Posted on 11/12/2005 8:03:09 PM PST by Lorianne
CINCINNATI | Five black firefighters who say their union does not represent them effectively do not have pay dues for now, a federal judge has ruled.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Walter Rice means settlement talks are likely between the two sides, said Fanon Rucker, the firefighters' lawyer.
Rucker's clients last year sued the city and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 48 to stop the union from deducting $22 a month from their paychecks. Although the firefighters are no longer members, union official say they still must pay a portion of the dues because they benefit from wage negotiations and representation on grievances.
The ruling requires the union to stop taking dues from the firefighters' paychecks and signals that Rice believes the firefighters are likely winners if the suit goes to trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that unions can collect a share of dues from nonmembers, but only after auditors name the amount.
Rucker says the union's books have not been properly audited, while union officials say the union conducts annual audits any firefighter can examine.
More than 100 black firefighters resigned from the union after the city's riots in 2001. The city's 800-member fire department is 32 percent black.
No one .... (black or otherwise) should be forced to pay union dues. If you dont want to join, you should not be forced to. I know that this is not what the story is about, but I wanted to shoot my mouth off about that since it is simular.
Unions extorting TAXPAYER money from non-members.
makes my eyes cross
The fact they are black has nothing to do with the story. The author makes it sound like a special race-based ruling. Prick!
I bet that same judge says that coerced dues MUST be paid by anyone that isn't black.
There are fewer veterans in the workforce than there are blacks, does the judge agree with the fact that unions most DEFINATELY do not represent THEM!?
I would wager not.
I must correct, the ruling is not based on race, it is just that those who supported the decision manipulated the judgement as though it were race based.
I think. I'm not a lawyer so the connections, and summaries I'm reading are confusing me. So I must retract all of my statements, however, the basic sentiments based on the hypotheticals that I believed I saw I do agree with.
But in truth, I am, at the moment incapable of deciphering exactly what it is that I KNOW I have an opinion about.
Since I'm white, female, and in my mid 40's do you suppose I could sue Soc.Sec for my money now and invest it the way I want to?
Nah, thot not.
Two firefighters are overcome by smoke. One has a UNION sticker on his helmet, one does not. Guess which one will be pulled out of the fire first by UNION firefighters.
Years ago, I thought about withdrawing my membership from my union. The problem was that with the end of my membership, I would have lost the benefits associated with contractual agreements, ie., free vision care and a free dental plan. These were benefits specifically negotiated between the State and my union. At the time, I had two young children who would have also lost those benefits, so I quickly changed my mind. I'm no fan of unions, but if these firefighters aren't going to pay dues, then they shouldn't be afforded the benefits that the union negotiates for them.
ping!
Your spot on! It's exactly what the story is about.
Under the Beck decision (Beck vs. CWA 487US735, 1988) the SCOTUS ruled that you can only be forced to pay a union the amount that they use for administration and collective barganing.
The case is at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=487&invol=735
The point is you still have to pay non-membership fees to the union. That's the cash the unions funnel to the DNC and to city and corporate officials to gain contracts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.