Suit says union violates man's religious freedom (to be a bigot...)

A Safeway meat department manager is suing the union representing him for allegedly violating his religious freedom by requiring him to pay dues even though the labor organization supports "special rights for homosexuals."

The National Right to Work Foundation -- which brings legal challenges around the country against what they call "compulsory unionism abuses" -- is representing Kent Safeway worker Daniel Gautschi in the suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

Local labor leaders say the suit is an attempt by a conservative political group -- backed by big business -- to eviscerate union power.

The suit portrays Gautschi as a devout Christian, caught in a union shop where employees are required to pay dues for representation by Local 81 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. To avoid a "conflict between his sincerely held religious beliefs and the requirement that he join or pay fees to Local 81," Gautschi and the local agreed to allow him to pay regular union fees, which the local forwards to charity.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/269197_safeway05.html

when you can get the milk for free?

We now know exactly who these Right to Work For Less dickwads are in bed with.

can I stop paying my taxes now?

...last I checked, I have to pay taxes whereas religious institutions are mostly tax-exempt, and my tax money can be earmarked for "faith-based" initiatives which go against my personal beliefs. I hope he wins and sets a precedent, then I can demand that none of my tax money go to fund any sort of "faith-based" inititiative or any sort of religious institution whatsoever, because it goes against my personal religious beliefs, and that personal religious belief is that all religion is bullshit.

"I hope he wins and sets a precedent...."

I hope the judge says: Wouldn't that be impressive?

Uhoh! Sounds like there is some judicial integrity left kicking in there somewhere!

...the way it is done is that there is a non-member fee that can be paid that is usually about half of what the full dues are. I do not know how much the dues are, but it often is about 10 dollars a month. For the average meat packer, who makes around 18.00 an hour, this should be afffordable.

I am one of the people who brought about this fee because I objected to joining a union I felt did not do their job and we had to take it to court. Believe me, I am from WOBBLY people, but I believe in workers rights, not union rights anymore. After seeing the shoddy and self serving work of the unions I belonged to, where they were busier whoring themselves to the management rather than doing the work they were paid to do while being more than ready to sell all their members down the river for their own gain, well I had had it. I would say unions have got to get thier s**t together and start representing the people, not just themselves. The last national convention I saw that they had, was all full of loan booths, insurance pimps and car hawkers, along with Frist's healthcare buddies. To tell you the truth it looked gaudy and not at all what my grandfather taught me a union should be. No wonder they are dying because how can an average worker feel like they are truly represented when John Sweeney is a golfing buddy of the biggest union buster in American, GWB?????

Closed shops are a good thing all right, as long as it is voted on and approved by all the members. But when someone is hired and know they are required to pay the dues in order to work for that outfit, it is just something that goes along with the job IMO. At least they have a choice as to where they work. As a citizen we have no choice....I have to pay taxes that support a war I do not believe in too. I would go to jail if I refused to pay them, it is part of my duty as an American, I have no choice except to fight against that kind of spending. When you disagree with the philosophies, either work for a nonunion shop, work to make it an "open" (not closed shop) union, or pay IMO.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

You can pay an agency fee, which is around 1.5% of your pay, or you can be a member, which is 2% of your pay. Money from the agency fee can't be used for political purposes.

Some people have legitimate reasons for paying the agency fee, but far too many members of the bargaining unit pay it like it's some kind of money-saving strategy. Of course, it saves them all of seven bucks a month.

Open shops are often useless. All they do is leave union members as targets of the bosses and leave the union in a weakened position. The union is legally required to fight all grievances in a shop, whether you are a member or not. An open shop depletes the resources of the union, so there is little money to fight with. When arguing for a contract, members of an open shop are in a weakened position and they often get shitty contracts.

Open shop is a construcion of the right-to-work movement. It is a concession. Most unions in the north are agency shop (people who don't want to be in a union pay 50-85% of the fees and do not have union membership) This guarantees the worker that his/her dues will only go directly to the legal and administrative fees that keep his/her workplace safe, not political lobbying, etc.

John Sweeney is Bush's golfing buddy? That doesn't even make sense.

Not only is he a golfing buddy, he helped Bush in our efforts to overthrow Venezuela's Ugo Chavez. There was an article in Z magazine that tells all about it about 6 years ago and I believe it is still in their archives online. Also Greg Palast has written about it. When the AFL-CIO was asked why this happened, their only response was that the unions in VZ were "too radical". Sweeney was with the CEO of VZ's oil company who was chosen to take Chavez' place in the executive palace the very night that the people of VZ rose up to reinstall their legitimate president.

One might ask why Sweeney is so much in bed with these people. He was also in on the killing of civil service in my state, btw. Civil service was a powerful tool for labor if they used it ~ but they usually used it as a baseball bat and threat, little more.

Look, you've got to realize that, while unions are made of good hearted, well meaniong people in your home shops, the ones at the top and many in the middle, have little regard for these wonderful people. They will eat their own as quick as anything if it means more money for themselves. Unions are a business and a business has a bottom line. A business is IN business to exploit the worker. It is a dicotomy all right, and a sad situation. If the workers unions are paid to represent threatens that bottom line, the worker is the one who has to go ~ not the union. IMO unions should not be businesses, they should be non-profits or something better. workers will always lose with this scenerio IMO.

As for a closed shop. I agree it is a good thing most of the time. But an open shop mostly happen with governemnt employees, it merely means the union, usually a government representative and already subsidized by the state for being such a union, has to represent people whether or not they pay dues. If you have strong civil service laws, that is about the best protection a worker can have ~ way better than a union. I was raised on this stuff, my parents and grandparents lived and breathed unions...and my 35 years of employment has given me a little insight. There was a time to me when what I am writing would have seemed like pure insanity all right, but I am telling you what I see, is all.

Unfortunately the only protection a worker has are these unions. The only way to make them accountable is a worker's revolution because unions are now just a comfortable part of the "system" and they have no intentions of change. The breakups that have happened recently are a start because I think some people are also seeing this. Until then you will have career union people like the unethical president of the union I speak about who will do anything to keep their jobs and have little problem with taking away the rights of 20,000 people in order to keep their own place. When you rise up and try to decertify or change it, they are in bed with the management they will make sure it is YOUR ass that is mowed, not theirs. It will take as much courage to break this cycle as it did when my grandfather watched the feds storm and gun down the people who stood up 90 years ago. Only this time you have more than the feds, you will have the unions themelves if you dare speak the truth.


My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

My experience with open shop is different, though. I've been on strike for the right to unionize for 6 months and we've had to do a lot of organizing around open and agency shop. Around the 4th month or so, the international swooped down and took control of our strike. They threw a lot of money in, but wreaked havoc with their authoritarian behavior. They took the president of the local off the campaign and replaced her with international reps with really corporate demeanors. As a shop, we've had to really work hard to keep it together. There has been some fear that the international wants us to take a shitty contract and an open shop in order to claim a symbolic victory.

I can see how an open shop might work a little better in certain circumstances, but the industry I'm in has a high turn over rate (and most jobs seem to be veering in that direction). If my union was open shop, we'd spend all of the members resources trying to get non-members to join so that the local could go about the business of representing us.

I agree that unions should be non-profit. It's a travesty that they aren't. I think I'm going to join the IWW in addition to my home union.

if he gets in trouble with the employer he will
go running to the union to defend him, guaranteed.

My SO was the president of a business friendly union
local. It was an uphill battle to get the members to
fight for their rights, until they got in trouble.

As she used to say, "Some people never learn until it
happens to them."

One case she fought was a women who was fired for fraud.
Her boss made her sign expense checks in her bosses name
because he was "too busy". One day he decided he wanted a
younger secretary and turned her into the cops.

The women's husband committed suicide from the stress and
left her a widow with a newborn baby.

someone actually name one, just one?

Edited: add word

I do not see any "special rights" either. Our labor laws, which are weakly defended and enforced anyway, are being undermined as we sit here. I hate to say it but this undermining is often the fault of unions. As I said I am of WOBBLY stock. My grandfather taught me that civil service exists because, in order for the government to enforce labor laws on the books, they had to be a good example and decent employers themselves. Labor laws are far stronger than any union, or were, but unions were the watchdogs of these laws for sure. But in my state, the union I spoke of earlier KILLED civil service for their own gain. Thanks to the "work" that these turncoats did in the late 1980's, they set the precedence for the crap Bush is pulling right now, taking away overtime, indiscriminate firing of workers, and the like. All so they could make more money. Oh and btw, the president of this union is gay and should know better...

I think a big problem with unions is that they are operated like(and some are) businesses themselves. Therefore when there is a choice between their own benefit and the workers, for whom will they stand up? Businesses and agencies are going to make it their life's mission to exploit the worker any way they can for their own bottom line. Unions should not be so concerned about their own bottom line, they are forced to forget the people they are being paid to represent, IMO.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

Safeway should still keep him on though, but slash his pay down to the bare minimum. After all, he doesn't feel he needs the union to protect him, and if he believes that, then by God he should be granted his wish.