Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,679 posts)
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 06:22 PM Jul 2015

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?
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Non-Union State Employees Claim Legal Win Over Dues Issue (Original Post) Omaha Steve Jul 2015 OP
When will these people NOT be covered by the contract? SoapBox Jul 2015 #1
"engineering, scientific and technical personnel" < likely some of the smartest among us work to jtuck004 Jul 2015 #2
WTF! ibewlu606 Jul 2015 #3
Amen... IthinkThereforeIAM Jul 2015 #8
Current law requires it MichMan Jul 2015 #4
Still required to pay agency fees MichMan Jul 2015 #5
then they should be exempt from Union contracts as well. blackspade Jul 2015 #6
Not really, but they contribute. Igel Jul 2015 #7
Killing the power of unions, one hair at a time. Bastards. nt valerief Jul 2015 #9
 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
2. "engineering, scientific and technical personnel" < likely some of the smartest among us work to
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 06:43 PM
Jul 2015

make it easier to take themselves out individually.

It no longer surprises me.

 

ibewlu606

(160 posts)
3. WTF!
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 06:52 PM
Jul 2015

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

(3,076 posts)
8. Amen...
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 09:01 PM
Jul 2015

... 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

(11,951 posts)
4. Current law requires it
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 07:15 PM
Jul 2015

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

(11,951 posts)
5. Still required to pay agency fees
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 07:41 PM
Jul 2015

Upon reading the entire article, the members that opt out are still required to pay agency fees to cover the expenses of representing them.

Igel

(35,332 posts)
7. Not really, but they contribute.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 09:00 PM
Jul 2015

"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.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Non-Union State Employees...