"State workers seek to end union representation"
State workers upset with union contracts negotiated last fall have filed petitions to terminate union representation for 16,000 state government employees, plus 2,000 college workers.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 03, 2005 10:26 PM | Email This
horrorshow!
Great, some "right to work" plants at work. But on the other hand, if they vote to de-certify and it passes by a majority, so be it.
without the unions to extort big business meanies
Yeah, how dare they get togther and ask for more than minimum wage. Bargaining is more fair when its one person against a multi national corporation.
Posted by: Erik on April 4, 2005 12:00 AMI meant extort in the legal sense:
"the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
Collective bargaining is fine, as long as both sides are free to walk away... but to induce 'bargaining' under the threat of a plant shutdown unjustly deprives the owners of the right to their property and derived income. if you don't like working for the multi-national, feel free to work for mom and pop down the road, and you are certainly entitled to whatever wages the market will provide.
Posted by: ralph on April 4, 2005 12:45 AMYou seem to be confusing our state government with an evil "multi national corporation". Public employee unions serve no purpose, because the "evil employer" is the voters. If our elected representives decide that a given state job is to be paid at whatever wage they say, the state workers are not really getting screwed here, are they?
Posted by: zip on April 4, 2005 02:57 AMSince when is the State of Washington a multi-national corporation? Even though it chased Boeing to Illinois, that doesn't make it (the State) a multi-national corporation.
You won't be taken very seriously, Erik, if you don't know the difference between a "multi-national corporation" and one of fifty states in the United States. Wow - where'd you go to school? No, don't tell me, let me guess.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on April 4, 2005 03:15 AM2 How much will this affect the contribution coffers of the democratic party? (Wow, freedom of choice, what a concept. Can the workers finally recoup improperly used political expenditures. Oops, Sorry, was thinking of the WEA ruling)
3 Does anyone else agree with me in that this will decrease the likelihood of partisan politics internal to most of the affected state government positions (non appointed/non publicly voted positions)?
4 How will this affect State Guardsmen technicians?
5 Does this mean the unions can't deny the taxpayer basic services from those positions by striking? (fantastic)
Anyone care to bet the union stewards of those shops are in deep kimchee?
Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 4, 2005 04:15 AM
He says the people who want to decertify "are really focused on the fee they have to pay. My view is it is a fee for service."
His co-workers obviously agree...
Posted by: South County on April 4, 2005 05:08 AMSo, let me guess, he says they are complaining about paying dues without receiving services or representation in return. Seems a valid point. Union members should also stress the need for an itemized bill for the services and representation the union is "providing". I bet that would really be an eye opener. Can anyone quote applicable statues of racketeering and contract laws or the requirement on the availability of an itemized bill before requiring payment?
Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 4, 2005 05:20 AMWhat is the rate today? And on a cynical side, do the higher paid state employees pay more into the union than the lower paid? Hmmmm.
Posted by: swatter on April 4, 2005 07:42 AMMany of the older union workers told me privately that the "union was here for the union only." So much for "The Brotherhood of..."
Union members in the private sector are probably too afraid of the union goons to do what the state employees are doing.
Unions artifically alter the free market dynamic.
When I worked at the State, we were busy, but we had nowhere to go. In other words, we kept going around in circles and never had leadership tell us it was time to button up this permit or that enforcement order. I could blame attorneys because all the corporations had attorney and seemed to gum up the progress. But there were also politicians. And the thing I hated were the little guys getting regulated who didn't have the politicians and attorneys the big guys had. That is why I quit, not the unions.
I have family in the welfare system- i.e. working in DSHS. They are all stressed out with the huge workload and lack of resources. They also care for their cases, which probably isn't good because they take their work home with them.
So, I wouldn't characterize all public employees as lazy.
Posted by: swatter on April 4, 2005 09:41 AM16000 workers leave the union, making an average of $45k per year (likely more) who pay 1.3% of salary to mandatory union dues = $9.3m out of the union bosses trough. Not chump change we are talking about here.
My question is this: Will Gregoire concentrate her 1000 WMS employee cuts in the bargaining units that want to leave the union? My guess is yes, for political payback and to send a message.
The main reason that the people signed a petition to dissolve the Union is because the underhanded way the Union notified, or in this case, failed to notify the people about the vote for the new contract. The workers were only notified one day before the vote was to take place and the notification consisted of a small page on the Union bulletin board telling about the vote and where the vote was taking place. I asked several of the Union Shop Stewards why the vote could not take place in the buildings where we worked and was told that they were not allowed to conduct union business in State facilities. The voting place for Olympia was downtown Olympia at the Union Headquarters. Most people that even knew about the vote had to put in for leave to go vote. Additionally, there was no parking close to the facility because the Union people came out in force and took all of the parking places. In other words, they made it as hard as possible for non-union workers to vote.
The Union dues are 1.3% of the employees’ wages up to a maximum of $55 per month.
I used to be a Union member several years ago but quit because I did not want to support their political candidates – all Democrats.