PDA

View Full Version : Michigan Unions: Why Help Workers When We Can Help Ourselves?



red states rule
02-06-2013, 02:59 AM
Given the union bosses attitude toward their members is it any wonder union membership is on the decline?

But it does show what unions are realy all about thses days. Union members MONEY!!!!! Which is also the top priority of the Dem party





Following Michigan's adoption of Right to Work legislation, unions, it seems, have decided that their best chance for self-preservation is a good offense...against their own members. The Wall Street Journal reports on a memo revealing that the unions' strategy for combating the law -- which will undoubtedly cost them precious funds, as already-reluctant members opt to quit -- is to target remaining members (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578275873768466336.html) as they attempt to minimize loss of influence.

That's the message from a December 27-28 memo to local union presidents and board members from Michigan Education Association President Steven Cook, which recommends tactics that unions can use to dilute the impact of the right-to-work law. One bright idea is to renegotiate contracts now to lock teachers into paying union dues after the right-to-work law goes into effect in March. Another is to sue their own members who try to leave.


"Members who indicate they wish to resign membership in March, or whenever, will be told they can only do so in August," Mr. Cook writes in the three-page memo obtained by the West Michigan Policy Forum. "We will use any legal means at our disposal to collect the dues owed under signed membership forms from any members who withhold dues prior to terminating their membership in August for the following fiscal year." Got that, comrade?


Also watch for contract negotiations in which union reps sign up members for smaller pay raises and benefits in exchange for a long-term contract. "We've looked carefully at this and believe the impact of RTW [right to work] can be blunted through bargaining strategies," Mr. Cook writes.
In other words, Michigan unions are going to squeeze every penny out of their members -- even those who wish to defect -- and sacrifice wages and benefits for the sake of obtaining contracts. These practices are notably antithetical to unions' historical objections; organized labor had its genesis when workers needed a forum to gather and combat predatory employer practices, and now here the unions are preying on their own.


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2013/02/05/michigan-unions-why-help-workers-when-we-can-coerce-them-n1505658

Marcus Aurelius
02-06-2013, 08:41 AM
Members who indicate they wish to resign membership in March, or whenever, will be told they can only do so in August," Mr. Cook writes in the three-page memo obtained by the West Michigan Policy Forum. "We will use any legal means at our disposal to collect the dues owed under signed membership forms from any members who withhold dues prior to terminating their membership in August for the following fiscal year."

If their union contract is not up until August, this actually seems fair. If the member is under contract until August, and wants to resign membership in May, I would think legally they would still be responsible for the dues owed the union until the expiration date of the current contract.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I am just venturing an opinion.

bingster
02-06-2013, 12:42 PM
Obviously, I'm biased, the unions represent the last financial bastion of the Democratic party, but I don't see what's wrong with expecting members to honor their contracts.

I'm more disgusted with the union busting in the first place. It's not financial for the corporations and it's not pro-worker as the government contends. It's just political.

red states rule
02-06-2013, 04:44 PM
Obviously, I'm biased, the unions represent the last financial bastion of the Democratic party, but I don't see what's wrong with expecting members to honor their contracts.

I'm more disgusted with the union busting in the first place. It's not financial for the corporations and it's not pro-worker as the government contends. It's just political.

So your main objection is the loss of campaign donations the Dems would lose out on if workers have a choice to stay in the union. Yon have confirmed what many have said about unions. They no longer give a damn about their members and only care about their political power they wield

Libs like you only support giving people a choice when it comes to women who want to murder their unborn children

And how is it union busting when the voters vote to reign in the insane competition union workers are getting? It is the taxpayers that foot the bill for their wages and benefits and in many cases the union workers make more then the people paying their salary and benefits

Not every union member is a die hard lib and they have every right not to have their income taken away to help elect Dems who they do not support