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

[Bobref]

11 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

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.

That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing. 

[DanteEstonia]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing. 

How so?

[Irishman]

8 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?”

Fort teachers in Indiana (and my guess is this is the same in many other states since it is a part of the ALEC playbook restricting bargaining rights), not having evaluations as part of the contract is a HUGE deal. I would add that the reprimand process comes into play as well. Having to face an administrator with no representation can be quite a challenge. Having had people in both situations talk to me about their situations, it is interesting how quickly a non member wishes they had maintained their membership. In each of those cases, I have had to say sorry you are in a tough spot, but I cannot provide any help. 

[Goose Liver]

On 3/4/2021 at 8:43 AM, Bobref said:

Well, you didn’t ask the question of me, but I’ll bite.

Compensation for work done is a contract. Provided there’s agreement on terms, workers should be compensated according to that contract. For example, if I stop at a light and a guy cleans my windows, without me asking him to, he’s performed labor, but is not entitled to compensation, since there was no prior agreement.

To refine your cross examination technique, you need to make sure your questions are answered either “yes” or “no,” if you want to keep firm control of the adverse witness.

Spoken like a true attorney.

[DanteEstonia]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:43 AM, Bobref said:

Provided there’s agreement on terms, workers should be compensated according to that contract.

When and how can that contract be changed?

[Bobref]

2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

When and how can that contract be changed?

Like all contracts — anytime the parties agree to a change. In essence, they make a new contract.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Bobref

[Muda69]

More federal PRO act nonsense: https://reason.com/2021/03/11/californians-rejected-a-harsh-law-that-destroyed-freelance-jobs-congress-is-trying-to-make-it-federal-law/

Quote

n November, California voters approved a ballot initiative that vetoed parts of a bad labor law forcing many companies and industries in the state to hire independent contractors as employees. So why, now, are Democrats in Congress trying to force these rules down the entire country's throat?

The California bill, A.B. 5 became a source of vicious labor conflict in the state. It was designed to attack ride-sharing services like Lyft and Uber and delivery services like DoorDash and Grubhub. These companies operate via independent contractors rather than employees, which undermined the strong union controls over the labor market in the state.

A.B. 5 ended up hitting thousands upon thousands of freelance jobs in the market, from writers to musicians to real estate agents to interpreters. Eventually, lawmakers had to go back and carve out a bunch of exceptions to the law. They kept the ride-sharing and delivery services, the target for the legislation, in the law. But the companies didn't take it lying down and instead forced the measure to a vote via Proposition 22. California voters, despite their strong Democratic leanings, agreed that drivers should be permitted to remain independent contractors. Prop. 22 was passed.

Rather than learning a lesson here, Democrats and labor unions are instead trying to make the entire concept federal law with the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) of 2021.

A.B. 5 formalized a procedure known as the "ABC test," established through a California court precedent, to determine whether a person was a freelance worker or an employee. Whether the person wanted to be a freelance worker or an employee was utterly irrelevant to the test. Under the ABC test, the following three conditions must all apply in order to classify somebody providing services for your company as a freelance contractor:

1. The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work.
2. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business.
3. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

If those conditions are not met, workers must be treated as employees. These rules hit a remarkably broad swath of freelance contractors and are precisely what caused A.B. 5 to threaten so many independent jobs. And yet, the ABC test has been imported directly into the federal PRO Act. California voters rejected it in November.

....

If the PRO Act only implemented this terrible ABC rule, that would be bad enough. But as Cuellar notes, it also undermines state-level right-to-work laws, which stop unions from requiring workers to join unions and pay union dues if they don't want to be represented by them.

Some of the framing of the PRO Act is absurdly lopsided. Take this USA Today story, which almost exclusively quotes supporters of the legislation (save for one Republican lawmaker). Here's one justification for supporting the law:

 

Lane Windham, the associate director at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, said that the PRO Act would rectify employers' ability to skirt longstanding labor laws. A former organizer with a clothing and textiles union working across the South, Windham said the bill's provision to stop employers from holding "captive audience meetings" — where they coerce or require workers to sit through meetings to discourage organizing — is particularly important.

So, to summarize, employers forcing workers to sit through meetings to discourage union organizing is bad and must be blocked by federal law. But forcing workers to pay dues to labor unions against their will is good and should be encouraged by federal law, even if state laws must be subverted to do so.