DU a poll: Should teacher have to pay union fee that violates belief? (fair share)

[Omaha Steve]

This is a push poll. Fair share $ only goes to non-political (payroll, office equipment, rent, etc.) office support, not politics etc.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2015/01/your_comments_should_teacher_h.html

Currently" No, it shouldn't be a condition of employment. 72.95%

Yes, they still benefit from the union. 27.05%


http://www.aflcio.org/Learn-About-Unions/What-Unions-Do/The-Union-Difference

Union members earn better wages and benefits than workers who aren’t union members. On average, union workers’ wages are 27 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts.

Unionized workers are 60 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions.

More than 79 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but less than half of nonunion workers do. Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforce—where workers have a say in improving their jobs.

Unions help bring workers out of poverty and into the middle class. In fact, in states where workers don’t have union rights, workers’ incomes are lower.

Fact sheet: http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/144451/3726001/version/1/file/UnionDifference_Mar2014.pdf

[brooklynite]

1. UNREC

Vote how you want, but this is not a push poll. It's the comments section to a story about an objection filed by the teacher.

[whathehell]

3. Push poll or not..I'm voting "yes"

Since you self-define as DU's "one percent" member, I'm guessing you're not a

big union supporter...Just sayin.

[merrily]

10. I have an opinion about those who claim they'd love to see more leftists elected,

but it's necessary to put forth Third Way and conservadem candidates only because liberals just can't elected anymore. And, when challenged, go ugly.

Not saying what my opinion is. I'm just saying I have one.

[Enthusiast]

36. Me too.

[merrily]

49. .....

[merrily]

8. Yuck. Whether it's a push poll or not, "Yes, they still benefit from the union" is true.

[whathehell]

2. Done.

"Yes, they still benefit from being in a union".

[TexasProgresive]

4. As a union member in a "right to work for less" state

I vote YES!

[merrily]

9. "Right to Work" Laws = Worker Impoverishment Laws

[Gman]

5. Scabs are a plague on the workforce.

They are the lowest form of life. They are well BELOW a teabaggger on the food chain. They are a walking, talking worthless scum.

[Major Nikon]

23. I disagree

While scum is worthless and unsightly, it steals nothing from its host. Blood-sucking parasite is far more descriptive.

[mike_c]

126. +1

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Hari Seldon]

6. Of course they should

there are all kinds of professions that require membership in professional organizations or guilds

by extension, some professions should require union membership

[merrily]

7. k & r

69.68 % to 30.32% now.

I will try to remember to kick periodically.

Thanks Omaha Steve.

[newfie11]

11. Yes

They get the benefits too.

[Arkana]

12. Yes.

Next question.

[Demit]

13. Yes. But poll is at 27.85% Yes now. Needs more Yes votes!

[RobinA]

14. Yes

You make a choice to work in a union workplace, you join the union or pay fair share. There are teaching jobs that are nonunion if you are truly offended by being a member of a union. Of course, surprise! they do tend to pay less.

[daleanime]

15. Currently 29.3%

[Buenaventura]

16. “Fair share” employees, regardless of their place of employment

should lose all benefits that have been gained by the unions: weekends off, overtime pay, vacation pay, health insurance, pension plans, 40-hour work weeks, et al. (I realize, of course, that teachers never even came close to having a 40-hour week - probably closer to 80.)

[msanthrope]

17. Anyone who benefits from the collective bargaining of the union should pay. nt

[lobodons]

18. YES

YES. Our taxes goes for a lot of things I do not believe in. Illegal wars for example.

[Android3.14]

19. No

I support unions, and have been a paying member of the joke known as teachers unions for 8 years. A union should never have the authority to force a person to pay for the union, even if non-members benefit from the union. This isn't a tax.

For example, the ACLU provides benefits to defense attorneys and their clients, including non-members of the ACLU. Should the ACLU have the authority to force all lawyers and defendants to pay for those benefits?

Of course not.

[mountain grammy]

22. Sorry, you only think you support unions...

If you believe in the misnamed "right to work" concept, you do not support unions.

If a person doesn't want to pay dues to fees to the union, that person is free to work elsewhere.

[daleanime]

24. Amen....

[Android3.14]

26. If modern unions actually did what they are supposed to do

They wouldn't have to use strong-arm tactics.

[asiliveandbreathe]

32. If employers did what they are supposed to do - we wouldn't need UNIONS..

AFSCME - affiliate of AFL-CIO - PROUD UNION MEMBER....why should anyone have to beg for fair wages ...

Strong arm tactics????? - sweat shops of the 20s and 30s created by employers - created UNIONS.....

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

[Android3.14]

97. Why do so many people not get it?

Of course if employers did what they should there would be no need for unions. What's your point? Are you saying that if a group provides benefits for everyone, then everyone must join the group? Let's see, the military provides protection for all Americans. By your logic, the military should be able to force everyone to join.

Unions are fine, in general (though from experience I find teachers unions to be ridiculous and often in collusion with administration and the district leadership). I agree it is a good idea for a worker to join a union.

This particular tactic of forcing everyone to pay for the union, however, is just failed idea.

[Major Nikon]

100. A "failed idea" that built the middle class in America

[Android3.14]

109. Do you intentionally miss the point?

The failed idea is compelling employees to join a union or pay dues to a union, without any freedom of choice. Unions themselves are a good thing. I simply disagree with this specific practice.

Please stick to the topic.

[Major Nikon]

114. I intentionally described why the "point" is false and nonsense

Please don't try to tell me what I can and can't discuss. If you don't like your ideas being challenged, don't throw them out for public consumption.

[Android3.14]

142. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Unions are fine.

We are talking about compelling non-union people to join or pay dues, not the merits of workers advocating for themselves as a group.

Let's keep up here.

[Major Nikon]

144. Are you being intentionally ignorant of the history of unions?

As I already explained to you, the requirement to pay dues was the tradeoff to the legal requirement that unions represent all of the bargaining unit. Those two conditions are what allowed unions to form and operate and the result was the middle class prospered like never before in US history, which you now ignorantly call a "failed idea".

If you want to keep up, you should better educate yourself on the subject.

Just sayin'

[Recursion]

149. When I was a longshoreman I floated the idea of two-tier dues

To match the two-tier contract they gave us younger workers. Didn't go over well. Still, fair share seems like the least bad idea out there I've heard.

[Major Nikon]

158. That's a problem with some unions

The older folks who generally dominate union management will negotiate such contracts against the interests of younger ones. This is particularly true when management starts to cut salaries and benefits. Longshoreman aren't afraid of striking so I suspect this is a management strategy they can't do much about.

[malokvale77]

121. We don´t have to join the military...

but we damn sure have to pay for it.

[Android3.14]

141. Should we have to pay for the military?

From the tone of your posting, I'll bet you wish the government did not have the power to compel you to pay for the Iraq War.

Should a union have the same power as the government to levy taxes?

[malokvale77]

169. You are not good on picking up on tone.

The Irag war was never voted on by Congress.

Unions don't levy taxes.

[mountain grammy]

39. the only strong arm tactics I've seen come from management

you're on the wrong page, Android.

[Android3.14]

96. Join the union or lose your job

Sounds like extortion to me. There are better ways that respect individual freedoms that unions should use to gain more members.

[Major Nikon]

101. By that "logic" mandatory employee pension contributions are "extortion"

[Android3.14]

107. Except, of course, the contract is between you and the employer

Your logic is ill.

[Major Nikon]

115. Which is no different for union dues

The vast majority of unions have no control over payroll. The employer handles mandatory dues withholding and both are a condition of employment regardless.

The "logic", if you can call it that, is yours and I agree with your assessment.

[doc03]

103. What about employers that fire you if you join a union

or even try to organize a union? I think teachers have one of the best unions going and one of the only ones left. What do you think you would get paid without a union? I remember when I was in school back before teachers unions the only people that could live on a teachers pay was an old maid or bachelor.

[Android3.14]

106. Join a union, not join a union, it's a question of freedom

The businesses shouldn't penalize you if you do, the unions shouldn't penalize you if you don't, and we all still have the freedom to choose the groups with whom we stand.

As far as the quality of teachers unions, blech. Like I've said before, they always appear to be in collusion with the administration and the board, they don't stand up for new teachers, and they don;t bargain for the pay a teacher is worth.

Rather than ask what I think a teacher would receive without a union, I prefer to think of what a teacher would receive with an effective union.

[doc03]

110. I think they have a place for you in the Tea Party. n/t

[Android3.14]

112. Insulting someone because you have no arguments

is a poor argument. Thank you for playing.

[doc03]

136. Well if you can't comprehend that you get the benefits you have

because you belong to a union it is useless to argue with you. I remember before there were teachers unions. My dad was a high school graduate that worked in a steel mill and he made 4 times what a teacher did. Do you think the salary and benefits you receive was given to you out of the kindness of your school board? Union people have a word for people that take advantage of what union members fought and died for and don't want to pay dues. If I didn't belong to a union I would be trying to live on the pittance I get from SS. Thank God we had a union. The teachers I know get a much better pension and benefit package than I do, what do you have to complain about?
Scott Walker would love to have your support.

[Android3.14]

140. See, that's the weird part

It is obvious I understand the benefit of unions. I totally agree that unions help workers, including non-members.

I also understand that union people would be unhappy with the non-members who receive those benefits for which they fought so hard.

There have been groups, both good and heinous, that have brought benefits to a broader population than the group. For example, we have a local animal shelter that has been effective in dealing with stray cats. Should the volunteer organization that runs that shelter be able to force people to pay their expenses? It is plain, even if those who benefit may have a moral obligation to participate, that the group should not have that power to compel.

Or take fracking for another example. We are all enjoying the benefits of lower oil prices that fracking appears to have brought about. Should the US Oil & Gas Association be able to force people to pay dues, because everyone can take advantage of lower gas prices?

Obligation rarely justifies compulsion.

[Major Nikon]

145. Keep the false equivalencies coming

Just don't throw you back out carrying the right wing's water.

When someone accepts a job, they also accept the conditions of employment that come with it. It they don't want to accept those conditions they have the "freedom" to go work someplace else.

[HERVEPA]

157. Don't like the truth, eh? You are fooling no one.

[HERVEPA]

155. Why don't you cut out the libertarian bullshit.

[Major Nikon]

92. Nonsense

Regardless of what a union does for people, there will always be those who will refuse to pay simply because they get the same benefit whether they pay or not. This means that everyone who does pay for the benefit has to carry the freeloaders.

"Right to work" is a right wing union busting tactic. Always has been, always will be. Your "ACLU" false-equivalence is ridiculous. If you can only think in terms of analogies, imagine a train that doesn't leave the station until they get enough money to complete the journey, but all fares are voluntary. If you are one of the people paying, you are also paying the fare of the deadbeats around you who get the same trip, but are happy to let you pay their share. Forcing everyone to pay the same far isn't a "strong-arm" tactic. It's just the practical method of keeping costs low for everyone.

[Android3.14]

94. ACLU example is exactly correct

I understand the motivation for unions to force people to join, but I just happen to disagree with the tactic based on the freedom to assemble. The unions should not be able to force anyone to join a group, any more than the GOP should be able to force you to join a church or any other group.

Either we have the freedom to choose the groups with which we stand, or we are not free. I've watched the "right to work" debate, and it was a tactical trap the unions set for themselves by trying to force people to join their group.

Once the unions started forcing people to join, it was only a matter of time before the conservatives decided to use it as club to beat them back. It was a bad idea for the unions.

I appreciate your passion, but the unions simply will not win this debate, and they are hurting themselves by pushing it because it offends the average American's sense of liberty and smacks of banana republic coercion.

[kcr]

98. But no one is forcing them to join

You can go get a non-union job.

[Major Nikon]

99. More nonsense

The ACLU has exactly zip to do with lawyers pay and working conditions. It's in no way, shape, or form comparable to a trade union. I've heard a lot of silly nonsense arguments against unions, but that one pretty much takes the cake.

Unions have never forced anyone to assemble. A closed shop simply means everyone pays dues for the benefit everyone receives. Paying dues doesn't mean you have to associate with anyone. Under the current labor laws, unions can't pick and choose who they represent and must represent all equally. The tradeoff for this was closed shops. Employers routinely take out all sorts of mandatory payments for benefits. If you don't like it, start your own business or go work someplace else are the options given. Mandatory union dues are no different.

What I can't understand is your passion of carrying water for the far right wing and repeating their "freedom" arguments which don't add up to a steaming pile of dogshit.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

123. Searching for a like button

for your response.......

[mike_c]

128. like you, I belong to a "teacher's union...."

The California Faculty Association. My experience has been exactly opposite what you describe. My union works hard for me and my colleagues. I know that because I'm an activist. I know the members of the Bargaining Committee, the representation staff, and the board of directors. I go to the meetings. I sit on my campus CFA executive board. So I'm not just speculating-- I KNOW they work for me and all of the members. My salary would certainly be lower if not for collective bargaining. I know that because I've seen the administration's opening proposals and talked to bargaining committee members about how hard admin tries to low ball us, every time. My health care would be much poorer quality and much more expensive for me if not for collective bargaining. My union had beaten back proposals to downgrade my coverage and increase my health care costs repeatedly, from collective bargaining sessions to the state legislature. We've taken on the governor and won. My terms and conditions of work are tolerable, even enjoyable, largely because my union has my back. We work hard to win good contracts, and we enforce them.

I became an activist, and an unabashed supporter of my union, after the membership voted to accept a series of administrative demands during the financial collapse some years ago, in exchange for vague assurances of job security, i.e. no layoffs, which the admin promptly reneged upon. I was so pissed off that I started going to exec board meetings, something I suggest you do. I've learned that what the union accomplishes depends largely upon who shows up and does the work. YOU are your union. If you don't like it, show up and do something about it. Take the time to learn how things get done, and get involved. You'll probably be amazed by how hard your union works for you when you start putting your own shoulder to the wheel.

[Android3.14]

139. Perhaps so

You make a compelling argument.

In texas and maine, where I have taught, my salary as a math and science teacher was crap (after 7 years under my belt, I earned 28k in 2009) and the unions refused to provide protections to new teachers. I would just see my union dues go down the toilet whenever those RIFs came through, and then I would restart in a new district.

And the BS to which the administrators would force us to agree was pretty shitty as well.

If I had a time machine, I think I would take your advice, just out of curiosity.

[merrily]

138. Many are alive because unions did what they were supposed to do.

Every worker gets the benefit of collective bargaining. Some would rather not pay for those benefits unless they have to. Some people are just like that. Perhaps you have gone out to eat with some of them and hoped to get them to split the check with you fairly?

[Android3.14]

143. I've always paid my dues when I had a union available

Thank you very much.

I am not arguing about the benefits of unions. I'm arguing about whether a group that provides benefits for a broader population should have the authority to force every member of that broader population to join or pay for the group.

The answer to that question is obvious because it confronts the concept of individual liberty.

[HERVEPA]

156. If you're a libertarian,, you think no. You're a libertarian, you think no.

Please say hi to your buddy Governor Walker for me.

[Android3.14]

164. But still no actual substantive response?

p>q is not the same as q>p. Since your last post is not an argument, it must be an insult, for which I've received worse (and accurately) by better.

[merrily]

163. No, the answer is obvious because people should not freeload on the backs of dues payers.

The collective bargaining fee is typically less than membership dues.

Paying for what you benefit from is fair, not deprivation of liberty. Non-members don't decline the pay raises or vacation days or whatever the union gets for them, do they? That's like saying paying bus fare should be voluntary, so some can ride free.

I never said anything about your personal behavior, so no need to get defensive.

[Android3.14]

165. Though I never went to dinner, had a stranger insist I sit at their table, order my meal for me

and then demand I pay for whatever they chose.

[merrily]

166. Did you eat the meal? Besides, your analogy fails.

You can order for yourself. You can't bargain with an employer on your own unless you have leverage most workers in a union shop do not have.

And a collective bargaining fee is not the cost of the entire "meal."

[Android3.14]

167. Like I said,

I never had such rude behavior happen to me. Only an idiot or a criminal would try to force that on someone.

[merrily]

168. Then why bring it up? It not an apt analogy for collective bargaining fees.

Not even close.

[Adrahil]

35. It is more complicated when the job is a government job. n/t

[mountain grammy]

38. Not to me. This is not complicated..

you support unions or you don't.

[Adrahil]

42. First, I don't believe in such stark black and white terms....

That is a conservative way of thinking.

But when it is a government job, I cannot support the requirements to pay dues to a PRIVATE organization.

I have no problems with (and indeed support) union shops at private companies.

[kcr]

50. Now that is some impressive twisting.

One has to waiver in their support of unions in order to be liberal? Huh, who knew?

[Adrahil]

52. I mean small "c" conservative as in "old fashioned"

rather than "political." That was a poor choice of words on my part.

[kcr]

53. I realize what you meant n/t

[mountain grammy]

91. Government employees are subject to the same "at will" employment

bullshit as employees for private companies. Also, the way the political winds blow, public employees need as much, if not more, protection as workers for private companies.
All workers need unions, period! Unions are the only way to level the playing field and give working people some kind of job and wage security.

[Major Nikon]

116. Not exactly

All federal and most state employees can appeal adverse personnel actions to independent agencies. However, there's other reasons for having a union past job and wage security.

[mountain grammy]

120. Rarely if ever decided in favor of the employee..

I was a government worker, union. The employee manual for non union employees left no doubt the state's at will policy employment policy was in place for non union employees. I only knew two who appealed their terminations and they lost.

Yes, there are many reasons for having a union, but wage and job security are at the top of the list, in my opinion.

[Major Nikon]

122. I'm not sure going by the number of successes tells you much

It costs employees nothing to file an appeal of their adverse action so many do regardless of their chances of success. Most EEOC complaints fail as well.

Here's a case from just two weeks ago where a federal employee's removal action was reversed:
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1126834&version=1131316

I didn't search very far, but I'm quite sure there are many more successes. I am sure there are many more failures, but again I'm not sure that really means much. The important part is that employees have a means of redress against arbitrary employer adverse actions. This is what separates them from at-will employees.

Unions quite often prevail in arbitration cases, but it's pretty common that unions bear either part or all of the arbitration expense, so they just aren't going to bring cases that are sure losers.

Either way having a disinterested 3rd party review with the ability to reverse adverse actions insures there will be less of them that are arbitrary like you have when no protections exist.

[mountain grammy]

129. and I'm sorry, I've misread your post.

and will delete my out of line answer, although I don't agree that government employees at the state and local levels have much recourse when fired. Federal, maybe a bit more.

[jeff47]

44. You don't have a right to a government job.

Let's replace "union job" with "security clearance job" to illustrate the point.

The reason we can have jobs that require giving up your first amendment rights (aka getting a security clearance) is that you do not have a right to government employment. You're free to work elsewhere.

[Adrahil]

51. Nope. But private organizations....

... should not have the right to demand dues form government workers.

The idea behind giving up, say, first amendment rights for a government job is because it is in the best interests of the government and nation, not to benefit private interests.

[jeff47]

54. Actually, they should.

There are an enormous number of requirements for any job. From union dues to security clearances to hours to dress codes to mandatory retirement accounts.

If you do not like the requirements, don't take the job.

The idea behind giving up, say, first amendment rights for a government job is because it is in the best interests of the government and nation, not to benefit private interests.

You are familiar with the phrase "Military Industrial Complex", right?

[Adrahil]

56. There is a difference between the government hiring contractors, and direct government employment.

I personally think this kind of approach is corrosive to the labor movement. Just my opinion, of course.

I'd belong to a union if I could.

[jeff47]

59. What's corrosive is starving the union of money.

That's the point of "right to work" legislation. Starve the unions of funding, because lots of people will happily reap the benefits without paying the cost.

The result is unions lose power, fall apart, and we're left with you not being able to belong to a union.

[Adrahil]

60. I oppose "right to work" in all other cases. n/t

[jeff47]

63. No, you don't. Because this issue is what "right to work" means.

It's branded "right to work", but what it means is exactly what you support: Making it illegal to require employees to pay union dues.

[Adrahil]

69. The government isn't just any ole employer.

Kindly refrain from attempting to put this is in "with us or against us" term.

That's bullshit. The world, is, IMO, more complicated than that.

What of the government in your state required all public employees to join the NRA?

[jeff47]

73. Yes, the government is just any ole employer.

What of the government in your state required all public employees to join the NRA?

Then those employees would have to decide if they want to comply with the new job requirement, or if they want to get a different job.

You are claiming to oppose right-to-work while supporting what right-to-work actually means. There is no "us versus them". It's you versus you.

[Adrahil]

75. All I can say is that I find that point of view SO wrong.

The idea that the government is just another employer is fundamentally flawed, IMO. Have a good day!

[kcr]

79. But there's nothing flawed with the view that their employees are somehow different

and less deserving of their own representation?

[jeff47]

86. Why is it special?

If it's SO wrong, you should easily be able to list why government as employer is SO different.

They do not use any of their coercive powers when they are the employer. They just use the powers granted any private employer - the right to fire people or not hire people if they will not fulfill the job's requirements.

[Adrahil]

88. That's an easy one...

The government is empowered to make law and raise and expend taxes.

By your own admisssion, you'd be OK with the government requiring membership in an organization like the NRA.

You're basically advocating for an open merger between private and public sector interests.

Since public employees are empowered to implement, enforce, and exercise what discretion they may in matters of law and policy, requiring membership in an organization with a very specific political view will tend to discourage public employment of those opposed, and, in effect, a political loyalty filter is applied to public employment. Essentially, all levels of public sector employment become politicized.

[jeff47]

89. And they are not using those powers when they are the employer.

By your own admisssion, you'd be OK with the government requiring membership in an organization like the NRA.

No, it's legal for any employer to require membership in an organization like the NRA. And the government is just like any other employer.

A difference, but kinda key since you're hoping to smear me with the NRA's history.

You're basically advocating for an open merger between private and public sector interests.

Nope. I'm saying when the government is the employer, that is exactly the same as anyone else being the employer.

But again, nice try to smear me as wanting to privatize everything.

Since public employees are empowered to implement, enforce, and exercise what discretion they may in matters of law and policy

Nope. The person behind the counter at the DMV does not get to make DMV policy. That's made by legislators and similar personnel. The check on them abusing their position is supposed to be open elections.

[Adrahil]

90. It's not a matter of smearing, really....

It's a matter of realizing that political filters are BAD for public service.

And YES, public employees DO make decisions which affect the direction government goes. Public employees make policy all the time. I was a Federal employee for 20 years. When I left government service, I was making all kinds of decisions.... contracting decisions, program priorites... all kinds of things, and I was an unelected public servant.

It's not that I think you want to privatize stuff. I don;t. I just don't think you're considering the unintended consequences of that policy.

[jeff47]

93. Not quite.

I was making all kinds of decisions.... contracting decisions, program priorites.

You were allowed to by elected officials. If you made the "wrong" decisions, those elected officials would override you.

For example, if you instituted a policy requiring all employees join the NRA. You'd find that overriden pretty quickly, unless you were in certain red states.

Government as employer has exactly the same requirements as any other employer. They can put almost any requirement on a job. The only time government has to do something different is when government's coercive powers come into play. For example, a lot of government computers require you to "click through" an agreement to be monitored while using the computer. Because the government has to obey the 4th and 5th amendments. Private employees can just log in and be monitored, because their employer does not have police powers restrained by the 4th and 5th amendments.

[kcr]

77. Your opposition in all other cases is effectively meaningless

It doesn't matter if you oppose right to work in all other cases if you support it for the government sector. While it may have shrunk some due to budget cuts, it's still a significant employer. When unions are busted for a large segment of employment, the effect is devastating for all of labor.

[Starry Messenger]

25. Get a nonunion job then.

[Android3.14]

28. Why?

Your statement makes no sense. Just because I disagree with some aspect of unions doesn't mean I should disavow them completely. That would be like deciding to quit a political party because one plank in the platform is obnoxious, or avoiding a restaurant because you dislike one entree on the menu. (I'm not a member of the teachers union any more, but only because I have a different career).

My stance is on principle.

[mountain grammy]

41. Starry's right. If you want to change the union, get involved in it.

Unions are democratic. Go to meetings, get involved. Quit whining. Once you work with your local and get to know people involved, you will understand.

If you're only going to whine about the union, get a non union job. Sadly, most of them are.

[Omaha Steve]

43. Normally conservatives would call those that benefit but don't share the expense a "TAKER"

Funny how conservatives are silent on this.

Basically your principle is just because I get better pay and benefits, I don't want to pay for these like my stupid friends and co-workers that do pay for them?

Fair share $ is to cover the cost of running an office, bargaining for all workers covered by the contract (even if they don't pay dues or fair share) and representing employees during reprimands etc.

[Starry Messenger]

55. Your stance makes no sense.

You said you were in the union and now you are not. If you have a different career, then your opinion on the union is not entirely relevant either.

[WinkyDink]

64. Your example is irrelevant and nonsensical. Go work in a parochial school if you don't like the dues

[Android3.14]

95. You misunderstood

It wasn't the dues I disliked; it was the ineffectual union leadership. I found the three teachers unions I've joined over the years all be spineless when it came to fighting for teacher benefits and protections and upholding standards in the teaching profession.

Unfortunately, you seem to think I am against unions, which simply is untrue. I disagree with this particular tactic.

[doc03]

105. Why don't you get involved in the union and

change it if you don't like the way it is run.

[Android3.14]

111. I have

Specifically a teacher's union. The leadership was corrupt, and I had no voice.

[doc03]

102. You should get zero benefits negotiated in your behalf

by the union you call a joke.

[Android3.14]

104. Of course

What's your point?

[doc03]

108. Well don't you get benifits from your union, pensions, wages,

three month f---g vacation every year.

[Android3.14]

113. Now that is just bizarre

And it is also a right-wing talking point to further push us into a culture of anti-intellectualism.
My teaching contracts were always for 180 days of teaching, approximately. What is this vacation of which you speak?

And what does this have to do with forcing people to join the union?

[Logical]

119. LOL, maybe the worst comparison ever! nt

[HERVEPA]

153. You are not a union supporter. Period.

[Android3.14]

162. Unless you count joining, paying dues and voting.

You're right.

[steve2470]

159. you've very capably defended right to work laws

Thank you.

[Android3.14]

161. Unfortunately, it was easy to defend

When something is wrong, it's pretty easy to point out why. The GOP have such an easy time pummeling the unions over this, I wonder if they saw it and responded with their own version of, "Please proceed, Governor."

While unions provide vital advocacy and protections, this specific practice of trying to force someone to join a group was a strategic error that has weakened unions rather than strengthened them. The unions would do well to pull back from this specific fight, regroup, and choose a battle they can win.

Rather than compelling people to stand with them, the unions should be throwing all of their effort behind the fast food workers trying to unionize in order to make a living wage the law of the land. The message of the unions to workers should be, "We stand with you," rather than "Stand with us, or else". This, in the long run, will have much greater impact than all the histrionics with red states over the unfortunate banner of "right to work".

I do appreciate the sarcasm and recognize this is a hot-button issue.

[mountain grammy]

20. YES, YES and YES!

[DebJ]

21. My goodness! He worked there for 24 years, and THEN complains? After 24 years of having

the union work to his advantage?

I had a one year long-term sub job and had to pay hundreds in 'fair-share'. At first some teachers were quite annoyed that I didn't
join the union. I said I am all pro-union, and would be thrilled to join....if I had a real job here. However, you know the district is eliminating this job next year (along with another 1/3 of jobs that year and more the next, to a total loss of more than 1/2 of all teaching jobs), and on
a $35,000 paycheck with student loans, I just can't afford to invest in a union that I won't be here to benefit from. I think most of them eventually understood that...but some didn't....it had been too long for them, having worked 20 years and more there, and making $75k. When they had earned little money, they were younger, too. I was already in my mid-fifties and needed every penny I could get to scrape by. But of course, I benefited from the union's previous efforts. So did my husband, who worked there for 29 years.

I wish they had MORE money to put into politics!

[malokvale77]

27. Absolutely (nt)

[Ms. Toad]

29. No.

As building rep for my teacher's union at the time it was pushing for this, and a member of the union in every job I have had where it was an option. But this is the issue I would have left the union over, had it succeeded during the last contract negotiation in which I played a role. I would have resigned my position as building rep, refused to pay, and gone to court over the issue - with the possible consequence of losing my job. That is how strongly I feel about this issue.

I oppose membership by coercion. That is essentially what the fair share movement is. If you don't join voluntarily, we will force you to pay essentially the same dues (the "fair share" was around 90% of the dues) or find other employment. So you might as well just give up and join. If the union is having difficulty sustaining its membership, then it needs to change what it is doing so it is responsive enough to its members that they see the value in choosing to be join.

A strong and effective union is one made up of - and responsive to - the people who choose to work together and choose to put their money where their interests are.

[jeff47]

46. Why do you have a right to that particular job?

There are a variety of conditions on employment for any job. Hours, dress codes, and so on. You do not have to accept them.

[Ms. Toad]

67. Hmm...How are hours, dress codes and so on

anything like forced union membership?

They are not. "Fair share" is something pushed by the union, for the benefit of the union (it guarantees a steady flow of money to the union so it can continue operate whether or not it is satisfying the needs of its members). Although it is called "fair share" because of various hand waving accounting tricks, the cost is insignificantly different from the cost of membership dues - and is used to do things like promote things to which I am strongly opposed - like the inclusion of "fair share" in employment contracts. In other words it is used not just for things I do benefit from (limits on class sizes, length of school day, health insurance, etc.) but things I do not (like the money spent by the state and national organizations in each bargaining session to promote "fair share&quot .

It is forced on people who choose not to be members. Whatever their reason for choosing not to associate with the union is their reason - I don't get to override that choice merely because it is in my financial self-interest to grab an equivalent amount of money so they become effective members, but without a vote. That forced membership comes not from the employer (unlike hours and dress codes - no employer I am aware of said, Hmm...I think I'll impose union membership on my employees), but by fellow employees - but even more so by the generally state or national agenda of the unions. The push in our case came from the state association. We were told that we had no option but to include it in the next contract proposal. I know that because I was in on the discussions. No one in our school independently came up with the idea, and a significant portion of us opposed it.

Unions need to be effective enough and provide enough benefit that they attract members who choose to provide the financial support needed to sustain the advocacy. Once there is no choice about paying to support the union, there is no longer any accountability to members. You see the beginnings of that in the push in the first place - the state (which provided substantial bargaining support) dictated the inclusion of the provision in the contract negotiations. Had we (those of us in the school district paying membership fees) been free to choose, I'm pretty sure it would have been left on the cutting room floor.

Coerced membership in an organization which is not integral to the functions I was hired to perform do is not a legitimate job requirement, as far as I am concerned. And I feel strongly enough about it that I would risk my job - and engage in a court battle to help make the point.

[jeff47]

71. Yes. They are a requirement placed on the job.

Jobs frequently require employees to buy their own uniform. Jobs frequently require employees to contribute to retirement plans, whether or not they want to (Hey look! Forced membership!!). Jobs frequently require the employee to spend money on child care in order to work the hours demanded by the employer.

The job requiring paying union dues is just another requirement. If you don't like the requirement, don't take the job.

The rest of your post is longwinded bullshit trying to create an artificial distinction between union dues and other job requirements. Happily regurgitating talking points in order to cripple unions. I really love the fantasy that everyone would happily pay if only the union marketed themselves better. Because you really want to pay for the union's marketing campaign instead of something that actually benefits you.

Fundamentally, here is your error:

I don't get to override that choice

Yes, you do. Don't take the job if you do not like the requirements.

Coerced membership in an organization which is not integral to the functions I was hired to perform

Neither is purchasing a uniform from the company's chosen supplier. Yet it is an extremely common job requirement.

[Ms. Toad]

76. There is a distinction between

requirements imposed by the employer for the benefit of the employer (a standard uniform purchased from a particular supplier - to present a uniform company image) or the employee (retirement plans - although all that I am aware of are imposed by government not the employer) and requirements imposed on an employee to guarantee an income stream to third party organization the employee chose not to join.

Unions existed for a very long time before the concept of fair share started being bandied about. They existed because they were accountable to the people who paid for their existence and obtained contracts which benefited the people who chose to join them. Coerced membership is not a sound way to create strong and effective unions, because the guaranteed stream of income diminishes the accountability to the people who are paying the bills.

[kcr]

83. The problem with your argument is getting rid of that third party

Means those requirements imposed by the employer get a lot worse. Your argument sounds just like the types who refuse to wear their seatbelts even though they know it saves lives just because they don't like being told what to do! So they aren't going to wear it! And they don't like being told to pay dues, so they aren't gonna! Screw them! Who cares if my fingers get chopped off at the mill instead!

[jeff47]

85. No, there really isn't.

although all that I am aware of are imposed by government not the employer

In college, I tutored elementary school kids in a CA public school. I was required to contribute to CalPers (the teacher retirement program) even though I would never draw on that program. I would not be working long enough to get a pension.

That requirement was put on me by the employer, who took it out of the paychecks. That was funding a third party, private organization.

Unions existed for a very long time before the concept of fair share started being bandied about.

That's because the contract used to require the company to only hire union employees. Thus the mechanism for forcing the employees to pay the union was to make them join the union before hiring them.

Then the "right to work" movement made that illegal in many states. Resulting in lots of employees benefiting from the union negotiation while not paying the union. Result being the decimation of unions and their ability to get more concessions for those employees, resulting in more employees leaving the union and continuing the cycle until the union is effectively gone. Coupled with people blaming the union for problems caused by being starved of money.

It's a very successful strategy. And you're doing a great job following it.

[Starry Messenger]

58. What if I don't like getting up in the morning for work?

Can I tell work I'm not going to, even though my class starts at 8:30 am?

If I said that, they'd tell me to find a different job, and they'd be right to do so.

[Ms. Toad]

68. That is a requirement imposed by your employer,

Not coerced by your fellow employees who belong to an organization you made a choice not to join - solely for the purpose of providing the organization a guaranteed income stream.

Your employer doesn't care if you belong to a union (or paid your fair share). Getting to work at the designated time, on the other hand, it does care about.

[Starry Messenger]

118. If you work at a public school in CA, you join the union or pay fair share.

I'm not "coerced" to be a teacher either. If I don't want to be union, I can go work for a non-profit for shit wages.

In CA, the CFT is one of the reasons we are a blue state. It's worth the value-added to live in a great place that passes progressive policy, in large part because of the high level of union membership. Membership dues are a tiny price to pay for not living in a right-to-work shithole run by the GOP.

[Omaha Steve]

124. Wait for it...

[Starry Messenger]

125. Thanks, Steve. :)

Love my union!

[mountain grammy]

130. hear, hear!

[mike_c]

131. ^^^^^best response in this thread ^^^^^

Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

[Starry Messenger]

135. Aw, thanks!

It's hard to watch people here struggle to vote in more left-wing candidates, but then dis the main ingredient that makes that possible in our own blue states.

[WinkyDink]

65. But you took the salary and health benefits and personal days and workday hours and higher-education

credits payment help and so on, right?

Were you COERCED into the bennies?

[Ms. Toad]

72. As I said,

The union needs to prove its worth (by bargaining for such benefits) that the teachers choose to support it because they want to continue to have that organization represent them at the bargaining table. Guaranteeing the organization an income stream weakens the accountability of the organization to those it is supposed to represent.

I am not opposed to a modest fair share payment to support actual bargaining costs - but as advanced by the NEA, at least, the "fair share" is virtually identical to the union dues. Although it excludes political advocacy, it does not exclude other costs which provide the means for the state and national offices to impose things locally which serve the organization (fair share), rather than its members.

You also apparently didn't read very carefully. I was not only a union member, but a building rep. I chose to be a member, and to serve in a leadership role because I believed that the union was serving my interests in negotiating a contract that impacted working conditions enough to attract strong teachers, and was serving the educational needs of the students I taught by imposing sound restrictions on things like work load, class size limits, etc. Everyone should have the choice to vote with their money on whether the union is serving its members - or itself.

[RobinA]

70. I Would Like

to agree with you, but I fear that the fact is that many people would be more than happy to reap the benefits without paying, even assuming the union is absolutely wonderful. Not to mention the fact that too many people don't have a clue what benefits they have gotten from a union in their workplace. I came from working in many nonunion situations to a union situation. I find that my cowokers complain mightily about every little thing the union doesn't do, but have no idea how much better off they are with the union. Imperfect as it may be.

[Ms. Toad]

74. The way to change that is by education,

about what the union is doing for them - not by extracting money against their will. All that does is make them angry at the union - and if they get angry enough because they see the cost not the benefit they vote out the union. Fair share gone. Union gone. And that is a far worse situation because it takes far less effort to make an existing union effective and responsive than it does to start from scratch and organize to get a union in - particularly if it vanished because people were angry because they saw the cost and not the benefit.

[NaturalHigh]

150. That is my opinion too.

Pretty much word for word.

[ColesCountyDem]

30. Without question, yes. n/t

[PatrickforO]

31. Well, I voted yes, but over 72% who went to that site and voted said,

"No, they should be able to opt out."

For decades unions have been undermined, but they brought some of this on themselves through poor public relations with both their members and the general public.

Over a couple decades I have worked with thousands of people making career transitions after being laid off, both singly and in groups. Sometimes unions came up in discussions and almost always they would say something like, "I belonged to the union and paid dues, but I never saw them," or "They never did anything for me," or "I felt like I was just giving them money for nothing."

Sadly, when we need collective bargaining more than we ever have, this is the general view.

As to relations with the general public, when on strike, instead of blocking traffic, why not have carwashes or something that leaves a good taste in the mouths of people watching, because someday they might vote on unions of their own.

We have to change the way the average worker looks at unions, and to be successful, the unions themselves need to change and modernize.

[merrily]

47. Anyone can vote in online polls. Doesn't mean 72% of workers voted yes.B

The number was lower when I voted.

[asiliveandbreathe]

33. Yes yes yes yes yes yes

[SoapBox]

34. Yes...and if they don't like it, they can move on.

Let them go to one of these low ball charters.

I just voted...the gap is still big but closing! Kep voting DU.

[marble falls]

37. Should taxpayers have to pay taxes for programs they disagree with?

[merrily]

45. All workers benefit from collective bargaining.

[Iggo]

61. Exactly.

[Dustlawyer]

40. Why is it bad that you have a check on the control of employers?

A union is a necessary Ying to the employer's Yang, otherwise you get what we have today, wage stagnation and more dangerous work places!

[merrily]

48. Beats me, Dustlawyer.

Then again, it beats me why Democrats want to vote like the RW wants them to.

[Dustlawyer]

78. Couldn't agree more! The PTB would be happy with Hillary just like they are with Obama.

As long as a Wall Street is protected and corporations are looked after, they don't care about gay marriage and abortion and other traditionally Democratic causes.
They marginalize someone like Senator Sanders to make it difficult to get his Progressive message out, and scare us with the Republican Bogeyman so we vote for Hillary instead.
This is how they keep their power over our government, through the media oligarchy and campaign contributions. They have us conditioned to accept these campaign bribes to the point where we judge the viability of a particular candidate by how much bribe money they have received so far. They don't get to continue the race if they haven't scored enough bribes, but to do so they have to promise the Special Interests they will look out for them over us. Our election system couldn't be set up better for the PTB to control our government. Now that they bribe Democrats as well as Republicans, we are screwed until enough of us wake up and decide to do something.
If all of the Progressive groups that are out there fighting for their favorite issue, such as women's rights, environmentalists, voting rights advocates, education... would join together to get the money out of our politics, we could do it! Campaign contributions are the root problem causing most of our other problems. Until then we can just watch these corrupt politicians in a feeding frenzy over the money that is awash in Washington!

[merrily]

81. I am not optimistic about a constitutional amendment, which is what it would take to get

money out of politics, given corporations are people, donors have a right to be anonymous and money is speech.

Oh, and no one at the level of POTUS volunteers to abide by McCain Feingold and sticks to it, even McCain.

They have us coming and going.

[Dustlawyer]

82. And you left out that Justice Roberts, for some reason, cannot see a Quid Pro Quo!

He wouldn't know a Quid Pro Quo if it gave him money to rule against us!

[merrily]

87. Neither can any of our elected officials. I think a Rep could vote yes, be handed a wad of bills,

then flip his vote to no and escape even censure. Unless he sent someone a penis instagram while he was at it.

[Major Nikon]

117. Ask the Germans

They are actually helping the union organize at their Volkswagen plant in Tennessee. The Germans use unions to increase quality and efficiency at their factories.

[Dustlawyer]

133. What's quality and efficiency?

[Major Nikon]

134. It's a German thing

I think it's called 'farfromescrewin'

[sulphurdunn]

57. Workimg people against unions

is like sheep against shepherds. Also, working people who keep their mouths shut when governments and corporations take their money for things of which any principled person would disapprove then get all moral and personal freedom feverish over their objections to unions are just cheap assholes who want the benefits without paying the dues. Unions are democratic institutions. If the assholes really cared about principle they'd work to change the union position from within. These kind of discussions only give credibility to the asshole position. It doesn't merit it. The stupid SOBs think they're wolves instead of sheep.

PS, This post should probably be hidden because it is intentionally rude and insensitive, but it is not off topic

[Omaha Steve]

66. I volunteer for jury duty on this one

[merrily]

137. Rand, is that you?

[WinkyDink]

62. Ha! This is my town! And I was a teacher! FYI: General union info is irrelevant here. Teachers CAN

partially opt out in the Lehigh Valley. But they cannot pay nothing and get everything.

Union membership vs. non-membership for teachers has NOTHING TO DO with employment opportunity or pay scale.

[procon]

80. You can vote multiple times; maybe that's why it's so tilted??? nt

[ND-Dem]

84. Yes. If they don't want to pay, they should get a different job, not free ride on others.

[mountain grammy]

132. And for anyone foolish enough to question the need for unions for government employees

Here's how they came to be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/50-years-ago-kennedys-order-empowered-federal-unions/2012/01/19/gIQA3g82BQ_story.html

Unions will always be necessary.

[PowerToThePeople]

146. I say we unionize nationally, UUSC - Union of United States Citizens.

I stand behind unions.

[NaturalHigh]

147. Sorry Steve...I'm voting no on this one.

I fully agree that nobody should have to pay a union for the right to hold a job. That's too much like a kickback as far as I'm concerned. Unions should have to perform well enough to attract members, not just rake in cash from unwilling dues payers. Also, I can easily see why a devout Catholic would object to the social platforms of national teachers' unions.

Unions are great, but they shouldn't be able to hold people hostage with jobs as leverage.

[Omaha Steve]

148. So everybody that just doesn't want to pay gets a free ride so the members have to pay more

So the employee gets a contract. Has to be represented by the union if s/he gets in trouble. Defined working and safety conditions. Vacation, sick pay, retirement, .... and doesn't share the expense.

Union pays office rent, equipment, utilities, salaries, lawyer on retainer, supplies, etc. You get the idea.

I'm in a right to work state. Most that don't belong are just saving a buck.

We just finished negotiating a new contract before I retired. Oh how the non-members complained about the give up-give backs etc.

Fair share doesn't go to the national office for political purposes. It helps cover the expenses above the local has for non-members.

OS

[NaturalHigh]

152. "Has to be represented by the union if s/he gets in trouble"...

I don't agree with that part.

When I was a teacher, I joined the union because the benefits were well worth it, including the $1 million liability coverage if I were to be sued. I didn't agree with the NEA's entire political platform, but it was worth my dues because of everything they did for me.

No, the union shouldn't have to represent this guy if he gets in trouble, IMO, but I will always oppose any way for the union to force someone to be a member or pay dues. IMO, the courts will certainly find for the plaintiff in this case.

[Omaha Steve]

154. IF it is over politics they have to allow you to op-out of that by federal law

Fair share is usually about 50-60% of actual dues members pay. And again that doesn't go to politics, just LOCAL expenses. That means none to the international or the AFL-CIO etc.

[Agnosticsherbet]

151. If that is what the companies contract says, then yes.

[steve2470]

160. this thread is really opening my eyes...

All I'm going to say.