Vermont approves mandatory fees on non-union members

[footfootfoot]

What the fucking fuck? If I have to kick in union fees, then I'm quitting. I don't earn enough here to live on, much less contribute to unions that I don't belong to.

http://vtdigger.org/2013/02/07/senat...union-members/

The state Senate has approved mandatory fees on non-union members for services they receive, such as representation in grievances and collective bargaining, which under law unions must provide even to non-members.

The Senate bill passed 24-5 Wednesday, and is the first substantive bill to pass the Senate this session. It now faces consideration in the House.

About 2,100 school teachers and support staff, 542 state employees, and 31 municipal employees would have to pay fees capped at 85 percent of full union dues. For education workers, annual fees would range from $150 to $350, with doubled fees for teachers compared to school staff, who include custodians and cafeteria workers.

School boards largely oppose the legislation, which sailed through committee and enjoys widespread support from lawmakers.

Joel Cook, head of the Vermont-NEA, the state’s teacher union, is a key backer of the legislation.

Opposing arguments include the idea that the substantial fee effectively forces non-union members into joining unions, and that the hundreds of thousands in revenues generated by these so-called “fair share” fees could be misdirected towards union political activity.

[glatt]

That's BS.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No problem, just pass a law that the unions don't have to represent non-members.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No problem, just pass a law that the unions don't have to represent non-members.

I'd be happy to because the nature of my employment is such that I derive none of the benefits that the unions have gotten for the non-union members.

We are at will pond scum employees, we are required to pay into a retirement account but have no other benefits of any kind.

If I'm work for hire, then let me make my choices about where my $ goes.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In that case, are you sure this applies to you?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

That's BS.

so, you're in favor of free riders?

[BigV]

From the article linked in the opening post

Opposing arguments include the idea that the substantial fee effectively forces non-union members into joining unions, and that the hundreds of thousands in revenues generated by these so-called “fair share” fees could be misdirected towards union political activity.

Ayuh, could happen, could happen. But by the same logic, who would pay taxes then? Any money paid to an organization can be "misdirected". Not a very reasonable counterargument.

charges of embezzlement, in VT. It could happen, right?

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

In that case, are you sure this applies to you?

I haven't heard directly from the school yet, but the story said "Support staff" which is where I sit on the totem pole. We'll see. If it goes into effect next year it may be moot as my boss doesn't think my skilz match the required skilz for the job.

[xoxoxoBruce]

...that the hundreds of thousands in revenues generated by these so-called “fair share” fees could be misdirected towards union political activity.

There are very strict federal laws covering that activity so if it was detected it can be easily stopped. As a matter of fact union members have to sign off in writing on any portion of their money being used for political purposes.

[footfootfoot]

I just spoke with a cow orker about this and she thinks it may only apply to workers with contracts, not bottom feeders like us.

[Happy Monkey]

That's what the article seemed to say; they are fees for services rendered, like contract negotiation. If you aren't covered by their services, you shouldn't have to pay the fees.