter at Byerly's, you have no choice but to belong to the union.

Now, there are plumbers and electricians in MN that are non-union. But they do not work for a company that has employees that are members of Plumbers Local 34, or IBEW Local 110.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#103 Dec 14, 2012
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Al, all I know is that...
If you are a public school teacher, you have no choice but to belong to the union.
If you are a Univ of MN plumber, you have no choice but to belong to the union.
If you are a meat cutter at Byerly's, you have no choice but to belong to the union.
Now, there are plumbers and electricians in MN that are non-union. But they do not work for a company that has employees that are members of Plumbers Local 34, or IBEW Local 110.
http://712educators.about.com/od/teacherunion...
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#104 Dec 14, 2012
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Al, all I know is that...
If you are a public school teacher, you have no choice but to belong to the union.
If you are a Univ of MN plumber, you have no choice but to belong to the union.
If you are a meat cutter at Byerly's, you have no choice but to belong to the union.
Now, there are plumbers and electricians in MN that are non-union. But they do not work for a company that has employees that are members of Plumbers Local 34, or IBEW Local 110.
University of Minnesota Office of Human Resources

Article 7 Union Security
7.2 The employer shall prepare a letter to be given to each new employee. Said letter shall describe the employee’s rights under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act, specifically the employee’s responsibility concerning "fair share" as defined in Minnesota State Statutes 179A.06, Subdivision 3.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/policies/governing/un...

Minnesota State Statutes 179A.06, Subdivision 3.
“Fair share fee. An exclusive representative may require employees who are not members of the exclusive representative to contribute a fair share fee for services rendered by the exclusive representative. The fair share fee must be equal to the regular membership dues of the exclusive representative, less the cost of benefits financed through the dues and available only to members of the exclusive representative. In no event may the fair share fee exceed 85 percent of the regular membership dues.”

Smart Liberal

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#105 Dec 14, 2012
Big Al wrote:
As a father of teachers (as in more than one) I can say categorically that they had no choices, and no opportunity to say they did not want to join the union.

Perhaps there are laws in union friendly MN that apply locally and are more stringent than the national regulations.

Smart Liberal

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#106 Dec 14, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
University of Minnesota Office of Human Resources
Article 7 Union Security
7.2 The employer shall prepare a letter to be given to each new employee. Said letter shall describe the employee’s rights under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act, specifically the employee’s responsibility concerning "fair share" as defined in Minnesota State Statutes 179A.06, Subdivision 3.
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/policies/governing/un...
Minnesota State Statutes 179A.06, Subdivision 3.
“Fair share fee. An exclusive representative may require employees who are not members of the exclusive representative to contribute a fair share fee for services rendered by the exclusive representative. The fair share fee must be equal to the regular membership dues of the exclusive representative, less the cost of benefits financed through the dues and available only to members of the exclusive representative. In no event may the fair share fee exceed 85 percent of the regular membership dues.”
In essence, you are required to pay the union dues (or 85% of the union dues) whether you want their representation or not. Am I reading that correctly?

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#107 Dec 14, 2012
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
As a father of teachers (as in more than one) I can say categorically that they had no choices, and no opportunity to say they did not want to join the union.
Perhaps there are laws in union friendly MN that apply locally and are more stringent than the national regulations.
This fair share fee is nothing more than robbery. Forcing people to pay for services rendered that they did not ask for and with questionable benefits at best. I think that's called extortion. If someone comes to your home, mows your lawn, trims your bushes, cleans up your landscaping, washes you windows and stains your deck without your consent, you are not required to pay him for those services because you did not ask for them, even though you benefited from all of his hard work. The same principal should apply to union dues for non union employees.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#108 Dec 14, 2012
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
This fair share fee is nothing more than robbery. Forcing people to pay for services rendered that they did not ask for and with questionable benefits at best. I think that's called extortion. If someone comes to your home, mows your lawn, trims your bushes, cleans up your landscaping, washes you windows and stains your deck without your consent, you are not required to pay him for those services because you did not ask for them, even though you benefited from all of his hard work. The same principal should apply to union dues for non union employees.
Although your analogy is poor. The union wouldn't mow your lawn, wash your windows, trim your bushes,etc. and ask you to pay. They would get you a two day training class on how to do it, collect the dues, and blame management for the work being done poorly.(or in the case of the public school teacher union, blame the parents, the students, society, the school board, and the administration for the poor test scores).
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#109 Dec 14, 2012
Yeah, how can we blame parents, who just happened to pop out dumb hypocrite kids, like non-sense...
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#110 Dec 14, 2012
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
As a father of teachers (as in more than one) I can say categorically that they had no choices, and no opportunity to say they did not want to join the union.
Perhaps there are laws in union friendly MN that apply locally and are more stringent than the national regulations.
U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers of America v. Beck, 1988 said that a worker could be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues and initiation fees used for collective bargaining.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#111 Dec 14, 2012
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
In essence, you are required to pay the union dues (or 85% of the union dues) whether you want their representation or not. Am I reading that correctly?
U.S. Supreme Court case Communication Workers of America v. Beck, 1988 said that a worker could be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues and initiation fees used for collective bargaining.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#112 Dec 14, 2012
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
This fair share fee is nothing more than robbery. Forcing people to pay for services rendered that they did not ask for and with questionable benefits at best. I think that's called extortion. If someone comes to your home, mows your lawn, trims your bushes, cleans up your landscaping, washes you windows and stains your deck without your consent, you are not required to pay him for those services because you did not ask for them, even though you benefited from all of his hard work. The same principal should apply to union dues for non union employees.
The law requires that all employees be paid according to the negotiated agreement. Would you rather that those who did not join the union be paid less? If you get the benefit of collective bargaining it is only equitable that you pay your fair share.

“Celebrate Liberty and Freedom”

Since: Sep 09

Mpls

#113 Dec 14, 2012
union thug dumdums got what they deserved unemployed. Welcome to Obamanomics
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#114 Dec 14, 2012
Smart Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
As a father of teachers (as in more than one) I can say categorically that they had no choices, and no opportunity to say they did not want to join the union.
Perhaps there are laws in union friendly MN that apply locally and are more stringent than the national regulations.
You can meet at Sea-Tac Hertz too, right ??? Gee, too bad there's NO LONGER A HERTZ AT SEA-TAC... LMAOROTFu~! Nice pics, PUTZ ~!
Amused Slew

Kent, WA

#115 Dec 14, 2012
Tank Murdoch wrote:
union thug dumdums got what they deserved unemployed. Welcome to Obamanomics
Bushwhacked..... Guess you're a wimp, right BYTCH ???

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Liberals are trying to destroy america 18 min silly rabbit 42
Somali brutaliy beats Woman 1 hr Tim 73
News Mohamed Noor, Somali American cop who allegedly... 1 hr Blue True 65
Bye bye Betsy...Bye bye Betsy 8 hr Minneapolis KILLS 11
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 9 hr Into The Night 37,118
I love waking up to a Trump presidency 17 hr Defeat Elizabeth ... 20
Cops getting Ambushed like in NY this month Sat Minneapolis KILLS 3

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages