Union? I think not!

I have been unionized in my past.  I am unionized at present.  What I do for a living and where I work dictates that I belong...it's easier to belong than to push back.  I have been to the meetings, participated in functions and seen the inner workings firsthand in my 21-year-affiliations.  As a conservative, I believe more in the power of the individual and their capability for excellence than the overall protection of the lowest common denominator.  I could have eventually gone the way of "Beck", but that seemed like a huge unknown hassle. 

What’s Beck?...well, the Beck decision was a landmark 1988 Supreme Court decision (Communications workers v. Beck) in which the Court found that union security agreements do not “permit a union, over the objections of dues-paying nonmember employees, to expend funds so collected [pursuant to a union-security clause] on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration or grievance adjustment”.  Note that when one becomes a “Beck Objector” and does not pay full union dues, one effectively quits the union, becomes a financial-core represented worker, and gives up the right to vote in union elections.  At first the Beck Decision seems simple enough with clear implications but semantics quickly complicates matters.  The Beck decision is problematic because many union members are not aware of their rights to become Beck Objectors.  For example, a 1997 national voter survey found that 67% of union members were not aware of their Beck rights (Boehm).  To date it appears that unions are still fighting hard to keep their members in the dark about these rights. 

Don’t confuse Beck with Right to Work.  Right to Work laws prohibit unions from including certain types of union security clauses in their contracts with companies that effectively force the company to make their employees either join the union or at least pay a proportion of their union dues as a condition of employment.

Proponents of Right to Work laws point to research that says Right to Work laws have a positive effect on states that adopt them while opponents of Right to Work laws do just the opposite.  In theory the Beck decision lets union employees easily avoid paying the proportion of union dues that are being used for political purposes. Unfortunately, becoming a Beck Objector is not always easy.  There have been documented cases in which Beck Objectors have faced harassment and have been given misinformation.  Consequently, proponents of Right to Work suggest this is another reason to adopt a Right to Work law. With a Right to Work law a state’s citizens do not have to go through the ordeal associated with becoming Beck Objectors.

Wisconsin is NOT a Right to Work state...IE: I kept my affiliation pure and “Beck-free” to lower my own stress and hassle-factor.  Basically being a State of Wisconsin (Milwaukee worker) union member is not as much a “choice” as it is a necessity, and when in Rome?  (Complete this yourself)  The ASC “union” I currently belong to is made up of supervisors and administrators of the Milwaukee Public Schools.  In my opinion, (due to my past experience with a “trade” union) it functions as more of a professional association than a dyed in the wool “union”.  The ASC recently did the right thing in my opinion, and settled with MPS, a reasonable deal that has me personally paying my fair share for my own retirement pension and health benefits, and none of my "union brothers and sisters" will be getting pink slips as a result of this clear-headed negotiation.  For the record, the union's always had my dues money, but not my vote as an American...I'll decide that for myself, thank you.

Moving FORWARD!

The State of Wisconsin voting residents recently elected a conservative republican Governor, Scott Walker.  If you’ve been following the drama you know the details, however I’ll thumbnail them out for you now below.   

Keep this question in mind as you read the two events in the timeline: Q: Do teachers have a right to engage in collective bargaining?  - A: There's no federal constitutional right involved, so when it comes to public employees like teachers, it's up to each state.

BW (Before Walker) – AW (After Walker)

1. BW: Government workers unionized in 1959 when Wisconsin became the first state since 1935 (when the NLRA {National Labor Relations Act} was passed on behalf of private workers) to allow its non-private workers to do so. Laws specified which issues could be subject to bargaining, such as pay, benefits, hours, and tenure.  Unions formed and flourished sucking up thousands of government employees, with the promises of the collective bargaining power of the masses.
2. AW: Passage and signing of a law known as “Act 10” in late June of 2011 that repealed the right of state-government workers to bargain for anything but pay increases. Wisconsin had become the first state in decades to roll back collective-bargaining rights. Note: At least eight other states are considering something similar. Proposals in Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio would limit the range of issues subject to bargaining. Other bills in Michigan, Nebraska, and Tennessee would eliminate the right to engage in collective bargaining.   

Here’s what Act 10 now does:

1. Prohibits public employee unions from bargaining anything except “total base wages,” and limits any agreement to no more than the percentage increase (or decrease) in the consumer price index (CPI).
2. Requires an annual supermajority vote of at least 51% all eligible employees, not just those voting, to keep their union.  Without a supermajority vote, the union would be de-certified and could not represent the employees.
3. Prohibits public employers from allowing members to pay union dues through paycheck deductions.
4. Eliminates fair share.  This allows employees to benefit from the union contract, service, and representation - without joining the union and paying union dues.

What’s the point of this blog entry?

I wanted to ask a simple question regarding the Milwaukee Public Schools Milwaukee Teacher’s Education Association (MTEA) members; when is a union member not a union member?

Because the MTEA’s four bargaining units already had contracts in force the new law’s restrictions on collective bargaining will take effect fully when each unit’s contract expires.  For educational assistants, substitute teachers, and school accountants/bookkeepers the expiration date is July 1, 2012; for teachers, on July 1, 2013.

Since the Act 10 law took effect and the State of Wisconsin drastically lowered the amount of taxpayer money headed for MPS (and the MTEA union bargaining units refused to reopen contracts with MPS that would have instituted immediate pension and health benefit employee self-contributions), drastic layoffs of “fellow” unionized teachers were ordered.  These would be the newest, youngest, least-tenured employees to be given pink slips for the upcoming school year.

Now here’s how the MTEA places all blame and sees the ONLY solution with private industry being urged to fill the void, instead of MTEA members):

MTEA President Bob Peterson issued a statement in response to the MPS announcement of the layoffs of 519 school employees:

“These are difficult times for everyone – for our students, our schools and our city. Governor Scott Walker and Senator Alberta Darling, co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee, have slashed funding for public education across the state. For students, families, and educators of our district, the governor’s unprecedented cuts are especially devastating.  Instead of creating jobs, Governor Walker and his Republican supporters have forced the elimination of hundreds of family-sustaining jobs in Milwaukee.  Last September, teachers bargained a concessionary contract with the school board that will save the district $94 million over the next two school years. We call on community stakeholders, particularly the business community, to step up and help solve the district’s immediate budget crisis by matching the $94 million. This would be a significant step toward providing Milwaukee children with the educational opportunities they deserve. We remain committed to working with parents, community and religious groups, labor organizations, businesses, the MPS school board and the MPS administration to strengthen public education for the children of this city.”

I submit that any employee who would continue to call themselves a “Union Member” should demand that contracts be reopened immediately, or be forced from the MTEA as a hypocrite and charlatan.   Why?  Because the union is supposed to be just that – a “union”.  UNION = An association, combination, or organization of employees who band together to secure favorable wages, improved working conditions, and better work hours, and to resolve grievances against employers.  MTEA members have complained that; “they didn't have an individual vote to re-open or not to re-open their contracts, so what are they supposed to do?”  Well, since negotiations are done through a representative committee and those members could just as easily be “convinced” to vote to re-open as not, I further submit that severe self-interest and selfishness is to blame, and the eyes of those with fall 2011 employment need to continue to be averted from those of their unemployed colleagues, out of shame.

So bottom line; when is the MTEA a union and when is it not? – Answer: it sure as hell isn’t now!

Sources:

Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses - John W. Cooper (2004)

MTEA website