| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Union sued over $150 grievance fee for non-members
Posted: Aug 22, 2013 4:53 PM EDT Updated: Aug 22, 2013 4:54 PM EDT
Posted By WNEM Newsroom - email
DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) -
Four Dearborn employees are suing the Teamsters, saying the union is illegally charging $150 if non-members want to file labor grievances against the city.
The municipal employees left the Teamsters after Michigan passed a law allowing workers to stop paying dues. But unions still are obligated to represent workers who have disputes with their employer.
The Midland-based Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit Thursday on behalf of the Dearborn workers. Attached to a lawsuit is the Teamsters Local 214 policy about charging employees to handle grievances if they no longer belong to the union.
The lawsuit says the fee policy conflicts with state and federal labor law. A message seeking comment was left for Local 214 president Joseph Valenti.
. |
|
|
Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:12 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
What “Right to Work” Would Mean for Michigan
irlee.umich.edu/Publications/Docs/RightToWorkInMichigan.
shop” terms that require every person benefiting from union representation to pay ... So what are the predictable consequences if Michigan becomes a RTW state? To
"And the benefits are indisputable. Depending on the occupation, unionized
workers earn wages that are ten to forty percent higher than their nonunion counterparts. The positive differential for other forms of compensation, such as health care insurance and pensions, is even greater. Perhaps more important than economics, however, are matters involving justice. Nearly all union contracts feature an informal form of due process: a grievance procedure that ends in final and binding arbitration through which unions resolve disputes over the contract and employer discipline. As such, in most union settings an employer must show proof that a worker committed a wrongdoing in order to discharge them. By contrast, in a non-union setting workers are “at will” and can be discharged for any reason (or none at all) that is not proscribed by federal law.
It is important to note these benefits, because while promoting free association
and individual liberty sound noble, the use of such concepts to advance RTW legislation belie a less lofty motive: to undermine the economic and political power of wage-earners. As the financiers of the RTW program are well-aware, when workers act collectively they gain power at work and in society. In states that have passed RTW legislation, the wages and benefits of all workers, union and non-union, are lower than national averages.
One reason is that the gains by unionized workers spill into the non-union sectors through the so-called “threat effect”: in the presence of a strong regional union movement, employers with a non-union workforce will raise wages and benefits to discourage employees from unionizing. Remove the threat and non-union employers have greater latitude to lower compensation, to require workers to perform dangerous tasks or work in unhealthy environs, or to treat workers without dignity. This is the hidden agenda behind the RTW effort: strengthen the hand of employers by passing a law that weakens the vanguard institutions promoting economic and social equity for wage-earners. In this sense, RTW is both a bald attack on organized labor as well as a veiled assault on wage earners."
To understand how RTW laws weaken organized labor it useful to couch this
discussion in theory. Social scientists that study collective behavior often refer to the
“collective action problem” for movement development. It begins with the premise that any collective endeavor needs resources such as volunteer effort, money, or other assets to succeed. Unfortunately, individuals that stand to enjoy the fruits of the collective also have an incentive to avoid making any contribution, especially if they believe the collective will succeed without their support. With too many “free riders,” of course, the collective becomes resource-starved, causing it to under-perform or fail. To minimize this problem, rules are necessary that limit the ability of an individual to shirk their obligation to the collective. There are many examples of this phenomenon in society, but the most obvious is taxation for funding public services. Politicians may debate the level of tax, how taxes are collected, or how taxes are spent, but there is no question that it would be a disaster to allow the payment of taxes to be optional. Compulsory taxation is necessary to ensure the adequate financing of public services. Similarly, for organized labor, union security provisions are the rules that resolve the collective action problem. A union shop simply mandates that everyone pays their fair share. Open shop arrangements, on the other hand, are problematic because they present incentives for employees to refrain from contributing to the union, and “free ride” on the sacrifices of dues-paying members. Ultimately the financial support necessary to
operate a union is undermined."
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:53 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:24 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The Mackinaw Center for Public Policy and their publication CAPCON-Michigan Capital Confidential championed the Right To Work in Michigan.
According to Unionstats, as of April 013, approximately 17,1 % of the Michigan workforce is unionized and most is in the public sector. |
|
|
|
Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:29 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
FAQ - AFGE Local 2005
afgelocal2005.org/FAQ.htm
... Union members are entitled to many ... General Counsel concludes the charge has ... that unions could refuse to represent non members in cases before ...Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the Union always have a duty to represent non-members?
NO. In a significant decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, federal unions have no duty to represent non-members in statutory appeal procedures. The federal court found the union did not have a duty to represent an inspector fired by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The discharged employee was a member of a certified bargaining unit, but not a member of the labor organization. Until this decision, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), had held that a certified union was required to handle all statutory appeals of represented employees whether or not they were members of the union. The court reversed this holding. The court held that unions could refuse to represent non members in cases before the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), (14-day and longer suspensions and removals), the Department of Labor (DoL), (Workers' Compensation), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), (discrimination), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), (classification), without violating federal law. (Read Decision)
American Federation of Governmental Employees |
|
|
|
Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:17 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
