iowa boy
Well-Known Member
And I was agreeing with what you stated about him being articulate and his posting style.
My apologies to crowbar....I made an ASSumption, and made an ASS out of me. Kudos for the thread crowbar.
Right to Work (for less)
- Thread starter hypocrisy
- Start date
And I was agreeing with what you stated about him being articulate and his posting style.
My apologies to crowbar....I made an ASSumption, and made an ASS out of me. Kudos for the thread crowbar.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Well gosh darn! I guess we agree.
iowa boy
Well-Known Member
Sorry crowbar, my quote above was a poor attempt at humor with regards to FedEx and their pay schedules.
AssistantSanta
Well-Known Member
It's my time and effort and I can do whatever I want with it. If you think its stupid, then you will think what you will. Ability to think and do things that someone else disagrees with or finds stupid is FREEDOM, which I hope you believe in.
I do now, but a month ago I didn't have a clear understanding, neither did you. The fact is, before I corrected you, you believed that one can be required to join the union in order to work in some states before I corrected you. It was cleared up after you did some research, so I don't automatically assume you did this with malice to trick people. Just as you believed that was true, there are people out there who thinks so too.
So, you learned the correct fact here. Other new prospects and hires may come across this thread and clear the misconception they've been instilled. If they don't believe me, I at least hope that it inspires them(as it did you) to go verify it against credible sources; rather than blindly believing what they were told at new work place or what I said.
I wish I knew this well in advance. How many of the seasonal hires are advised of this straight up?
I'm not advocating them to do one way or the other, but I hope that this is informative in helping them understand the options they have and to make that choice for themselves.
How many temp helpers end up chalking up the dues they paid as irrecoverable cost? Do they give it up voluntarily after having been advised of the said option upfront? I sure wasn't and that's a total shame!
You do realize that "contract" you believe in is negotiated right? Negotiation is multiple parties expressing their own needs and coming to an agreement that all can agree on. It is not one side saying what they want to say and refusing to have any of the other parties say.
I think that my posts convey my side of argument clearly. If not, I did the best I can
please ask. I can't guarantee the result, but I WILL DO THE BEST I CAN to clarify it.We were not given the opportunity to take the paperwork home to complete at our own pace nor a number to call with questions.
If I read all the terms & conditions printed in their favor in 3 point font on streaky photocopied page in legalese and asked a whole bunch of questions I might have caught it, but I didn't. I must be ignorant. It's just my opinion but putting people in this position is unconscionable.
You know, like credit card interest policies that say all late payments get applied to the lowest interest rate loan first so that highest interest loan stays in delinquency as long as possible. When you break out the agreement and go through with a fine toothed comb several times you might find it somewhere.
Again, all they've had to do was to put these relevant facts on front page in normal font in plain language.
By the way, isn't it lovely when someone have you sign something that reads "please see reverse side for all terms & conditions" and the back side isn't even printed, yet when you ask them to produce it, they can't locate it? They get you to sign it to get you through the moment and when something goes wrong, that magic backside gets found and they'll find out something phrased in their favor to leave you hanging.
If I was to treat everyone with presumption of malice, read every word single word before signing and ask questions about everything I don't understand(which in many cases the person I'm interacting won't be able to answer) I'll catch many things, but I don't like doing that.
So, long answer short I feel that an organization that says to be advocating for employees should have everything laid out for employees in PLIAN ENGLISH and all the key points in large font. I think its only fair to make avail all options with ease. So, this means
"Yes/No"
Not, by "default it is yes. For any other option you have to figure out who to contact, then from there you've got to make the right contact to opt out"
I believe in honesty. I don't think writing up a contract that opts someone in for the writer's favor and burying the other options in legal mumbo jumbo or omitting entirely is honest.
Last edited:
brett636
Well-Known Member
I am assuming your final word was supposed to be contract? Anyways, if the seasonals don't matter in regards to the contract then why should they be forced to pay union dues? In a non RTW state like mine they must pay union dues, including the initiation fee, even though the union does not benefit them one bit. I'm sorry, but i find that practice wrong.
What I find truly disturbing are the part-timers who are getting disenfranchised the most are those who have never worked for UPS, atleast not yet. The most current contract forces them to wait a year for benefits and another 6 months on top of that to add family members to their insurance all the while having to bust their rear ends for nearly minimum wage pay. They didn't vote for this contract, only fulltimers and part-timers who were not affected by this change did. Bottom line here is if an incoming part-timer is unhappy with this situation they should have the right to keep their initiation fee and dues money in their pocket until the union changes its negotiating tactics come contract time.
Herman Cain was the most qualified individual for the office of the President of the United States. Its no telling now all the good he would have done if he had gone all the way, but unfortunately he was the victim of a public smear campaign brought on by false allegations from women whose real motivations may not be known for sometime, if ever. I leave Herman as my avatar in honor of a man who this country desperately needs in a leadership position.
688upsteamster
Member
If you contact the local and ask them they should refund the dues money, but only if the person calls and ask.
AssistantSanta
Well-Known Member
I think that's been established already. I still find it troublesome knowing they're still made to pay first while fully aware of the fact they will be terminated with less than 30 working days of service.
What reason is there to charge them in the first place other than hoping to hang onto the money knowing many won't jump through all the hoops to get it back?
It's my time and effort and I can do whatever I want with it. If you think its stupid, then you will think what you will. Ability to think and do things that someone else disagrees with or finds stupid is FREEDOM, which I hope you believe in.
I'm sure you feel the same way about OWS.
I do now, but a month ago I didn't have a clear understanding, neither did you. The fact is, before I corrected you, you believed that one can be required to join the union in order to work in some states before I corrected you. It was cleared up after you did some research, so I don't automatically assume you did this with malice to trick people. Just as you believed that was true, there are people out there who thinks so too.
BS. We're supposed to believe that you were completely ignorant about the Union laws in your state, yet just 'found' rtw.org and became enlightened so easily.
So, you learned the correct fact here. Other new prospects and hires may come across this thread and clear the misconception they've been instilled. If they don't believe me, I at least hope that it inspires them(as it did you) to go verify it against credible sources; rather than blindly believing what they were told at new work place or what I said.
Yes, we have so many prospective hires that come here seeking advice.
I wish I knew this well in advance. How many of the seasonal hires are advised of this straight up?
I'm not advocating them to do one way or the other, but I hope that this is informative in helping them understand the options they have and to make that choice for themselves.
How many temp helpers end up chalking up the dues they paid as irrecoverable cost? Do they give it up voluntarily after having been advised of the said option upfront? I sure wasn't and that's a total shame!
It's been repeated several times that dues are tax deductible. What, they don't tell you that at rtw.org?
You do realize that "contract" you believe in is negotiated right? Negotiation is multiple parties expressing their own needs and coming to an agreement that all can agree on. It is not one side saying what they want to say and refusing to have any of the other parties say.
We have contract proposal meetings where any member can suggest a proposal. Those proposals are then discussed and voted on. Then, armed with the proposals, our respective officers negotiate with the company on our behalf. Then we have meetings discussing the way negotiations went and what the final contract ended up looking like (the Union also has the right to reject the contract outright if it is so bad). If negotiations are not going well we will have meetings to discuss why and have a 'strike authorization vote' to arm our negotiators with that power at the bargaining table. Ultimately a contract is put to the members for a general vote. If you are hired while a contract is in place you must work under than contract until the next one is negotiated where you have the right to suggest proposals. To suggest that we should give every new hire the right to 'agree' to the current contract is about the most asinine idea I have ever heard but truly explains why you ignorantly signed your union papers.
I think that my posts convey my side of argument clearly. If not, I did the best I can
We were not given the opportunity to take the paperwork home to complete at our own pace nor a number to call with questions. Which is generally true at virtually every employer. Apparently you needed your mother to hold your hand through the process. Perhaps you should have called her.
If I read all the terms & conditions printed in their favor in 3 point font on streaky photocopied page in legalese and asked a whole bunch of questions I might have caught it, but I didn't. I must be ignorant. It's just my opinion but putting people in this position is unconscionable. I highly doubt the membership application was how you describe it. I'm looking at ours and it has the big Teamster logo right on top with APPLICATION in 1/2 inch high bold letters and then For Membership in Local Union No.____ in 3/8" high bold letters (size 5 in the BC text editor I'm using to write this post). The rest of the application reads as follows in large type on the pink copy that should have been given to you. (emphasis added by me):
I voluntarily submit this Application for Membership in Local Union ____ affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, so that I may fully participate in the activities of the Union. I understand that by becoming and remaining a member of the Union, I will be entitled to attend membership meetings, participate in the development of contract proposals for collective bargaining, vote to ratify or reject collective bargaining agreements, run for Union office or support candidates of my choice, receive Union publications and take advantage of programs available only to Union members. I understand that only as a member of the Union will I be able to determine the course the Union takes to represent me in negotiations to improve my wages, fringe benefits and working conditions. And, I understand that the Union's strength and ability to represent my interests depends upon my exercising my right, as guaranteed by federal law, to join the Union and engage in collective activities with my fellow workers.
I understand that I am under no legal or contractual obligation to become a member of the Union. Under the current law, I can satisfy any contractual obligation necessary to retain my employment by paying an amount equal to the uniform dues and initiation fee required of members of the Union. I also understand that if I elect to not become a member, I may pay a service fee which is limited to a proportionate share of the expenditures necessary to support the Union's activities as my collective bargaining representative. If I elect to not become a member, the Union will provide additional information concerning the amount of the service fee based upon it's most recent allocation of its expenditures which are devoted to activities which are germane to its performance as my bargaining representative, upon my request .The law permits service fee payers to challenge the correctness of this calculation. Procedures for filing such challenges will be provided by the Union, upon request.
I have read and understand the options available to me and submit this application to be admitted as a member of the Local Union.
What is so unclear about any of that?
You know, like credit card interest policies that say all late payments get applied to the lowest interest rate loan first so that highest interest loan stays in delinquency as long as possible. When you break out the agreement and go through with a fine toothed comb several times you might find it somewhere.
Funny, I read all that stuff before I sign up for a credit card.
Again, all they've had to do was to put these relevant facts on front page in normal font in plain language.
It's plain enough that someone with less than a year in High School could understand it. I'm sure these forms have survived any legal challenges but if you are so inclined feel free to exercise your right to sue.
By the way, isn't it lovely when someone have you sign something that reads "please see reverse side for all terms & conditions" and the back side isn't even printed, yet when you ask them to produce it, they can't locate it? They get you to sign it to get you through the moment and when something goes wrong, that magic backside gets found and they'll find out something phrased in their favor to leave you hanging.e The back sides are all blank. You are filling out a form in triplicate.
If I was to treat everyone with presumption of malice, read every word single word before signing and ask questions about everything I don't understand(which in many cases the person I'm interacting won't be able to answer) I'll catch many things, but I don't like doing that.
You have better learn to have a healthy skepticism and start reading what you sign or you will have a lifetime of getting screwed. Actually, I have some great property I'd love to sell you at a killer discount. Email me.
So, long answer short I feel that an organization that says to be advocating for employees should have everything laid out for employees in PLIAN ENGLISH and all the key points in large font. I think its only fair to make avail all options with ease. So, this means
"Yes/No" We know how you RTW'ers like to knock Union members, but we aren't of the 'hanging chad' variety.
Not, by "default it is yes. For any other option you have to figure out who to contact, then from there you've got to make the right contact to opt. Default it 'no' by not signing. Everything in life you sign for you are agreeing to: credit card receipts, loans, checks, car purchase orders, contracts. Unless you are mentally challenged or in dementia, your signature is your bond.
I believe in honesty. I don't think writing up a contract that opts someone in for the writer's favor and burying the other options in legal mumbo jumbo or omitting entirely is honest.
I think you are making much ado about your own stupidity.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
No real difference in the Teamsters and any other Corporation. They all just want your moneyAssistantSanta
Well-Known Member
That was just from the result of web search when I searched compulsive union membership. I've never worked in a place with gung-ho union presence before.
Not that my personal anecdote speaks for statistics, but I found this site when I was searching about being a helper. Not that you'd know any more, but the web master have access to search keyword and referrer ID.
Yes, it is, and your point is? It doesn't make a whole lot of difference. It's tax DEDUCTION not CREDIT, therefore, on $1,030 income, your tax liability is the same as if you earned $1,000. For financial aid app and such, it still gets reported to worknumber.com as $1,030 income. If your tax rate is 20% total, $30 gross pay $30 dues, but this still entails out-of-pocket equivalent damage of $24. You don't get a $30 credit towards the AMOUNT of taxes owed. Essentially, you're arguing that $24 pocketbook damage isn't nearly as bad as $30 damage.
Uh, so no likey = bad ?
It's way too wordy and I find that its written like credit card policies. It's obviously written that by it defaults to full membership. I expect credit card policies to be written like that, because its their intent to maximize their interest, but this is supposedly looking for YOUR best interest.
Yes, working anywhere is voluntarily. Whats not so crystal clear is that your ability to become employed is not related to signing the form. Also note the unconscionable clause that non-member mandatory due rate is only available upon special followup request.
Member "iowa boy" mistakenly believed that you can't work without joining the union and I suspect many others do also.
At orientation, I had no idea I'd end up getting some union paperwork and we got told "you have to sign it, then deal with it later with the union if you don't like it". So, I was made to feel like I won't get to work unless I signed that thing, hence creating a false sense of "employment conditional to union membership"
Here is what I mean by plain English and unbiased language.
RTW version: In state of ____, you have the option to join the IBT union. By joining, you will be charged $xx + $xx and you will have a say in Union matters, however you may also be subject to union discipline for violation of its bylaws. You may change your membership status at anytime.
Join IBT? ____ yes, ____ no. ______(signature here)
Non-RTW version: The State of ____ is not a Right-to-Work state and as an employee of a bargaining unit, payment towards collective bargaining effort is mandatory. You're entitled to representation regardless of membership. Membership provides union participation rights, but you're also subject to disciplines and fines for violating its bylaws. You may change your status at anytime. You're entitled to a refund of your dues in full if you accumulate less than 30 working days of service. Contact the office of HR to initiate the request.
The dues are $xx.xxx as a member. $xx.xx as a non-member agency fee payor.
Join IBT? ___ yes, ____ no. _____(signature)
The two rates should be UPFRONT, not "you must contact us to get a new quote"
Now why the Union wouldn't do so and provide more transparency, I don't know. Perhaps someone else can tell me. The version you posted isn't in plain English, clearly not an unbiased contract and I find it predatory.
(not you must contact us and request non-member rate BS)
Good. I don't think I need to write up an argument to convince you that credit card companies, cell phone carriers and the like are there to look out for your best interest like the Union claims, so it makes sense to read it thoroughly.
Cell phone carriers lose legal challenge from time to time for writing up confusing and misleading contracts. For example, AT&T v. Concepcion State of WA v. T-Mobile challenged that predatory arbitration clause was not enforceable under WA state law. But again, its clearly unnecessary to say these companies are not there to look for your best interest.
You're given the choice to not sign and not get the loan or to sign and get a loan under conditions written up in a way that I think predominantly favors the party who wrote up the contract. The consumer really don't have a choice but to have it their way or not have it period.
When you key in the rate and compounding method from payday loan contract into the calculator the calculated value and what they charge are the same. The government still got in and required them to put in big font that its a HIGH INTEREST RATE LOAN, because the state found their practice as predatory lending.
I'm pleased that you're at least willing to realize the similarity in these contracts and the union one. Why an organization that proclaims looking out for your best interest have contract written in a predatory language like businesses looking out for themselves at your expense is what I don't understand. Hoaxster's response a few posts earlier comes to my mind.
I think its uncool that something that could be written in plain English and written in neutral manner is deliberately written in favor of one side and drown you in unnecessary wordiness.
bigblu 2 you
Well-Known Member
your work here is done son.you have completed what you signed up for,,now move on to "occupy wall street" and enjoy being annoying.
That was just from the result of web search when I searched compulsive union membership. I've never worked in a place with gung-ho union presence before.
More BS and misinformation. "with gung ho union presence" so we can infer you have worked at a Union shop before so you know damn well what the laws are in your state.
Not that my personal anecdote speaks for statistics, but I found this site when I was searching about being a helper. Not that you'd know any more, but the web master have access to search keyword and referrer ID.
Yes, it is, and your point is? It doesn't make a whole lot of difference. It's tax DEDUCTION not CREDIT, therefore, on $1,030 income, your tax liability is the same as if you earned $1,000. For financial aid app and such, it still gets reported to worknumber.com as $1,030 income. If your tax rate is 20% total, $30 gross pay $30 dues, but this still entails out-of-pocket equivalent damage of $24. You don't get a $30 credit towards the AMOUNT of taxes owed. Essentially, you're arguing that $24 pocketbook damage isn't nearly as bad as $30 damage.
Funny, so many things in life that I pay for I can't deduct nor credit on my taxes yet dues are one of them (and for most of us it's a decent deduction, not the piddly $30 your lame Forresthas to pay. Run Forrest Run!)
Uh, so no likey = bad ?
I could go into maintenance of standards and how contracts are negotiated, but I don't want to talk over your head so just get someone to read our contracts that are posted online for you and perhaps you will understand (see sticky link at top of this forum section).
It's way too wordy and I find that its written like credit card policies. It's obviously written that by it defaults to full membership. I expect credit card policies to be written like that, because its their intent to maximize their interest, but this is supposedly looking for YOUR best interest.
If you bothered to read the contracts you would probably realize that it is in your best interest.
Yes, working anywhere is voluntarily. Whats not so crystal clear is that your ability to become employed is not related to signing the form. Also note the unconscionable clause that non-member mandatory due rate is only available upon special followup request.
Gee, personal responsibility. Seems to be a serious issue with you.
Member "iowa boy" mistakenly believed that you can't work without joining the union and I suspect many others do also.
Great, start a movement.
At orientation, I had no idea I'd end up getting some union paperwork and we got told "you have to sign it, then deal with it later with the union if you don't like it". So, I was made to feel like I won't get to work unless I signed that thing, hence creating a false sense of "employment conditional to union membership.
I seriously can't wait to get you on the phone for my other job: selling insurance annuities and timeshares.
Here is what I mean by plain English and unbiased language.
RTW version: In state of ____, you have the option(presumes negative) to join the IBT union. By joining, you will be charged $xx + $xx(starts with negative cost to bias) and you will have a say in(omits voting rights & all the contract protections and negotiated benefits) in Union matters, however you may also be subject to union discipline for violation of its bylaws(qualifies the non-positive first clause with a negative cautionary clause). You may change your membership status at anytime(escape clause to scream SECOND CHANCE DON'T DO IT! and by the way, it's not true. Bylaws state the procedures for changing membership status and they vary.).
Join IBT? ____ yes, ____ no. ______(signature here)
Non-RTW version: The State of ____ is not a Right-to-Work state(Gee, lets advertise for RTW) and as an employee of a bargaining unit, payment towards collective bargaining effort is mandatory(more negative connotations). You're entitled to representation regardless of membership(Hey, it's a freebie so why sign up?). Membership provides union participation rights, but you're also subject to disciplines and fines for violating its bylaws(reworded but same biased qualified clause from previous). You may change your status at anytime. You're entitled to a refund of your dues in full if you accumulate less than 30 working days of service. Contact the office of HR to initiate the request.(don't quite get the separation from Teamsters & the Union do you? The Teamsters would tell HR to go friend themselves.).
The dues are $xx.xxx as a member. $xx.xx as a non-member agency fee payor.
Join IBT? ___ yes, ____ no. _____(signature)
The two rates should be UPFRONT, not "you must contact us to get a new quote"
Unbiased and written like a 12 year old did it. We actually hire lawyers for this stuff, you know, those guys in the suits.
Now why the Union wouldn't do so and provide more transparency, I don't know. Perhaps someone else can tell me. The version you posted isn't in plain English, clearly not an unbiased contract and I find it predatory. So sue or shut up. Prove me wrong and turn your measly $30 (which isn't going to by my filet mignon in Vegas BTW) into a fat settlement.
(not you must contact us and request non-member rate BS)
Good. I don't think I need to write up an argument to convince you that credit card companies, cell phone carriers and the like are there to look out for your best interest like the Union claims, so it makes sense to read it thoroughly. If you go around assuming everyone who has you sign something is looking out for your best interest, you are going to get screwed. I have a friend who's now ex-wife duped him into signing a quit claim order. Are you seriously going to be so naive all through life?
Cell phone carriers lose legal challenge from time to time for writing up confusing and misleading contracts. For example, AT&T v. Concepcion State of WA v. T-Mobile challenged that predatory arbitration clause was not enforceable under WA state law. But again, its clearly unnecessary to say these companies are not there to look for your best interest. Yet ATT screws people over and over again, doesn't seem like anything has changed. Most of it has to to with ignorant people who don't read their contracts (and why you would sign a contract for cell phone service is beyond me).
You're given the choice to not sign and not get the loan or to sign and get a loan under conditions written up in a way that I think predominantly favors the party who wrote up the contract. The consumer really don't have a choice but to have it their way or not have it period. Gee, that's how it always works because you aren't negotiating that contract. If I wrote a contract for you to sign, I would put the minimum required consideration for you and make my side all gravy. Screw you if you can't be bothered to read it and hire a lawyer to negotiate for you.
When you key in the rate and compounding method from payday loan contract into the calculator the calculated value and what they charge are the same. The government still got in and required them to put in big font that its a HIGH INTEREST RATE LOAN, because the state found their practice as predatory lending. I'm glad they have banned that in many states but again, it's stupid people not reading the contract and not educating themselves.
I'm pleased that you're at least willing to realize the similarity in these contracts and the union one. Why an organization that proclaims looking out for your best interest have contract written in a predatory language like businesses looking out for themselves at your expense is what I don't understand. Hoaxster's response a few posts earlier comes to my mind. The only thing I'm recognizing is that you sign both and you should read both. The language is fine, and if you feel so strongly that it's not then sue or STFU. You aren't going to change anything here.
I think its uncool that something that could be written in plain English and written in neutral manner is deliberately written in favor of one side and drown you in unnecessary wordiness.
Your plain English and ideas about neutrality are laughable at best. You RTWers are all the same and just want to try and subvert the membership any way possible. The truth is the Union is the best deal UPSers are ever going to get and no non-union competitor is proving us wrong. When you can show me that non-union companies pay better, offer paid health care, offer good pensions again, and offer favorable working , recognize seniority, and a method to process grievances with teeth I'll say you are right. Until then, you non-union leeches can go pound sand.
To clarify:
The following long-standing language is quoted from our Union Contract. The boldface portion is, and has been, ILLEGAL TO CARRY OUT. It is unenforceable. Yet it is there in black and white, and "Yes"-voters keep ratifying it in Contract after Contract. Naturally, some people are led to believe the boldface language is the Law of the Land, when if fact it isn't. Only a very well informed New Hire would know the boldface language is null and void despite what UPS or his BA or Steward might say.
ARTICLE 3. RECOGNITION, UNION SHOP AND CHECKOFF
Section 2. Union Shop and Dues
(a) All present employees who are members of the Local Union on the effective date of this Subsection or on the date of execution of this Agreement, whichever is the later, shall remain members of the Local Union in good standing as a condition of employment. . . . All present employees who are not members of the Local Union and all employees who are hired hereafter, shall become and remain members in good standing of the Local Union as a condition of employment on and after the thirty-first (31st) day following the beginning of their employment, or on and after the thirty-first (31st) day following the effective date of this subsection, or the date of this Agreement, whichever is the later. An employee who has failed to acquire, or thereafter maintain, membership in the Union, as herein provided, shall be terminated seventy-two (72) hours after the Employer has received written notice from an authorized representative of the Local Union, certifying that membership has been, and is continuing to be offered to such employees on the same basis as all other members, and further that the employee has had notice and opportunity to make all dues or initiation fee payments. This provision shall be made and become effective as of such time as it may be made and become effective under the provision of the National Labor Relations Act, but not retroactively.
(b) No provision of Section 2(a) of this Article shall apply to the extent that it may be prohibited by state law. In those states where subsection (a) above may not be validly applied, the Employer agrees to recommend to all new employees that they become members of the Union and maintain such membership during the life of this Agreement.
The following long-standing language is quoted from our Union Contract. The boldface portion is, and has been, ILLEGAL TO CARRY OUT. It is unenforceable. Yet it is there in black and white, and "Yes"-voters keep ratifying it in Contract after Contract. Naturally, some people are led to believe the boldface language is the Law of the Land, when if fact it isn't. Only a very well informed New Hire would know the boldface language is null and void despite what UPS or his BA or Steward might say.
ARTICLE 3. RECOGNITION, UNION SHOP AND CHECKOFF
Section 2. Union Shop and Dues
(a) All present employees who are members of the Local Union on the effective date of this Subsection or on the date of execution of this Agreement, whichever is the later, shall remain members of the Local Union in good standing as a condition of employment. . . . All present employees who are not members of the Local Union and all employees who are hired hereafter, shall become and remain members in good standing of the Local Union as a condition of employment on and after the thirty-first (31st) day following the beginning of their employment, or on and after the thirty-first (31st) day following the effective date of this subsection, or the date of this Agreement, whichever is the later. An employee who has failed to acquire, or thereafter maintain, membership in the Union, as herein provided, shall be terminated seventy-two (72) hours after the Employer has received written notice from an authorized representative of the Local Union, certifying that membership has been, and is continuing to be offered to such employees on the same basis as all other members, and further that the employee has had notice and opportunity to make all dues or initiation fee payments. This provision shall be made and become effective as of such time as it may be made and become effective under the provision of the National Labor Relations Act, but not retroactively.
(b) No provision of Section 2(a) of this Article shall apply to the extent that it may be prohibited by state law. In those states where subsection (a) above may not be validly applied, the Employer agrees to recommend to all new employees that they become members of the Union and maintain such membership during the life of this Agreement.
brown_trousers
Well-Known Member
Ron Swanson agrees with you, as do I. Freedom is a beautiful thing! It should never be taken away
[video=youtube;qlU5-LQ_EGE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlU5-LQ_EGE[/video]
NYdriver
Well-Known Member
Attention: A**santa
You are a helper who is employed 1 month out of the year. You do not have the slighest idea about the day to day operations @ UPS. Before you go all anti-union, you should know the facts...you're not even employed by the company.
I can't even explain it so you would understand, because again...YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WORKING AT UPS.
I would love to see you as a non union driver at UPS...lol management would too, believe me. You couldn't even imagine what what go on if us drivers were not in the union!!! The workload...geting fired for stopping for 2 min to use the bathroom...to name a few.........
You are a helper who is employed 1 month out of the year. You do not have the slighest idea about the day to day operations @ UPS. Before you go all anti-union, you should know the facts...you're not even employed by the company.
I can't even explain it so you would understand, because again...YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WORKING AT UPS.
I would love to see you as a non union driver at UPS...lol management would too, believe me. You couldn't even imagine what what go on if us drivers were not in the union!!! The workload...geting fired for stopping for 2 min to use the bathroom...to name a few.........
AssistantSanta
Well-Known Member
WOW!!. This is just wrong. How is it that a contract with illegal language can get ratified? This is like having employees sign a contract saying "if you're caught stealing, you grant us permission to cut your hand off". Such a contract is unenforceable but I don't think it will stay on the employment contract very long before someone raises a hell about it.
If UPS was to require employee to sign anti-union thing such as participation in union will result in a termination, union will raise hell about it, and justly so. Union at the same time have no right to write up such a manipulative and malicious contract.
Clearly most new hires won't have the knowledge to know it is wrong.
How does it look to arbitrator when there is a dispute and it is discovered that it is written in abusive terms like this one?
So if union truly believe in itself that it is really looking in the best interest of employees, I wonder why it feels the need to coerce employees through deceit to manipulate through fear of termination to join them. If it was so wonderful, wouldn't you think that they would voluntarily choose to do so?
I can clearly see those who have vested interest in contribution towards H&W and pension have a reason to do whatever means necessary to get new hires to join, especially in Right-To-Work state so that they'll be falsely believed into payment towards union is required.
That "supplement" is extremely shady to say the least.
Anyways, for the new hires or anyone confused if its required to join the union or not...
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed closed union shop, that is, a place of employment that requires union membership in order to work. In United States, statutory law (government imposed law) trumps any contract language or customary law when there is a conflict. Your boss makes you sign a document that say you will allow any boss to have sex with you without any right to object. Even if you sign it, statutory law trumps it, therefore it is unenforceable.
You can work wherever you want without joining union and not joining union does not affect employment.
In RTW state, you are not required to pay a dime into union. In non-RTW, you are required to pay the cost towards collective bargaining, however if it is your choice to not join, its in your best interest to request them to specifically calculate "agency payer dues" as not doing so may get you assessed for full dues. As an Agency Fee payer, you're NOT a member of the union, therefore, you're not bound under UNION RULES. Though, there is no guarantee you will not become a victim of work place violence, the union holds no lawful power to discipline you.
If you have any questions, post it.
If UPS was to require employee to sign anti-union thing such as participation in union will result in a termination, union will raise hell about it, and justly so. Union at the same time have no right to write up such a manipulative and malicious contract.
Clearly most new hires won't have the knowledge to know it is wrong.
How does it look to arbitrator when there is a dispute and it is discovered that it is written in abusive terms like this one?
So if union truly believe in itself that it is really looking in the best interest of employees, I wonder why it feels the need to coerce employees through deceit to manipulate through fear of termination to join them. If it was so wonderful, wouldn't you think that they would voluntarily choose to do so?
I can clearly see those who have vested interest in contribution towards H&W and pension have a reason to do whatever means necessary to get new hires to join, especially in Right-To-Work state so that they'll be falsely believed into payment towards union is required.
That "supplement" is extremely shady to say the least.
Anyways, for the new hires or anyone confused if its required to join the union or not...
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed closed union shop, that is, a place of employment that requires union membership in order to work. In United States, statutory law (government imposed law) trumps any contract language or customary law when there is a conflict. Your boss makes you sign a document that say you will allow any boss to have sex with you without any right to object. Even if you sign it, statutory law trumps it, therefore it is unenforceable.
You can work wherever you want without joining union and not joining union does not affect employment.
In RTW state, you are not required to pay a dime into union. In non-RTW, you are required to pay the cost towards collective bargaining, however if it is your choice to not join, its in your best interest to request them to specifically calculate "agency payer dues" as not doing so may get you assessed for full dues. As an Agency Fee payer, you're NOT a member of the union, therefore, you're not bound under UNION RULES. Though, there is no guarantee you will not become a victim of work place violence, the union holds no lawful power to discipline you.
If you have any questions, post it.
Last edited:
bigblu 2 you
Well-Known Member
"extremely shady"? thats why you need to move on.there is a anti-union meeting in china waiting for a fresh pencil necked geek.leave this board and go occupy a wall street somewhere.
NYdriver
Well-Known Member
AssistantSanta
Well-Known Member
Was this written before 1947? Mandatory membership is prohibited nationwide under federal law.
So perhaps employers don't recommend joining out of endorsement, but rather out of contractual constraint. That section is totally dishonest. It should read something like
Employer agrees to [-]recommend [/-] advise to all new employees that they [-]become[/-] have the option to become members of the Union and maintain such membership during the life of this Agreement
How is it not? The membership is optional. There is no way I can say it isn't shady to coerce someone into joining by telling them it is required. Using such a tactic is an integrity issue.
Why would anyone want to join a group that lies and steals from them?
Similar threads
