The Olympian reports today on Washington Department of Labor and Industries employee Stephen Sergi, who has refused to join the union representing his workplace colleagues, and who may be fired as a resut. He is not the only state employee resisting mandatory union membership.
Read on. (Mac Safari users must click on time stamp below, to continue).
To Sergi, it's a matter of principle. He said everything about the ratification of the contract requiring dues was suspicious -- the late notice of the vote, the location of the vote at union headquarters, the silence of management on the issue and the amount of money the union stands to gain through new members. "It was all so below-board and hidden. It's wrong on so many levels. It's hard for me to believe they would actually fire me, but who knows?"....Sergi said he is still "testing the waters" on how far he will push his refusal to join the union. He said he has considered forcing the agency to fire him and following with a lawsuit, but he is not sure whether he could afford that.
By the end of the month, the union expects to have a list of workers who have been warned and who still have not turned in a union card...That list will be given to the state agencies.....Sergi said he hopes it is a long list and that it is not certain that he'll lose his job if he is on it. "I don't think it's a certainty," he said. "I can't picture them (the state) firing 3,000 people."
A majority vote by union membership to accept a collective bargaining agreement should be upheld. However, the agreement should be binding only to the extent that labor has specified obligations to management, and vice versa. A contract that allows labor to force union membership and dues payment on workers who prefer not to belong to the union goes beyond the pale.
Perhaps if public employee labor unions were more about excellence and efficiency instead of job protection for the terminally incompetent and harsh, bullying rhetoric, then mandatory union membership and dues wouldn't smell quite as bad.
Are there any highly competent attorneys with the appropriate experience who would represent Stephen Sergi - and/or others in his shoes - pro bono? I suspect the answer is "Yes."
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at September 19, 2005 09:22 AM | Email Thisex-tor-tion - the illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
Follow the money, a significant portion will be used for political activism.
Posted by: dl on September 19, 2005 09:57 AMYou tell me we have 25 years of Democrat governors and Democrat state agency heads and it's NOT going to be tilted overwhelmingly in one direction?
Posted by: jimg on September 19, 2005 10:07 AMOne option, though, that was taken away from me 6 years go, was the choice to financially support the union or not. As a result of a vote of only the union membership - that to no one's surprise voted to institute fees to non-members - I am now required to support the union financially, regardless of my personal opposition to it as a non-member.
As a Beck Objector, I do have and exersize my right to refuse supporting the political activities of this union, and am required to pay "only" 80% of the normal dues in what is called "agency fee". In doing so, I must give up my right to vote on union matters. In other words, to buy the right to vote on union matters, I have to pay that additional 20% of dues to directly support the policital activities of the union, including its support of Liberal Democrats and the positions of its union alliances that include the AFL-CIO.
Posted by: Mike on September 19, 2005 10:14 AM
Can you imagine a world run by these people? We'd have compulsory membership in approved political parties that contributed to the union you're forced to join in order to remain employed at the job decided for you sometime after being born.
M
Posted by: Mike on September 19, 2005 11:39 AMThe primary purpose of the union appeared to be one of sending out periodic email "updates" telling us how bad the management was and how good the union was at protecting us. The union seemed to serve no other purpose than to act as a rabble rouser constantly bombarding us with messages telling us how evil management was to us. They created a broken work place through this effort.
The entire organization was badly broken and if in the private sector, would have been bankrupt. I could not stand the culture of non-performance, so quit and will never work for either a government or unionized position ever again. (That said, there are, in fact, a few government employees who are really smart, hard working and truly care about what they do. Wish there were a lot more like them.)
Posted by: Tom on September 19, 2005 07:34 PMJust 'Google' their name (above) and you will find them to be enormously helpful. Also, Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Olympia, WA can be of help.
Posted by: Paul J. Henry on September 19, 2005 08:24 PMI believe that would be what we call a DECISIVE majority.
The right wing has been quite successful in recent years through its mau-mauing and gaming the refs. But votes are votes. Look, I'm not whining about Ohio, or butterfly ballots, or Bush v. Gore. You simpering pantywaists, however, cannot let anything go. I hope you enjoy simmering in your fetid swamp of sad grammar and syntax (I won't even address the spelling).
In any real debate (as in life) you need to put up or shut up. On this issue your arguments simply don't cut it, legally, logically, or otherwise. The Right has been very successful over the last decade functioning as the public equivalent of the playground bully. Bully boy tactics no longer work. If you wish to fight, you need to do so with genuine facts -- and be prepared to have factual, substantive support for your positions.
Reasonable people of good will from right, left, and center are open to intelligent dialogue. I would love to see anyone here or elsewhere rise to the challenge.
Posted by: bartelby on September 19, 2005 08:37 PMThe Institute for Justice Washington Chapter (IJ-WA) works to vindicate the constitutional rights of the residents of the Evergreen State. From its offices in Seattle’s Pioneer Square neighborhood, IJ-WA litigates in the areas of economic liberty, educational choice, property rights and free speech. The Washington Chapter specifically concentrates on cases involving those rights secured by the Washington State Constitution.Posted by: tom scott on September 19, 2005 08:53 PM
This is at the heart of Beck and the use of union dues in political activities.To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Does my vehement disagreement allow me to stop paying my taxes?
Posted by: bartelby on September 19, 2005 09:29 PM"Out of 37,000 people represented by the largest state workers union, the Washington Federation of State Employees, more than 29,000 have elected to become full dues-paying members..."Posted by: tom scott on September 19, 2005 09:42 PM
"Out of 37,000 people represented by the largest state workers union, the Washington Federation of State Employees, more than 29,000 have elected to become full dues-paying members..."Was this before or after the coercive Gregoire action?
Out of 37,000 people represented by the largest state workers union, the Washington Federation of State Employees, more than 29,000 have elected to become full dues-paying members, rather than pay a lower fee and lose their voting rights, said spokesman Tim Welch. He said it is an encouraging net gain of 10,000 new union members this year.10,00 new members. My, my, isn't the coercive force of government a wondrous thing.
As a beck objector you are considered a non union member. I would like to know how many of the union members there would be if beck objectors could vote in the unions that so call represent them. Considering they use some of the agency fee to run the voting process. Isn’t that the nice catch 22. You can be forced to pay us to represent you, but if you don’t let us take your money and throw it down the toilet of the Democratic Party. You can’t vote in are high and mighty union.
Here is two solutions to fix the problem.
1. beck objectors are considered union members an can vote.
2. Their not considered union member and you take off the all the money for running the union. This would probably change the -20% to at least -50%.
And surely you didn't equate the formal decisions of our open, Constitutionally established US government with the private, secretive and self-interested activities of union ponzi-scheme operators?
did you?
Posted by: Anon on September 20, 2005 11:22 AMBartelby, You didn't explain why I have to pay all the fees to run the union when all I get out of it is collective bargaining. I don't have to pay political costs, but I still have to pay for the meetings that the union runs, the workshops that the union runs, etc, and I don't even get to vote on the contract. (at least that's what they told me. I am looking into the legality of that since I will be bound by the terms of the contract).
Posted by: Calvin A on September 20, 2005 09:37 PM