"fair share" now "negotiated reimbursements"

[LunarRay]

I should not have to be forced to support an organization I completely disagree with in order to be employed. Every worker should have the right to choose if they want to be in a union or not. Those that are good workers will usually choose not to be in a union because they will prosper on their own merit, while those who are not very valuable will seek shelter under the communal union umbrella.

Just like the Coal Miner in yesterday year.... Molly Maguires!!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Just like the Coal Miner in yesterday year.... Molly Maguires!!!

Is this yesteryear?

 

[LunarRay]

Is this yesteryear?

What is is.... A union shop is a union shop... All members, employees, not salaried or otherwise exempt ought to contribute...
When a owner exploits workers they ought to unionize to obviate that. Collective bargining is just that.
I prefer, actually, dealing with a union... or did when I was responsible for that aspect of my company's HR. It makes it alot easier to pass on those cost increases than otherwise...
In Ireland, most worker bees are unionized and it works for the best at the end of the day. All things considered, it is fair to the worker and fair to the Company.
IMO

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What is is.... A union shop is a union shop... All members, employees, not salaried or otherwise exempt ought to contribute...
When a owner exploits workers they ought to unionize to obviate that. Collective bargining is just that.

If there is a Union in a Right to Work state, each employee has the choice/freedom to choose to belong to the union or not. What the legislation being pushed by the leftists in Iowa does is force employees to pay dues even if they freely chose to not belong to the union. They shouldn't be forced to "contribute" to a 3rd party org that they have no wish to belong to.

Yes, if an owner "exploits" workers they can unionize if they wish - OR they can choose not to work for such an owner. Why someone would want to continue to work for an owner that "exploited" them is beyond me. I can't think of a single good reason to exchange my hard work for $ with someone that is/or would "exploit" me.

 

[nobodyknows]

Yes, if an owner "exploits" workers they can unionize if they wish - OR they can choose not to work for such an owner. Why someone would want to continue to work for an owner that "exploited" them is beyond me. I can't think of a single good reason to exchange my hard work for $ with someone that is/or would "exploit" me.

"If"? LOL, your a continual source of amusement, just like Palin, the gift that keeps on giving.

Of course the employer is going to abuse it's employees, they just need to keep over 50% of them happy so they don't vote in a union. Since 30% of them are nothing but scared, insecure, ass kissers in the first place that isn't too hard to do.

 

[Hacp]

"If"? LOL, your a continual source of amusement, just like Palin, the gift that keeps on giving.

Of course the employer is going to abuse it's employees, they just need to keep over 50% of them happy so they don't vote in a union. Since 30% of them are nothing but scared, insecure, ass kissers in the first place that isn't too hard to do.

You don't need to vote in a union. You can gather up and negotiate together if you wish. If your employer wishes to fire you and hire a bunch of new cheaper recruits because you demand new wages, well why not? Its supply and demand that should govern pay, not government regulation.

 

[Hacp]

What is is.... A union shop is a union shop... All members, employees, not salaried or otherwise exempt ought to contribute...
When a owner exploits workers they ought to unionize to obviate that. Collective bargining is just that.
I prefer, actually, dealing with a union... or did when I was responsible for that aspect of my company's HR. It makes it alot easier to pass on those cost increases than otherwise...
In Ireland, most worker bees are unionized and it works for the best at the end of the day. All things considered, it is fair to the worker and fair to the Company.
IMO

Look what that did to GM. It had to be bailed out.

 

[bctbct]

If there is a Union in a Right to Work state, each employee has the choice/freedom to choose to belong to the union or not. What the legislation being pushed by the leftists in Iowa does is force employees to pay dues even if they freely chose to not belong to the union. They shouldn't be forced to "contribute" to a 3rd party org that they have no wish to belong to.

Yes, if an owner "exploits" workers they can unionize if they wish - OR they can choose not to work for such an owner. Why someone would want to continue to work for an owner that "exploited" them is beyond me. I can't think of a single good reason to exchange my hard work for $ with someone that is/or would "exploit" me.

Yes they do have the option to pay dues, what you are not considering is that they enjoy all the things that the Union negotiates for.

Including the grievance system and free legal representation provided by the Union on employment matters.

Non members in a Union environment want everything they can get and are too cheap to pay a few bucks toward the expense of getting it.

The Union is asking them to pay for the freebees, if they dont want them...no problem.

 

[bctbct]

Look what that did to GM. It had to be bailed out.

Managment continued to give them future benefits they knew were not sustainable because they didnt want to lower there profits for the day.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yes they do have the option to pay dues, what you are not considering is that they enjoy all the things that the Union negotiates for.

Including the grievance system and free legal representation provided by the Union on employment matters.

Non members in a Union environment want everything they can get and are too cheap to pay a few bucks toward the expense of getting it.

The Union is asking them to pay for the freebees, if they dont want them...no problem.

Uh, the law that's being pushed by the leftists FORCES workers to pay dues to a union even if they don't want to be part of it. That's what the legislation does - it's simple fact.
Again, the union could easily have chosen not to represent all workers and then there would be no whining about freeloaders or other such nonsense. However, unions have historically chosen to set themselves up as exclusive so they have the power. Tough shit I say - you choose exclusivity - you deal with what comes with it.

Uh have you ever considered that people don't want to join a union because they just don't want to join the union? Or the multitudes of other reasons besides your whining about them just being "cheap"?

Again, the union wants the money - period. If a person does not want to be in that little club - why should the little club have any right to take money from them? I do however do not think a non-member should be able to use union representation for free, but again with the way unions CHOOSE to structure themselves they have to. So one more time - if they don't want the supposed "freeloaders" - they can choose to structure themselves in a fashion that doesn't allow such things. They continue to choose not to and instead try to force other people to pay them.

 

[bctbct]

Cad go back and read the article you posted. The Unions are asking that if they have to represent a non-member they be reinbursed by the employee for up to 65% of the annual dues.

I am not familar with Iowa law but I would assume like other states the Law dictates that the Union must provide all the same benefits to non-members that they do to their members.

Essentially the Union is asking them to be allowed to bill for Services not prepaid in membership.

Its a deal for non-members imo.

If the non-members have a problem with this they could go together and hire a lobbist to change the law so they dont have to become a member, dont have to pay dues, dont get the same wages negotiated for(take what the state gives them), dont get represented by the Union legal team in labor disputes.

Personally I think they should focus all their efforts on opting out of membership

Also I would like to point out that the very reason people are attracted to a job usually is because of the pay and benefits....the only two things the Union really cares about so who needs who?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Cad go back and read the article you posted. The Unions are asking that if they have to represent a non-member they be reinbursed by the employee for up to 65% of the annual dues.

I am not familar with Iowa law but I would assume like other states the Law dictates that the Union must provide all the same benefits to non-members that they do to their members.

Essentially the Union is asking them to be allowed to bill for Services not prepaid in membership.

Its a deal for non-members imo.

If the non-members have a problem with this they could go together and hire a lobbist to change the law so they dont have to become a member, dont have to pay dues, dont get the same wages negotiated for(take what the state gives them), dont get represented by the Union legal team in labor disputes.

Personally I think they should focus all their efforts on opting out of membership

Also I would like to point out that the very reason people are attracted to a job usually is because of the pay and benefits....the only two things the Union really cares about so who needs who?

lol, no, it's only being called a "reimbursement" but it's a weekly thing just like union members pay.

And no, Iowa law is not like that and neither is any others. However, IF a union CHOOSES to be an exclusive one, then it must represent all. That's the price they pay for locking others out and in a right to work state, like Iowa, a worker does not have to join the union if they wish not to.

So to recap - it's YOU who needs to reread the article. It's not a case by case "reimbursement" - it's a blanket deal that forces non-members to pay the union even if they choose not to be in the union or use their services. And so we're clear - a non-union member does not get their wages negotiated by the union - however a lot of the time the management just uses the same pay structure for everyone. But to suggest that the union is negotiating for them or representing them somehow is dishonest at best.

 

[bctbct]

lol, no, it's only being called a "reimbursement" but it's a weekly thing just like union members pay.

And no, Iowa law is not like that and neither is any others. However, IF a union CHOOSES to be an exclusive one, then it must represent all. That's the price they pay for locking others out and in a right to work state, like Iowa, a worker does not have to join the union if they wish not to.

So to recap - it's YOU who needs to reread the article. It's not a case by case "reimbursement" - it's a blanket deal that forces non-members to pay the union even if they choose not to be in the union or use their services. And so we're clear - a non-union member does not get their wages negotiated by the union - however a lot of the time the management just uses the same pay structure for everyone. But to suggest that the union is negotiating for them or representing them somehow is dishonest at best.

From the article

"One proposal, commonly known in years past as "fair share," would allow public employee unions to charge nonunion workers fees for services they provide for such things as handling grievances and arbitrations"

"Under state law, only unions have the power to negotiate with the state on certain pay and work-related issues. Because of that, unions often negotiate for nonunion public employees by default, even though they don't collect union dues from those people."

"The proposal would give Iowa's executive-branch public employees the right to negotiate on whether nonunion members should reimburse unions for bargaining and grievance services.

The bill limits the costs to as much as 65 percent of annual union dues, depending upon the service provided by the union"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

From the article

"One proposal, commonly known in years past as "fair share," would allow public employee unions to charge nonunion workers fees for services they provide for such things as handling grievances and arbitrations"

"Under state law, only unions have the power to negotiate with the state on certain pay and work-related issues. Because of that, unions often negotiate for nonunion public employees by default, even though they don't collect union dues from those people."

"The proposal would give Iowa's executive-branch public employees the right to negotiate on whether nonunion members should reimburse unions for bargaining and grievance services.

The bill limits the costs to as much as 65 percent of annual union dues, depending upon the service provided by the union"

yes, and by "reimburse" they mean pay 65% of the dues and by service they mean represent without the employee asking them to or wanting to be represented.
You seem to have fallen for the renaming - which I pointed out in the OP. It used to be called "fair share" - all they've done is change the name.


And also looking further into the issue it seems there is another law which the unions could change instead of trying to force non-members to pay dues.

Under state law, only unions have the power to negotiate with the state on certain pay and work-related issues. Because of that, unions often negotiate for non-union public employees by default, even though they don’t collect union dues from those people.
Seems to me the unions should be trying to get that law overturned so they don't "have to" represent those who aren't paying them

 

[piasabird]

Slave labor also keeps wages low.

 

[dmcowen674]

same shit different name...Iowa Democrats once again attempt to gut the state's Right to Work law.

There are Democrats in Iowa?

Where?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

There are Democrats in Iowa?

Where?

Iowa city, Des Moines, and the Quad cities for the most part. Basically the 3 main metro areas. We don't yet have to register to buy vinegar though...