Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

The PRO Act Is Not Just a Union Handout—It's an Assault on the Freedom of Association Itself


Muda69

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Compensation for work done is a contract. Provided there’s agreement on terms, workers should be compensated according to that contract.

... and it took intellectual work to write a master contract that non-union workers benefit from, correct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Work as in negotiating and writing a contract. People as in attorneys or their clients.

Why would a "master contract" for a labor union contain language bestowing certain extra benefits for non-members of that union?  Make zero sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

@Bobref could you explain how a collective bargaining agreement works? Maybe we can also get @Irishman in on this?

Geez, could you be a little more specific? How’s this: A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a written legal contract between an employer and a union representing the employees. The CBA is the result of an extensive negotiation process between the parties regarding topics such as wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.

 

Edited by Bobref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

@Bobref could you explain how a collective bargaining agreement works? Maybe we can also get @Irishman in on this?

Not sure how it works for private sector unions; plus there are a LOT of extra laws dictating contracts with teachers in Indiana; 79 pages to be exact. So, what happens at the start of a school year for bargaining....The local President send the Superintendent a notice of wanting to bargain in good faith along with a notice that the association has a team ready to discuss non contract issues. That notice also includes the number of members in the local. The Superintendent then notifies the IEERB (Indiana Education Employment Relations Board) who oversees all contracts to make certain they are compliant with State laws. The DOE will send out the financial information to both sides for the next two years (Coinciding with the State budget cycle). The association is also recognized as the exclusive representative of the district. The ISTA is not only made up of teachers, but nurses, bus drivers, ESP's, mechanics, maintenance and custodial staff each have their own association under the ISTA umbrella. As the exclusive representative, the board/district must bargain with that group. The first part of the contract identifies all members of the bargaining unit. Just who fits in that group is a locally decided thing, but if administration wants to remove a position from it, they have to notify the association ahead of time, along with the employees impacted, and all have to agree. We learned this one the hard way in our district. I tried explaining to my contact in administration that they would get "dinged" (found non compliant) if they did it. And as usual, I was right :) . As far as the bargaining unit goes, it does include members of the association and non members. Since the laws are so restrictive on contracts, there are no perks or extra benefits the members enjoy that non members don't. The fact is there are no perks or extra benefits. The things that were removed from bargaining must be discussed. In most cases, the district can basically do what they want, but if they do not present any changes to the discussion team, they can be slapped with a ULP (Unfair Labor Practice). If there are issues that teachers have that fall under this discussion umbrella, then only members get representation. Non members will not get representation. That includes things like a possible bad evaluation that a teacher may think is not fair; being reprimanded for whatever reason. 

SLIGHTLY less than the 79 page official document, but this is the gist of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

... but union people provided the work to negotiate for it, correct?

10 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Or, more likely, the lawyers hired by the union. But what’s your point?

If your point is that all members of the bargaining unit benefit from the work of the union, therefore, all should pay for it, you’ve got to do better than that. As I pointed out when we started this discussion, the cornerstone of the issue is that entitlement to compensation arises only by agreement of the parties. Absent an agreement, there is no right to compensation. The non-union members of the bargaining unit did not agree to pay for those services. Therefore, they are not bound to do so. 

Edited by Bobref
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

... but they also don't opt out of the CBA. 

They don’t have to. But there’s an easy way for unions to go around this: figure out how much of the dues go for real union activities, and how much goes to pay lobbyists and engage in other “political” activities, and members of the bargaining unit can decide whether to pay just the basic dues vs. the “enhanced” dues that they can voluntarily pay to support the lobbying effort, etc., as well as the basic union functions.  ...But you better make sure your accounting is solid, which is very difficult to do.

Keep in mind, we’re talking about private sector unions, like the Teamsters or the Steelworkers. Public sector unions, like teachers or other government employees, are different. SCOTUS has ruled that it is impossible in public sector unions to separate their workings into strictly union business stuff vs. issues affecting the public interest (since they’re public, after all). Consequently, mandatory dues paying in any amount constitutes speech or expression, since it is a financial endorsement of the union’s stance on issues of public interest. So, bargaining unit members can choose not to financially support the union.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bobref said:

They don’t have to. But there’s an easy way for unions to go around this: figure out how much of the dues go for real union activities, and how much goes to pay lobbyists and engage in other “political” activities, and members of the bargaining unit can decide whether to pay just the basic dues vs. the “enhanced” dues that they can voluntarily pay to support the lobbying effort, etc., as well as the basic union functions.  ...But you better make sure your accounting is solid, which is very difficult to do.

Yep, and this is information a great many unions would like to keep as close to their chest a possible.

41 minutes ago, Bobref said:

SCOTUS has ruled that it is impossible in public sector unions to separate their workings into strictly union business stuff vs. issues affecting the public interest (since they’re public, after all). Consequently, mandatory dues paying in any amount constitutes speech or expression, since it is a financial endorsement of the union’s stance on issues of public interest. So, bargaining unit members can choose not to financially support the union.

Yet another reason to get rid of public sector unions entirely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

They don’t have to. But there’s an easy way for unions to go around this: figure out how much of the dues go for real union activities, and how much goes to pay lobbyists and engage in other “political” activities, and members of the bargaining unit can decide whether to pay just the basic dues vs. the “enhanced” dues that they can voluntarily pay to support the lobbying effort, etc., as well as the basic union functions.  ...But you better make sure your accounting is solid, which is very difficult to do.

It would be far easier to charge a "service fee" equivalent to dues. Since no one in a private business would opt out anyway of a CBA, they might as well pay for the negotiation of that contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

It would be far easier to charge a "service fee" equivalent to dues. Since no one in a private business would opt out anyway of a CBA, they might as well pay for the negotiation of that contract. 

“Might as well?” Not sure what that means. But if no one in their right mind would opt out of a CBA, why would anyone in their right mind pay dues to receive benefits when they are not required to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Because those benefits are things like a pension and a "with cause" clause. 

My question is, perhaps, better phrased as “why would bargaining unit members pay union dues to get those benefits if they can get them without paying dues?”

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

My question is, perhaps, better phrased as “why would bargaining unit members pay union dues to get those benefits if they can get them without paying dues?”

Because “with cause” and pensions are never extended, unless they are negotiated in a CBA. If you don’t believe me, look at the DPAC handbook I posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...