Public employee mandatory union dues
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
if they're not a member of the union.
That's a bad idea.
Does that include MTA subway, bus, and railroad employees?
danny burstein
Just about all gov't "non exempt" employees.
At this moment, though, it does NOT include
the main NYC subway and bus union, TWU-Local-100.
(Determining the reason is left as an exercise
to the student).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Stephen Sprunk
> The NYT reported that "all public employees" must pay union dues even
> if they're not a member of the union.
>
> That's a bad idea.
I don't see how that's legal. My understanding is that if employees are
not required to be members of the union, by federal law non-members are
only required to pay an "agency fee" to a certified union that
represents them in collective bargaining, not full union dues.
Is it possible that the reporter didn't understand the distinction? Or
is there some loophole in the law that needs fixing? Or is NYC/NYS
doing something illegal?
S
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > The NYT reported that "all public employees" must pay union dues even
> > if they're not a member of the union.
>
> > That's a bad idea.
>
> I don't see how that's legal. My understanding is that if employees are
> not required to be members of the union, by federal law non-members are
> only required to pay an "agency fee" to a certified union that
> represents them in collective bargaining, not full union dues.
Yes, you're right. But as it turns out, the "agency fee" is fairly
close in amount to full union dues. Hmmmmm.
BTW, the agency fee can include political lobbying, for which unions
spend a great deal of money on. I don't think it's right that a union
should spend someone's money on candidates or issues a person may not
even like, even if the union thinks it is in their interest.
danny burstein
>BTW, the agency fee can include political lobbying, for which unions
>spend a great deal of money on.
Addressed by the US Supreme Court, in
"Communications Workers v. Beck" (1988)
where they ruled that the payers can request,
and get... back any dues money that went
to such political purposes.
Joseph D. Korman
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:26:07 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In <a9dc874c-a5a8-41f6...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>
>>
>>>The NYT reported that "all public employees" must pay union dues even
>>>if they're not a member of the union.
>>
>>>That's a bad idea.
>>
>>>Does that include MTA subway, bus, and railroad employees?
>>
>>Just about all gov't "non exempt" employees.
>>
>>At this moment, though, it does NOT include
>>the main NYC subway and bus union, TWU-Local-100.
>>
>>(Determining the reason is left as an exercise
>>to the student).
>
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
The penalty from the strike was that they lost the payroll check-off,
which means the shop stewards have to go begging for dues from the
members. I believe all hourly and some supervisory employees must
belong to the union for their division/title.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> >BTW, the agency fee can include political lobbying, for which unions
> >spend a great deal of money on.
>
> Addressed by the US Supreme Court, in
>
> "Communications Workers v. Beck" (1988)
>
> where they ruled that the payers can request,
> and get... back any dues money that went
> to such political purposes.
People who are represented by CWA applied for such a refund. Checks
were mailed out, to the tune of $0.01. That's right, they sent out a
check for 1 cent claiming that was the difference.
With this "agency shop"--another term for "closed shop" is that unions
will be beating down the door to represent employees under this rule.
It's even possible a new union will try to outseat the TWU for the
subway workers.
Stephen Sprunk
No, the agency fee _cannot_ include any costs other than those directly
related to collective bargaining.
However, it's very difficult to prove that it does if the union
deliberately lies. Unions are specifically exempted from that part of
the accounting rules and are allowed to claim _zero_ political lobbying
expenses, regardless of how much they actually contribute or spend on
lobbyists, just like they're exempted from various criminal charges like
trespassing, vandalism, assault, obstructing interstate commerce, etc.
It would take a lawsuit, subpoenaing records, and some forensic
accountants to prove they weren't in compliance with federal law, and
anyone who tried it would undoubtedly lose their job for "unrelated"
reasons in the meantime.
S
Peter T. Daniels
Gee, that sounds like something someone in management might imagine.
> It would take a lawsuit, subpoenaing records, and some forensic
> accountants to prove they weren't in compliance with federal law, and
> anyone who tried it would undoubtedly lose their job for "unrelated"
> reasons in the meantime.
Why would management lose someone their job for trying to find dirt
about a union?
Anna.Ma...@gmail.com
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> >The NYT reported that "all public employees" must pay union dues even
> >if they're not a member of the union.
> >Does that include MTA subway, bus, and railroad employees?
>
> Just about all gov't "non exempt" employees.
>
> At this moment, though, it does NOT include
> the main NYC subway and bus union, TWU-Local-100.
You seem to bring up ease of collection, not "must pay" issues.
Please clarify the relationship.
The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper.
danny burstein
>On Jul 24, 1:26=A0pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> >The NYT reported that "all public employees" must pay union dues even
>> >if they're not a member of the union.
>> >Does that include MTA subway, bus, and railroad employees?
>>
>> Just about all gov't "non exempt" employees.
>>
>> At this moment, though, it does NOT include
>> the main NYC subway and bus union, TWU-Local-100.
>You seem to bring up ease of collection, not "must pay" issues.
>Please clarify the relationship.
All unions in NYS [a] have "dues checkoff" privilges, which
let the union grab the dues directly from the paychecks.
This effectively mandates a full 100 percent coverage and
payment by all employees, whether they are actual members
or "agency shop".
TWU-100 _lost_ this as a result of the strike.
There are conflicting pubic reports as to how many
of the members have are paying, with a typical number
being about 45 percent. (Note that's unverified).
[a] ok, I'm sure someone will find there's an
exception somewhere.
Anna.Ma...@gmail.com
> In <9c0ee98c-9f23-4d06-8295-857f94ef4...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com> Anna.Marek6...@gmail.com writes:
> >On Jul 24, 1:26=A0pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> >> >The NYT reported that "all public employees" must pay union dues even
> >> >if they're not a member of the union.
> >> >Does that include MTA subway, bus, and railroad employees?
>
> >> Just about all gov't "non exempt" employees.
>
> >> At this moment, though, it does NOT include
> >> the main NYC subway and bus union, TWU-Local-100.
> >You seem to bring up ease of collection, not "must pay" issues.
> >Please clarify the relationship.
>
> All unions in NYS [a] have "dues checkoff" privilges, which
> let the union grab the dues directly from the paychecks.
>
> This effectively mandates a full 100 percent coverage and
> payment by all employees, whether they are actual members
> or "agency shop".
>
> TWU-100 _lost_ this as a result of the strike.
>
> There are conflicting pubic reports as to how many
> of the members have are paying, with a typical number
> being about 45 percent. (Note that's unverified).
Are you saying the TWU-100 union dues are no longer mandatory,
ignoring the issue of ease of collection?
Stephen Sprunk
> On Jul 25, 8:42 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> No, the agency fee _cannot_ include any costs other than those directly
>> related to collective bargaining.
>>
>> However, it's very difficult to prove that it does if the union
>> deliberately lies. Unions are specifically exempted from that part of
>> the accounting rules and are allowed to claim _zero_ political lobbying
>> expenses, regardless of how much they actually contribute or spend on
>> lobbyists, just like they're exempted from various criminal charges like
>> trespassing, vandalism, assault, obstructing interstate commerce, etc.
>
> Gee, that sounds like something someone in management might imagine.
First of all, it's fact, not imagination -- go check the laws yourself.
Second, I'm not in management.
>> It would take a lawsuit, subpoenaing records, and some forensic
>> accountants to prove they weren't in compliance with federal law, and
>> anyone who tried it would undoubtedly lose their job for "unrelated"
>> reasons in the meantime.
>
> Why would management lose someone their job for trying to find dirt
> about a union?
Management wouldn't want to, but that person's union "friends" would
find a way to make sure they got fired for something, real or imagined.
Have you forgotten the extensive ties that unions have been repeatedly
shown to have with organized crime? They learned a lot of tactics from
their mobster friends.
S
Joseph D. Korman
Mandatory by whose reckoning? I believe that all subway and most bus
hourly employees must be in the TWU - other bus divisions have different
unions, but the TWU has lost check-off privileges. Must they still pay
the union? Probably, but it's more difficult for the union.
Depending on a number of things, just about every hourly employee is a
member of one union or another. Most supervisors and some professional
and administrative titles are unionized too. I believe there is no
choice, if you're in a particular title and it is unionized, you must
join that union.
There may be a few titles that have no union affiliation, probably
grandfathered in by previous company rules.
Peter T. Daniels
That was a long, long time ago.
Peter T. Daniels
> >On Jul 24, 1:26=A0pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> >> >The NYT reported that "all public employees" must pay union dues even
> >> >if they're not a member of the union.
> >> >Does that include MTA subway, bus, and railroad employees?
>
> >> Just about all gov't "non exempt" employees.
>
> >> At this moment, though, it does NOT include
> >> the main NYC subway and bus union, TWU-Local-100.
> >You seem to bring up ease of collection, not "must pay" issues.
> >Please clarify the relationship.
>
> All unions in NYS [a] have "dues checkoff" privilges, which
> let the union grab the dues directly from the paychecks.
Yeah, just like the insurance company "grabs" its premium, and the
governments "grab" their taxes.
danny burstein
[ snip ]
>>
>> Management wouldn't want to, but that person's union "friends" would
>> find a way to make sure they got fired for something, real or imagined.
>> Have you forgotten the extensive ties that unions have been repeatedly
>> shown to have with organized crime? They learned a lot of tactics from
>> their mobster friends.
>That was a long, long time ago.
For some definition of "long ago" that goes back
just a couple of weeks.
Analysis&Solutions
>For some definition of "long ago" that goes back
>just a couple of weeks.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks for the laugh. Hope you're enjoying the lovely
weather.
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409
Peter T. Daniels
> In <6a69d85c-70e2-4d9e-bee9-abacabc35...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> [ snip ] the attribution of whoever wrote the following paragraph:
>
>
>
> >> Management wouldn't want to, but that person's union "friends" would
> >> find a way to make sure they got fired for something, real or imagined.
> >> Have you forgotten the extensive ties that unions have been repeatedly
> >> shown to have with organized crime? They learned a lot of tactics from
> >> their mobster friends.
> >That was a long, long time ago.
>
> For some definition of "long ago" that goes back
> just a couple of weeks.
You're thinking of some instance of a "tie" of a union with "organized
crime" that took place in July 2008?
danny burstein
Here's a transit related one that just got some news earlier this year. There
are plenty more in the pipeline.
(Which is nothing compared to the nastiness from
some membrs of "big business", but thar doesn't
excuse them).
http://www.thechief-leader.com/news/2008/0201/news/003.html
chris.li...@gmail.com
Come on, Peter. I work near Ground Zero and the stink from DC37 HQ on
Barclay Street permeates the whole area.
And I am proud to be a union member (not DC37) and I support organized
labor and I think the corporitization of America is putting us on the
road to a Fascist state worse then Mussolini's Italy. But it does no
one any good to pretend there are not still ties to organized crime
(less obvious, less violent, more insidious) in the AFL-CIO (and I AM
affiliated with them, through NYSUT).
Chris
Peter T. Daniels
My mother was a member of DC 37 for 40 years or so. What harm did it
do her?
Anna.Ma...@gmail.com
>
> My mother was a member of DC 37 for 40 years or so.
> What harm did it do her?
It aged her 51 years?
They allowed the AFL-CIO to soak DC 37 members?
DC 37 Soaks Its Own
April 11, 2008
This week, thousands of District Council 37 members received a notice
in the mail from the AFSCME "Union Plus" MasterCard. The "Union Plus"
card, which is advertised and available throughout DC 37, is raising
its interest rates dramatically.
Now Union Plus cardmembers will see a 21.99-percent interest rate on
cash advances. The "Default APR," which is 19.99 percent, will be
triggered if any card-member pays more than three days late twice in a
year. Late-payment fees and overlimit fees are also rising.
The "Union Plus" card is a significant source of revenue for the AFL-
CIO, and AFSCME President Gerald McEntee sits on its board. But it
seems to this DC 37 member that the Union Plus card is now joining in
the rush to soak the working families of America. These rates are
obscene and unfair.
--
Shut down those stinky OTB parlors
Peter T. Daniels
Bzzt, wrong again. She never used a credit card in her life.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Probably nothing. But that has no bearing on DC7 criminal activities.
The vast majority of rank and file were completely honest. A fair
portion of the management- and I worked there a while, although I was
never part of that union- was crooked as hell.
Chris
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:20:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >My mother was a member of DC 37 for 40 years or so. What harm did it
> >do her?
>
Bzzt, wrong as usual. That happened six years before she went to work
for the city.
Bolwerk
You're casting a pretty wide net. Not all unions are the Teamsters. :-\
john...@nyc.rr.com
> With this "agency shop"--another term for "closed shop" is that unions
> will be beating down the door to represent employees under this rule.
Not really, in a closed shop a person has to be a union member to get
hired. In a union shop a person has to join the union once hired.
In an agency shop a person has to pay an agency fee.
john...@nyc.rr.com
> >
> Why would management lose someone their job for trying to find dirt
> about a union?
Most sensible management and labor people recognize that labor
relations is a game and they play it. The Transit Authority has a bus
depot named for Mike Quill who was the president of the TWU. Quill and
TA management may have played hard but in the end they respected each
other.
By the way, the Yankees and Red Sox don't hate each other either.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Almost all unions belong to the AFL-CIO, or have at one time or
another. The Teamsters are a far-flung group. As I said, even my union
(NY State United Teachers) is an affiliate. My local, though, is way
too incompetent to ever have had any mob connections. I think.
Chris
Anna.Ma...@gmail.com
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Teamsters are a far-flung group.
I remember when Weekend Update showed a shoe on the ground in a photo
from a Mars lander, and said the FBI had identified it as belonging to
Jimmy Hoffa.
Bolwerk
That's like complaining that they all give money to the Democrats or
Republicans, except the AFL-CIO probably isn't as criminally corrupt as
the Republicans.
Personally, I'd have a lot more respect for American unions if they
worried about their workers' needs and not about broader politics, but
c'est la vie.
Anna.Ma...@gmail.com
> Bzzt, wrong again. She never used a credit card in her life.
Daniels, are you confirming I'm not troll, or are you confirming you
just can't resist my charms?
You said, "Bzzt, wrong again." However, I merely asked a question.
You need a refresher course in basic linguistics.
Peter T. Daniels
You need a basic course in the English language. I asked what harm the
union did to my mother, and you responded that it stuck her with a
credit card with an excessive interest rate.
Phil Kane
> The Transit Authority has a bus
>depot named for Mike Quill who was the president of the TWU. Quill and
>TA management may have played hard but in the end they respected each
>other.
In contrast to Mayor John Lindsay. Did Mike really continue to call
him "Linsley" ?
What position in either the TWU or the MTA did Jackie Gleason hold?
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District
danny burstein
>What position in either the TWU or the MTA did Jackie Gleason hold?
Dunno about Gleason, but there was this guy names Ralph Kramden
who was a bus driver.
(For a privat company, no less!).
Anna.Ma...@gmail.com
You are hallucinating that I made such an assertion.
Go on, Petey, produce my statement asserting such.
You are so picayune, claiming a question is an assertion just so you
could post a "bzzt! wrong", and doing so after pestering
chris.linthompson that I shouldn't be responded to since I'm a troll.
You couldn't even answer my question about that, you luser.
Anna.Ma...@gmail.com
> In <j9eq841loeetgeq7hd883tcs83dmj9k...@4ax.com> Phil Kane <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
>
> >What position in either the TWU or the MTA did Jackie Gleason hold?
>
> Dunno about Gleason, but there was this guy names Ralph Kramden
> who was a bus driver.
Okay...
Not too many years ago, 1979-1986, the Chairman and CEO of AT&T was
named Charlie Brown.
Joseph D. Korman
> In <j9eq841loeetgeq7h...@4ax.com> Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
>
>
>
>>What position in either the TWU or the MTA did Jackie Gleason hold?
>
>
> Dunno about Gleason, but there was this guy names Ralph Kramden
> who was a bus driver.
>
> (For a privat company, no less!).
I always considered naming the depot after Gleason and not Kramden the
final insult to poor Ralph!
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
chris.li...@gmail.com
That's a persistent complaint in my union. They spend so much time
saving the world, resources for keeping our salaries in line with
inflation suffer. It's great to stand up and say "Pataki must go" but
when you're responsible for the welfare of a few thousand members, and
Pataki has a 40-point lead in the polls, Realpolitik has to play a
role in your endorsement strategy. We really took a hit from Pataki
(much worse than other teaching locals) and I am sure that's part of
the reason.
Chris
Joseph D. Korman
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:33:07 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
> <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>danny burstein wrote:
>>
>>>In <j9eq841loeetgeq7h...@4ax.com> Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What position in either the TWU or the MTA did Jackie Gleason hold?
>>>
>>>
>>>Dunno about Gleason, but there was this guy names Ralph Kramden
>>>who was a bus driver.
>>>
>>>(For a privat company, no less!).
>>
>>I always considered naming the depot after Gleason and not Kramden the
>>final insult to poor Ralph!
>
> that's really quite foolish because ralph kramden never existed, he
> was a fictional character played by gleason. gleason is the one who
> gave "life" to kramden and he was rightfully the one who was honored
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Sorry I left out the smiley.
Peter T. Daniels
> jdoe wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:33:07 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
> > <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>danny burstein wrote:
>
>
> >>>>What position in either the TWU or the MTA did Jackie Gleason hold?
>
> >>>Dunno about Gleason, but there was this guy names Ralph Kramden
> >>>who was a bus driver.
>
> >>>(For a privat company, no less!).
>
> >>I always considered naming the depot after Gleason and not Kramden the
> >>final insult to poor Ralph!
>
> > that's really quite foolish because ralph kramden never existed, he
> > was a fictional character played by gleason. gleason is the one who
> > gave "life" to kramden and he was rightfully the one who was honored
> Sorry I left out the smiley.
Presumably Marcie would prefer a statue of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson to
the statue of Alice in Central Park.
danny burstein
>> >> their mobster friends.
>> >That was a long, long time ago.
>>
>> For some definition of "long ago" that goes back
>> just a couple of weeks.
>You're thinking of some instance of a "tie" of a union with "organized
>crime" that took place in July 2008?
And just to emphasize the point, we've got today's paper::
"The New York City local of the union of operators of
heavy equipment, including cranes, is consenting to i
supervision by a federal court in an effort to rid
itself of corruption.
......
"Over the last several years, federal prosecutors have
brought several cases alleging that associates from the
Colombo and Genovese crime families were receiving no-show
jobs arranged by representatives of Local 14, according
to the press release..."
rest:
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/crane-operators-union-agrees-to-court-supervision/82795/
and
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nye/pr/2008/2008jul28.html
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> On Jul 25, 8:54 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why would management lose someone their job for trying to find dirt
> > about a union?
>
> Most sensible management and labor people recognize that labor
> relations is a game and they play it. The Transit Authority has a bus
> depot named for Mike Quill who was the president of the TWU. Quill and
> TA management may have played hard but in the end they respected each
> other.
I do not agree that Quill 'respected' the TA. As I understand it
(correct me if I'm wrong), the 1960s strike was gonna happen no matter
what. To me, that is anything but respect.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:46:12 -0500, Stephen Sprunk
> <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> The NYT reported that "all public employees" must pay union dues even
>>> if they're not a member of the union.
>>>
>>> That's a bad idea.
>> I don't see how that's legal. My understanding is that if employees are
>> not required to be members of the union, by federal law non-members are
>> only required to pay an "agency fee" to a certified union that
>> represents them in collective bargaining, not full union dues.
>
> It depends on whether the state involved is a right-to-work state. In
> a right-to-work state, it's illegal to compel employees to be members
> of a union. NYS is NOT a right-to-work state.
Did you miss the "if employees are not required to be members of the
union" part that you quoted?
S
danny burstein
>No, didn't miss a thing, thanks. You can't compel anybody to pay any
>fee or dues to anybody if you're in a right-to-work state.
Just wondering (and couldn't find an easy answer)
whether that would apply to federal and quasi-federal
employees (such as the Postal Service) in those states.
Anyone know? Thanks.
Anna.Ma...@gmail.com
> Cyrus Afzali writes:
>
> >No, didn't miss a thing, thanks. You can't compel anybody to pay any
> >fee or dues to anybody if you're in a right-to-work state.
>
> Just wondering (and couldn't find an easy answer)
> whether that would apply to federal and quasi-federal
> employees (such as the Postal Service) in those states.
I saw a documentary that proved (outer-space) aliens work in the Post
Office.
Will Smith narrated.
Phil Kane
>I do not agree that Quill 'respected' the TA. As I understand it
>(correct me if I'm wrong), the 1960s strike was gonna happen no matter
>what. To me, that is anything but respect.
As I remember it,the game was that Mike Quill and the Mayor and MTA
bigwigs would fight like cats and dogs for a while, and at the last
minute would make up and play nice and each go off to his respective
"victory" party. Each one had a defines role in this game.
John Lindsay wouldn't play that game after he was inaugurated in 1965
and sent Mike Quill to jail as a martyr...Mike's last hurrah.
danny burstein
>As I remember it,the game was that Mike Quill and the Mayor and MTA
>bigwigs would fight like cats and dogs for a while, and at the last
>minute would make up and play nice and each go off to his respective
>"victory" party. Each one had a defines role in this game.
>John Lindsay wouldn't play that game after he was inaugurated in 1965
>and sent Mike Quill to jail as a martyr...Mike's last hurrah.
Ummm, the MTA wasn't in place when Lindsay came into office.
He created it a couple of years later.
Ah...
"1968: MTA is created "
www.mta.info/mta/planning/ pdf/080430%20Vision%20for%20Board.ppt
Oh, while Lindsay was elected in 1965, he took office in 1966.
Phil Kane
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>Just wondering (and couldn't find an easy answer)
>whether that would apply to federal and quasi-federal
>employees (such as the Postal Service) in those states.
>
>Anyone know? Thanks.
This retired Federal employee knows very well that Federal employees
who are members of the bargaining unit but not union members are not
required to pay union dues regardless of whether the state that they
are serving in is a "right to work" state or not. They are bound by
the negotiations but have no say whatsoever in the conduct or results
of those negotiations or of the negotiators.
This is set forth in a series of Executive Orders that establish the
right and conditions of collective bargaining over certain matters --
which do not include wages and benefits and certain other items which
are set by The Congress.
Phil Kane
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <7fkv84195tn18cl1i...@4ax.com> Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
>
>>As I remember it,the game was that Mike Quill and the Mayor and MTA
>>bigwigs would fight like cats and dogs for a while, and at the last
>>minute would make up and play nice and each go off to his respective
>>"victory" party. Each one had a defines role in this game.
>
>>John Lindsay wouldn't play that game after he was inaugurated in 1965
>>and sent Mike Quill to jail as a martyr...Mike's last hurrah.
>
>Ummm, the MTA wasn't in place when Lindsay came into office.
>He created it a couple of years later.
>Oh, while Lindsay was elected in 1965, he took office in 1966.
OK - change "MTA" to "NYCTA" and change the date. I was hazy on that,
and took a stab because I was in NY for two weeks in August 1965 to
marry my first (now late) wife. I do remember my then-father-in-law
mentioning in later years that he walked over the Brooklyn Bridge
during the strike and thought that it was before the wedding.
Now I remember - it was the Watts riots (the area in Los Angeles where
I had been a Reserve Deputy Sheriff several years before) that
happened in the summer of 1965.
Stephen Sprunk
> In <indu84pfkgr32haka...@4ax.com> Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz> writes:
>
>> No, didn't miss a thing, thanks. You can't compel anybody to pay any
>> fee or dues to anybody if you're in a right-to-work state.
>
> Just wondering (and couldn't find an easy answer)
> whether that would apply to federal and quasi-federal
> employees (such as the Postal Service) in those states.
>
> Anyone know? Thanks.
State RTW laws do not apply to railroads, airlines, or employers on
certain "federal enclaves". I presume the latter includes the USPS.
S
Stephen Sprunk
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:06:13 -0500, Stephen Sprunk
> fee or dues to anybody if you're in a right-to-work state.
The discussion at hand is about NYS, which is _not_ a Right to Work
state, as you pointed out.
> For better or worse, people who choose not to be a member of a union get
> the FULL benefit from any collective bargaining agreement without having
> to pay one dime in dues or fees.
>
> Next time, have facts line up before you argue.
That is a blatant lie. If the person is covered by a collective
bargaining agreement but is not in a closed or union shop (which
usually, but not always, means they're in a RTW state), they are still
required by federal law to pay an agency fee to whatever entity
represented them in the collective bargaining. All that RTW means is
that they can't be compelled to join the union or pay union dues; it
doesn't exempt them from agency fees.
S
Sancho Panza
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:vskv849km0lqc2t88...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:37:28 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>Just wondering (and couldn't find an easy answer)
>>whether that would apply to federal and quasi-federal
>>employees (such as the Postal Service) in those states.
>>
>>Anyone know? Thanks.
>
> This retired Federal employee knows very well that Federal employees
> who are members of the bargaining unit but not union members are not
> required to pay union dues regardless of whether the state that they
> are serving in is a "right to work" state or not. They are bound by
> the negotiations but have no say whatsoever in the conduct or results
> of those negotiations or of the negotiators.
But they do enjoy the full protection of the contract, especially notable
for features like salaries and grievances.
Phil Kane
<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>> This retired Federal employee knows very well that Federal employees
>> who are members of the bargaining unit but not union members are not
>> required to pay union dues regardless of whether the state that they
>> are serving in is a "right to work" state or not. They are bound by
>> the negotiations but have no say whatsoever in the conduct or results
>> of those negotiations or of the negotiators.
>
>But they do enjoy the full protection of the contract, especially notable
>for features like salaries and grievances.
Grievance procedure, yes. Salaries - not at all. Federal
salaries/wages are set by The Congress and cannot be changed by
collective bargaining.
The only possibility - and that is independent of collective
bargaining - is if the employee claims that the position is
mis-graded, and then there is a lengthy procedure by the Office of
Personnel Management which sends in evaluators to audit exactly what
and how that employee does the job and make recommendations on
reclassification according to existing guidelines. We had that done
once (not to me or others in my classification) and the result was
that the grade was _lowered_.
Be careful of what you ask for.....