My mother and father, my paternal uncles, certain friends of the family back home, and me. This is nothing special. I'm sure there are many, many more regular Americans who are like this.
Posted on 12/20/2005 5:01:30 AM PST by rdb3
The Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE), the state’s largest state employee union, is asking agencies to terminate dozens of workers, some just in time for Christmas. Why is a union, charged with representing the interests of employees, demanding that they be fired?Simple: They haven’t paid their union dues.
The state’s new collective bargaining agreements, negotiated in 2004, require all covered employees—some 53,000 general government workers—to join the union or pay nonmember “representation fees.”
Hundreds of state workers objected to the mandatory dues, as they were not informed of this change before ratifying the collective bargaining agreements in September 2004. Additionally, they protested the coercive nature of the change—they must pay for union representation whether they want it or not.
Despite the outcry, the new contract went into effect July 1, 2005. When the deadline for paying union fees arrived, some 3,000 had still not signed their authorization cards. The union began notifying employees they were in non-compliance and would be terminated, as required by the contract. In November, the WFSE gave the state Labor Relations Office a list of 800 workers who had not yet paid. Pressure from both union representatives and management whittled the list down to about 300 hold-outs by December 10.
Now workers are getting “final warning” phone calls and letters from their agencies. Those who resist will be handed their pink slip in the next few weeks.
For those who have decided to keep their jobs, there is little tangible benefit to having union representation. Although unionized employees received a 3.2 percent salary increase, the raise was eaten up by union dues and increased health and pension contributions.
So who really benefits from this mandatory union representation?
Washington public-sector unions are clearly the immediate beneficiary. According to the Office of Financial Management, the average union employee will earn $41,236 in fiscal year 2006. With WFSE dues set at 1.37 percent of salary, the average employee will pay $564 annually in dues.
The union, therefore, will collect over $20 million from its members. This windfall is only possible because employees are forced to pay if they want to keep their jobs. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation recently conducted an informal survey of 1,700 state workers. Sixty-nine percent said they joined their union only to avoid termination.
Pro-labor politicians also stand to benefit from the unionization of state employees. In 2004, organized labor underwrote Governor Gregoire’s recount effort with $620,000 in contributions. Washington unions can also be credited with the Democrat majorities in both houses of the state legislature, after giving over $882,000 to Democrat legislative candidates in 2004.
Washington has effectively handed control of state employment over to union officials. Sadly, public service is no longer based on qualification or experience, but on membership in a private organization driven by political self-interest.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
I would have my resume ready if I were them.
Nothing new here. I was almost fired from McDonnell Douglas back in '68 for the same reason (by the UAW). The deductions were taken from my check automatically but there was an accounting screwup.
aren't union dues automatically payroll deducted?
Is that supposed to make some sort of difference?
Glad I'm not in a union!
Back in '68 I was grudgingly paying my Union Dues but was almost fired because I wouldn't "voluntarily donate" to the AFL-CIO's COPE (committee on political education"). After several threatening meetings with the shop steward and union officers I finally paid. They wanted 100% Voluntary participation (ala Marx and Lenin). Pay or lose your job.
Nothing like having a 'choice', pay or pay? Did the non-union members get to vote on the 2004 contract that required a union shop?
The transit authority in new york should all be fired, and, this must pay representation in your article is indeed bullshit. But, in my particular union, I am rather envious of these cats who are retiring after 35 years and getting $3,500 a month in pension. We all talk about companies who just let their old timers go and give them nothing in the end, or cut out what they were getting. This is the last of it ya know? Where else you gonna work for thirty years and get something in the end if you are not disciplined enough to bank your own money? I know, I know... We need to be disciplined.... but how many folks actually are that disciplined?? Taking money is a way of forcing the banking of hours...
If I need to clarify, I can, but I think I got you the message...
My mother and father, my paternal uncles, certain friends of the family back home, and me. This is nothing special. I'm sure there are many, many more regular Americans who are like this.
The biggest employer IN the state of Washington IS the state of Washington.
I am not opposed to getting rid of a few state employees, by whatever means.
How 'bout you?
In the post, "My mother and father, my paternal uncles, certain friends of the family back home, and me."
Asked and answered.
Outrageous!
Hope you can do it man, seriously. If you make enough to bank some away, god bless ya for doin' so. I work in construction and when laid off, do side work to pay the bills, against the unions wishes. A single income family, three kids and a stay at home mom, takes a lot these days and having something at the end of the month is not too common....
And without union negotiations??? There wouldn't be a raise...The cost of the pension and health benefits would have been a net negative on the paycheck...
But realistically, without the union, there would be no pension and likely no or little health coverage...What are these people whining about???
Is this legal?
"But realistically, without the union, there would be no pension and likely no or little health coverage...What are these people whining about???"
You are writing that if the union were to cease representing the employees the state would eliminate health care and pensions?
Well, if it's a legal contract then all the Freepers who are saying the NY transit workers have to be fired will also be saying all the non-payers in Washington have to be fired. "It's the Law!" and all that.
In New York? --- What do they say in NYC -- FUGGEDDABATTIT !!! You would be lucky if you weren't "sleeping with the fishes".
When I worked on the Big Dig as a field engineer, some of my crew, while taking home almost $2500 a week, were broke by Monday. Drugs, gambling, hookers & strips joints. Not a very disciplined bunch. I have no clue how they passed urinalysis.
One time, I had to figure out how to get rid of a foreman, he was way high on heroin at 8 in the morning. I ended up calling an ambulance. i didn't want the liability of kicking him off the job and getting hurt on his way to the gate.
The great majority of the guys were hard working family men, though.
In New York? --- What do they say in NYC -- FUGGEDDABATTIT !!! You would be lucky if you weren't "sleeping with the fishes".
oops. Wring thread. They have conservative lawyers in Washington state? The fuggeddabattit statement stays. Replace fishes with salmon.
"Sadly, public service is no longer based on qualification or experience, but on membership in a private organization driven by political self-interest."
Sadly many large private companies are doing the same thing when they force diversity mantra. Mediocrity and hate is rewarded in order to please the leftest, lawyers and homos.
I'm sure that there's a point in there somewhere...
ping
ping
Now here is a thread your posts would be more appropriate on!
;)
Thanks - forcing people to be in a union is a violation of their rights. Possibly the right to freedom of assembly, though I am not a constitutional scholar. Regardless, it's wrong.
"And without union negotiations??? There wouldn't be a raise...The cost of the pension and health benefits would have been a net negative on the paycheck...
But realistically, without the union, there would be no pension and likely no or little health coverage...What are these people whining about???"
What do you think everybody else in this world does? They can negotiate their own wages, pensions and benefits.
I'm in a closed shop union, that means I have to belong if I want to work there. The only thing the union does there is to keep the company from firing the people that won't work.
If they got rid of the freeloaders in the union then I'd be getting paid more.
ping
Is it a sin to wish great violence on these people? Seriously...
They will be replaced by full union members.
There's something that's handed out to employees that's called a 'contract'...You may not be familiar with it...Either in the contract, or the company's Code of Conduct Rules, there are provisions for terminating lazy or non productive employees...And you can bet the company will adhere to the Code of Conduct rules if they are violated...And the union has no recourse...
If they got rid of the freeloaders in the union then I'd be getting paid more.
Yeah, all non union shops pay more than union shops...A little research might benefit you...
"Either in the contract, or the company's Code of Conduct Rules, there are provisions for terminating lazy or non productive employees...And you can bet the company will adhere to the Code of Conduct rules if they are violated...And the union has no recourse..."
I don't know what kind of union or company that you work for, but it's not that way where I work. We have lazy, unproductive employees that have been here for years and they are still here. Some supervisors have worked for several years trying to get rid of people. They can't do it. The union files suit, gets the NLRB and finds some loophole to keep them. Do you understand that?
"Yeah, all non union shops pay more than union shops...A little research might benefit you..."
A little thinking might tell you that if you aren't supporting a bunch of deadwood, then the company makes more profit and can afford to pay you more. And if you stand on your own two feet, then the company is not looking at all the others as an anchor.
You might also follow the news and read that pretty much all big unions are dragging their companies into the ground.
What did they waste their money on...?
Nothing like forced wage garnishment for the mob's limos.
Disband and throw the middlemen out...
Did I say waste? LOL!
The NLRB hasn't been pro labor since the 70's...If the NLRB sides with the union, your company doesn't have any legitimate charges...
IF these employee meet the production and attendance requirements they will and should have a job...If they don't, the NLRB will not side with them...
More likely a personality comflict, which will be protected by the union, thankfully...
A little thinking might tell you that if you aren't supporting a bunch of deadwood, then the company makes more profit and can afford to pay you more.
Yes they could...But they don't...And they won't...History bears that out...
You might also follow the news and read that pretty much all big unions are dragging their companies into the ground.
Oh, really??? Up until this year, the car companies were boasting of 3billion dollars in profit per quarter, in spite of the union...
They are an antiquated idea which do far more damage than good, in the long run.
Unions = Mafia style protection, for a fee of course.
Is the lack of discipline in some good enough justification to force the fruits of union labor onto everyone else? I may be disciplined enough to save for my family, but I don't even get the choice to opt out of the union dues if my employer is a union shop. It's coercive and punitive of everyone else.
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.