|
|
Post by fu on Feb 1, 2013 6:44:55 GMT -5
Your union site is in a "right to work" state. Whats the best way to deal with employees who refuse to join the union? Here are some ways that I can think of, if anyone else has any suggestions add them to the list.
1 The best way is to never hire them in the first place. When interviewing applicants have your supervisor inform them that the site is a union site, if you have a couple of applicants and one is fine with the union and the other wants to be a leech and reap the benefits of your CBA without paying their dues hire the one who will join.
2 If you only have one applicant and you have no other choice then to hire the leech make sure they benefit the least from the CBA. Never schedule them for Sunday shifts, make sure they are the last ones called to fill in for any vacant shifts etc.
3 If they make any observation errors or come in late etc document all of this and terminate them for cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by weatherorknot on Feb 1, 2013 22:45:16 GMT -5
Anyone want to point out what's wrong with the above statements?
|
|
sky
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by sky on Feb 2, 2013 9:02:51 GMT -5
There is only one way to take care of this problem....
Doesn't matter if your a union site in a right to work state or not....
ALL UNION STATIONS should have across the board..
A..Upon being hired...you are told that this is a union site and you will be required to join the union and pay monthly dues....And of course reap all the benefits...OR
Pay the same amount of dues monthly to a local charity, and NEVER receive any of the benefits from the union CBA...raises, holidays, sunday dif, nite pay, vacation...no say in any negotiations, etc.
Just good ole salary...then..just then will they wake up an see what a union CBA really does for their station.
We will then have no moochers...period.
|
|
|
|
Post by sluroots on Feb 2, 2013 17:39:01 GMT -5
Never knew that working in this country meant losing your right to choose. And, besides, isn't mooching or reaping the benefits the point of Obama's America???
|
|
|
|
Post by fu on Feb 2, 2013 18:15:28 GMT -5
Do you get to choose what days you work? What time you come in? What time you leave?
|
|
|
|
Post by sluroots on Feb 2, 2013 21:43:23 GMT -5
FU,
If you and others are so adamant about non union members paying dues, then do something about it. Until then, you have no right to tell me or any other non union member in a right to work state what to do. You agreed to pay us "moochers" the same when you joined the union. That's your stupidity if you think that is unfair. There's no point in arguing otherwise. Luckily, I don't work for you and work in a right to work state, so I don't have to pay the blood sucking unions. Got this off of the right to work website. Can't sum it up any better. If you want to have your non unions pay, then you have the right to change the policy, just as I have a right to not choose to be part of the union.
"Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.
Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.
If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.) If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member."
|
|
|
|
Post by fu on Feb 2, 2013 23:04:24 GMT -5
I couldn't care less if you pay dues or not. Fortunately for me and the people at my site we understand the benefits our CBA provides over the WD and we all pay dues. Over the years we have had a few people come in and decide they didn't want to be members. For one reason or another they ended up quitting after a few months, it might have had to do with only getting a shift or two a month at a time they weren't available but we never bothered asking them.
|
|
sky
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by sky on Feb 3, 2013 13:29:46 GMT -5
Trust me Sluroots...you got the part WAY WRONG...The Union representing a NON_UNION Member!!! Won't happen!!! Don't think for a minute that the Union is Obligated IN ANY WAY to represent you...won't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderstruck41 on Feb 6, 2013 11:11:12 GMT -5
fu the problem with your idea is that it goes against everything that a "Right to Work State" represents. Do you like the idea that someone can force you to pay for something you don't want or need? Do your job well, and you will not have to concern yourself with being terminated from your position. The Unions, although a wonderful thing in the beginning, now represents the inadequate souls that do their jobs poorly, but are protected to such an extent that they cannot be terminated, which results in a poorly ran business. Nothing is truly gained from this.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderstruck41 on Feb 6, 2013 14:15:37 GMT -5
FU,
The simple truth of the matter is this, under the Labor Laws:
1. You cannot, under any circumstance not hire someone, because they do not wish to become a member of the Union.
2. Discriminate against someone because of their race, creed, color, or age.
I would think that you might reflect upon yourself, and realize that once you begin hiring/firing for such out-laddish reasons, that it is only a matter of time before you yourself may find yourself out of a job. So, think carefully of what you would like to see implemented.
Could you imagine if someone said, “I don’t want to hire you because you have freckles, or brown hair”?
Sounds hideous, don’t you think?
Also, keep in mind that at the present, the “Right to Work States” has less unemployment than the “Forced-Unionism States”.
You and I can debate on this all day. I honestly doubt that we shall ever agree on this Union thing, but maybe you and I can agree upon this. If you have a job at the present moment, you should be grateful, regardless of if it is Unionized or not.
Sincerely,
ThunderStruck41
|
|
|
|
Post by fu on Feb 6, 2013 14:22:02 GMT -5
fu the problem with your idea is that it goes against everything that a "Right to Work State" represents. Do you like the idea that someone can force you to pay for something you don't want or need? Do your job well, and you will not have to concern yourself with being terminated from your position. The Unions, although a wonderful thing in the beginning, now represents the inadequate souls that do their jobs poorly, but are protected to such an extent that they cannot be terminated, which results in a poorly ran business. Nothing is truly gained from this. I don't know of anyone that performed their job poorly and was protected by the union. |
|
|
|
Post by fu on Feb 6, 2013 14:24:53 GMT -5
FU, Also, keep in mind that at the present, the “Right to Work States” has less unemployment than the “Forced-Unionism States”. Sincerely, ThunderStruck41 Forced unionism states? LOL how do wages stack up in right to work states vs these evil "forced unionism states"? |
|
|
|
Post by thunderstruck41 on Feb 6, 2013 14:27:01 GMT -5
FU,
I would suggest that you ask the Unemployed that question.
|
|
|
|
Post by fu on Feb 6, 2013 14:39:18 GMT -5
OK since you don't want to answer that question how about this one. How do wages stack up at union sites in right to work states vs non union sites in the same state?
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderstruck41 on Feb 6, 2013 14:47:04 GMT -5
Fu,
I did answer your question, presently the Unemployment rate is greater in the Unionism States, where as the Right to Work States is lower. So, the bottom line is this. It is of no relevance how much more money you might think you make vs. someone else. If you are out of a job, you are just that, “out of a job”. No income is any good regardless of who you might be.
|
|
