Rauner: Stop 'fair share' fees for non-union teachers
Source: BND
BY JOHN O'CONNOR
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. Gov. Bruce Rauner said Wednesday that he'll try to banish a requirement that non-union public school teachers pay union fees even as he struggles for court approval to relieve thousands of his state employees of the same obligation.
Speaking to an early morning crowd in downtown Springfield, the Republican said he's had support, even from state-worker union members, for his fight against what he calls "forced union-dues collection," an issue that sent unions to court against the idea. And he contended that teachers have asked him whether the executive order he signed in February could be extended to the schoolhouse.
"I believe it should apply to teachers and we'll deal with that later," Rauner said.
Rauner declined to elaborate when asked by The Associated Press as he left the event sponsored by the Citizens Club of Springfield. Asked again later in East Peoria, he said he's confident he'll prevail in a court case over the state employees' fees and a court decision "could have broader implications to all government employees and taxpayer-funded entities just like schools."
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.bnd.com/2015/04/22/3778384/rauner-stop-fair-share-fees-for.html
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...and they're more than happy to create a whole class of freeloaders who want union wages and benefits without having to pay for union representation and the costs of negotiating on their behalf.
You don't have to join the union if you don't want to. But don't take a union job if you're not willing to pay your fair share for the efforts that make union jobs so desirable. A freeloader is just one step up from a scab, IMO. And it's a small step up.
NJCher
(35,731 posts)Of my teacher's union, and I can attest to the amount of work that goes into negotiating a contract. Even when the contract is ratified, there are still grievances and issues where the administration violates the contract and action has to be taken. This is an ongoing job, and it takes a lot of research, collaboration, and time.
For people to obtain the benefits of this without footing some of the cost is so wrong; wrong, wrong, wrong.
Cher
hack89
(39,171 posts)the repukes see this as a political battle - smaller unions means less money to Democrats running for office.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)the work that the Union has negotiated.
Maybe they will simply have to work under "guidelines" issued by the state or district.
The union also has to represent them if they have a grievance, are getting written up or fired, etc. It is in the NLRB act. Just one sentence makes right to scab er work legal. Repeal that one sentence (like if they had stuck it in the ACA with all those pages....)
City Lights
(25,171 posts)I curse those who helped foist him upon me.
Thekaspervote
(32,793 posts)murielm99
(30,763 posts)A good nickname for him is long overdue.
I can't wait to tell my brother. He will get a good laugh out of it.