Non-Union State Employees Claim Legal Win Over Dues Issue
Source: Courant
By Edmund H. Mahony
The state has quietly settled a suit that challenged what critics claim was a policy permitting a labor union to collect dues from state employees who choose not to be union members.
The settlement, approved Wednesday by a federal judge in Hartford, requires the state and its principal public employees union to modify a payroll system that about 200 state employees claim violated their constitutional right not to participate in union activities
The employees who brought the class action suit are members of a bargaining unit of about 2,300 engineering, scientific and technical personnel. They were represented by the non-profit, Washington, D.C.-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The settlement, endorsed Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, ends what the plaintiffs called a decade-long grievance among non-union employees, but purposely avoids assigning legal liability for the way dues have been deducted in the past from state paychecks.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-public-employee-union-0717-20150716-story.html
Will they give gave the better pay and benefits too?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Seems that would be the next logical step?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)make it easier to take themselves out individually.
It no longer surprises me.
ibewlu606
(160 posts)As a union member/leader, I'm angry because although those people are not members who do not pay dues, the union is obligated to represent them anyway. I wish the laws were changed so those people would have to negotiate their own pay, working conditions and grievance procedures. I would venture that they wouldn't have any problems paying dues then.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,108 posts)... former LUINA/AFL-CIO member. And they are the first ones to gripe about everything and hold the dues paying members in contempt. I say let them discuss their attendance/discipline meetings on their own, get suspended a week or two...
MichMan
(12,677 posts)Unfortunately, under current law regarding exclusive representation, anyone who opts out of being in the union is not allowed to bargain for themselves.
I would love to see this law repealed. That would however also mean that for instance, if the Teamsters represented workers, that the Steelworkers Union, UAW and/or SEIU could also come in and try to entice members to leave the Teamsters and join them instead. Not sure if the union that did all the work to organize them initially would want to take that chance or not
MichMan
(12,677 posts)Upon reading the entire article, the members that opt out are still required to pay agency fees to cover the expenses of representing them.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)They can bargain on their own, the idiots.
Igel
(35,895 posts)"The employees will be required to pay proportional dues to pay for the costs of collective bargaining by the union on workplace issues. But the employees will not be charged for union expenses such as lobbying and political activities."
If you disagree with the union's position--let's say you don't approve of AFT's endorsement of HRC--then you don't have to pay for it. But, for now at least, you have to pay for the bits that provide better pay and benefits.
When I was younger I was a teaching assistant. I was forced to belong to the AFT, in spite of the fact that really I was working to feed and house myself and my teaching assistantship paid for little more than the cost of school. $10 was a lot. So I opted out of the political action portion of the AFT fees.
I'll add that the AFT had carefully negotiated that the % FTE, therefore the $ that the TAs received, be related directly to the number of hours worked. So we filled out the equivalent of timesheets. At the end of my first semester teaching my pay was lowered because on average the 1/4 and 1/2 time TAs were working fewer hours than we were being paid for.