Workers rights, wrongs
Discussions of “right to work” laws invariably unleash rhetoric about free choice and union coercion. This rhetoric is mostly beside the point.
That point is that the Supreme Court has, as recently as June 2012, upheld the legality of the very “fair share” payments that “right to work” legislation prohibits.
U.S. labor law divides workplaces into bargaining units, groups of workers with easily specified common interests. Unit members may elect an exclusive agent, or union, to represent them in collective bargaining.
Exclusive representation (one bargaining unit, one bargaining agent, one union contract) is as much about employer convenience as union ambition. Employers need one set of rules for everybody, and an orderly process for deciding them.
Since 1947 it has been illegal to force anyone to join a union. Unions have a “duty of fair representation”: They must fairly represent nonmembers’ interests in negotiating wages and
benefits, must assist nonmembers in disciplinary matters, etc.
There are expenses involved in doing this necessary union work. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a union may charge non-members for their fair share of costs incurred in performing its “statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.” Though these “fair share” fees
can’t be used for political purposes, the sole aim of “right to work” laws is to prohibit unions from charging them.
Since these fees pay only for tasks required by statute, and these statutory duties entail costs, one must conclude that “right to work” legislation is less about worker rights than a desire to prevent unions from doing necessary union work.
Lisa Feldman
Orono
Retire special treatment
In Sunday’s Kennebec Journal (Dec. 9, 2012) I saw an ad for a Legislative Technician. The ad stated the benefits package included the state’s share of the employee’s retirement is 11.54 percent. Why are we taxpayers paying $11.54 for every $100 earned to the retirement account of any employee? I know the state doesn’t pay that amount for the majority of state employees.
How many state employees are receiving this special treatment? Are our elected officials included in this windfall?
All state of Maine employees should be treated the same and have the same benefits, including but not limited to vacation time, health insurance, life insurance and retirement. This should include anyone on the state payroll whether they were elected, appointed or hired. No class of state employees should be treated special. I am willing to bet this special treatment is costing taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
Last year our legislators touted how they fixed the retirement system. They did this by not giving a cost of living increase for years to retirees living on fixed income. If we taxpayers are paying millions a year to a special class of employees, the Legislature has a lot of work to do and a lot of questions to answer. If the Appropriations Committee is looking for ways to save money, why not start here? It will save taxpayers a few million dollars a year.
David Crockett
Augusta
LNG export terminal
DCP Midstream, a Denver-based limited liability company, is proposing to build a 22.7 million gallon, 14-story liquefied natural gas tank in Searsport, said to be for temporary storage of imported natural gas. But the U.S. is awash in natural gas, by 2017 the U.S. could be the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world.
So what’s really going on here? Is this phase one of an LNG export terminal? All this requires, in addition to the megatank, is a liquefaction plant to convert domestic natural gas into a liquid to load on the tankers. As soon as the permitting for the tank is completed expect an application for a gigantic refrigerator.
Don’t worry about increased truck traffic since the natural gas will arrive in a pipeline but if you are worried about the looks of the tank, wait until you hear one of these refrigeration units running 24/7.
Walter Guinon
Lincolnville
LePage mural examples
Gov. Paul LePage can’t change Maine history by removing the labor murals. Our history shows hard labor workers trying to improve working conditions — better wages, health insurance, safer work conditions and so on.
Maybe LePage wants murals of his time as governor. A few examples:
• Welfare recipients dumping bottled water behind stores for the refund money.
• The governor giving state jobs to his family members.
• Our trees being hauled to Canada’s saw mills to put Canadians to work. Maine mill workers are out of work.
• A masked man holding up a drug store 54 times in 50 weeks.
• How the Madawaska paper workers took a cut in pay to save the paper mill. Management got big pay raises.
• The governor blaming Maine teachers for not being “up to par” on their Maine history.
C. Boyd Tibbetts
Ashland
Ms. Feldman, thank you for a wonderfully clear explanation of the “right to be a free-loader” laws. The reason the Koch brothers and ALEC have pushed these bills is that they have spent a lifetime living high on the sweat of others’ labor and think of free-loading as a natural way of life.
Half
The Koch brothers did not get their way in the recent election. So, this is their way of exerting some power, revenge,etc. Motivated by politics of course.
I think you have it a tad backwards. It should be greed motivating politics.
I meant exactly what I said. The Koch brothers were not happy with the recent election. So they got behind the Michigan right to work business. (political)
The Koch Bros. did not ‘get behind’ the right to work law, they demanded it from the people they got elected.
I agree completely. My wording came out a bit differently.
Got it.
Do you have a clue who George Soros is? You really need to find out. I would be much more afraid of him than the Koch Brothers.
Based on what? Be specific. What do you fear about Soros? What specific legislation has his political contributions made a negative difference in your life? Or are you just parroting the media you listen to or read? I’m genuinely curious.
I am not sure what not4us is speaking about but anyone that had a hand in making sure that another big empire fell (Soviet Union) and he made a profit from it is surely someone to keep an eye on.
It’s my understanding that Soros makes his money the same way people make money in the stock market by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the companies they are betting on. Soros bets on either a country strengthening it’s currency or on it’s demise. His betting does not cause the currency to collapse any more than buying stock in a company causes it to fail or prosper.
In the case of Hungary it was a little bit more than that.
And in case you don’t get that… I have a monetary crisis to sell you.
OK then explain it to me or give me an explanatory link.
What you may not know is that Soros works for issues that do not support his own businesses. The Koch Bros. political machine is strictly to protect their investments.
Yeah right. Like Soros making millions/ hundreds of millions off of the Gulf Oil spill by having his buddy put a moratorium on drilling just long enough to get the rigs he needs to his oil fields off of Brazil coast. Funny how the moratorium was lifted once that was accomplished. Hey buddy got a spare oil rig?
Freeloading? How about this: I want to negotiate my own compensation. I’m positive I’ll get a better deal that way.
So you are saying that you don’t want the union going to bat for you if you should have an unjust situation arise at work. Fine with me.
Yep, its my choice…wait a minute…not in Maine
You also have a choice to work for a non- union company. Why have you not chosen that if you think you can bargain a significantly better wage for yourself in a non-union situation?
Why, then, do union workers earn so much more than non-union workers?
Then unions shouldn’t have to force people to join.
I know for a fact I bring more to the table than the average worker, so why should I have to make what they make. Collective bargaining rewards mediocrity. I prefer to be rewarded based on merit.
Federal law has prohibited requiring membership in a union to secure a job since at least the 1950s (a closed shop). Any thing else is right wing spin. What is allowed is requiring an employee in a union shop to pay something toward the cost of the union, as long as that fee is not used for political purposes. The reasoning behind that section of the law is that the employee benefits from the management-labor negotiations even without being a union member. The label “right to work” is a deliberately misleading nomenclature. Everyone has the right to work as long as they have the ability.
Why is this had to understand: I do not want to be forced to pay a union negotiate the terms of my compensation or employment. I should have the right to negotiate for myself.
Because Federal law says you are a free loader. The Union can’t leave you out of negotiations, can not refuse to represent you.
Your ignorance proves that you bring less to the table. No one can be forced to join a union. Collective bargaining enforces fair dealing. You just earned yourself a pay cut.
Same old tripe.
The real aim of right to work laws is to take away the strongest voice the American worker has and skew the election process in favor of the Republicans and their big business cronies. Organized Labor works to protect all workers. The facts show that right to work laws do NOT create more jobs and people in right to work states make a lot less money than people in states without those laws.
Sure. Union bosses have NEVER used dues inappropriately or been involved in organized crime…
Just because a few people in an organization have acted inappropriately or illegally doesn’t mean the concept of that organization is a bad idea.
Some Congressmen act like real jerks. That doesn’t mean the idea of a representative republic is a bad idea.
At least I get to vote for congress people without paying a fee.
Hophead2, who do you think pays the salaries of Congressmen/women?
The right to work states are much more prosperous. Is it better to be unemployed or have a job. Hostess employees will soon find out. Unions had their purpose in our history. Now we have labor laws to protect the workers. The unions have become a political organization. This was not their original intention. People do not want to pay dues to support someone’s campaign.
Not true. Right to work states are not more prosperous.
The unemployment rate is generally smaller in right to work states. On average about 10%.
It should be lower. They work much cheaper. The top 1% have seen their wealth explode by 300% in the last 20 years while the working men and women of America have seen their wages decline. “Right to Starve” laws have a lot to do with this disgusting fact.
It is a tough economy everywhere. Just more people working in right to work states.
It is only a tough economy for 99% of us. It is the roaring 20’s for the top 1%. I guess it will continue until we have all had enough of the greed and the guillotines come out again. Just like every single time in history.
No guillotines this time out, I am afraid. You guys own the White House and Senate. This is your economy.
Independents own the White House and Senate? lol. That is news to me.
Or the President has said, right to work for less.
I guess that is the biggest reason I have worked for myself most of my life. I refuse to work for less. Those that do know what they are worth.
I hope you paid taxes on your self employment, just sayin…
It’s hard to get impartial statistics on unemployment in RTW vs union states because all the studies seem to be done by one side or another. However, it does appear that being a RTW state doesn’t have a consistent impact on employment. Some RTW states have high unemployment other have low. Union states also have high and low unemployment rates.
What has been documented is that RTW states have significantly lower pay across the board for the middle and lower class workers than do states with unions.
The fees charged to non-union employees by unions cannot be used for political purposes. That has been federal law for over 50 years.
The executives at Hostess took wage and benefit concessions in 2008 and gave themselves all a big fat bonus. They were trying to do it again when the workers said enough is enough. I think they did the right thing. It is about time the American worker started growing a spine again. You have to stand for something, or you will fall for anything.
Yes!
Not4us: That simply is not true. The RTW states are mostly southern states and the standard of living for workers is significantly lower than it is in the northern union states.
You are also wrong about the original intent of unions. They have always been political. From the very beginning they have worked to pass laws that made life in the work place safer, pay better and protect workers from the more egregious practices of management.
Unions used to support candidates from both parties… especially from the 50’s though the 80’s.They could count on support from Republicans during that period because of the money that flowed to that party. Unions accelerated their own decline when the fully aligned themselves with the Democratic party, shutting off money to Republicans. Suddenly they were seen as just a Democratic (political) money machine and the enemy. You can’t blame Republicans from trying to shut off the tap.
If unions primary goal was to look after their members interests no matter who held the political reins they would be better off.
Do you think Republican’s anti- union agenda might have had something to do with that?
In politics political support always comes back to the money they need for the next election.
As much as the D’s “Unions are always right” agenda.
Unions are dead
You are 100% spot on, Unions are greedy and are dead….They are no longer required.
Wrong.
Unions have priced themselves out of work….Greedy…..
L. Feldman, D. Crockett, C. B. Tibbetts; good letters.
Re; Labor Mural
Get it over with.
Burn the dang thing and sprinkle the ashes on the Biddeford Hostess plant.
Too bad that when daddy left you the business he left you a hatred of working people as well. It must have given you a smug sense of justice when the bankruptcy judge approved the huge bonuses for the executives of Hostess. Huge bonuses paid for by previous wage and benefit concessions from those lazy union bums who work for a living.
Come on guy. Dislike of the political theater of the mural fight does not equal hatred of working people.
Yes Cheesecake, you are correct. The problem is that he also dragged the Hostess employees into it too. That does indicate a hatred of employees and unions in general. I think it was very foolish of LePage to pick that fight in the first place, regardless of his beliefs. It was political suicide and a no win situation I think he did it to incur a pat on the head from a couple of trust fund babies who are hell bent on busting unions and taking us back to the days of sweat shops and child labor. Two things in the mural that they probably found offensive. The next governor will put it back before they unpack their things at the Blaine House, regardless of their beliefs on the issue or political persuasion. Again, it was a politically foolish move to take it down in the first place. Our governor has not shown a propensity for fore thought during his tenure.
Yeah you are right. It was naive of LePage to think he would get a fair shake from the media.. Early on the BDN drove the story until it had a life of its own. It was very foolish of him not to realize that.
LePage has never been a good politician and probably should have stuck to running a junk store. He is a divider, not a person who brings people together. He is very opinionated and not real good at filtering his comments. He is far more concerned with the approval of a couple of trust fund babies than he is with the approval of the citizens of Maine. He struggles with the truth. He has embarrassed the citizens of Maine so many times that no one takes a thing he says seriously.
But he has moved forward with a pro-business agenda. He has made friends and has a solid base of support.
Word is that he will seek re-election. Cutler is also running even now, though you wont see him in the media for awhile. It will be up to the Democrats to decide who the next governor is. If they decide on a strong candidate like Hannah Pingree or Emily Cain or even Baldacci then chances rise for a LePage re-election. If they decide on a weak ego driven candidate ala Dill that would mean a Cutler victory.
While you and I own small businesses Cheesecake, 95% of Mainers do not. I do not think he stands a snow ball’s chance in Hades of re-election given all of his gaffs and miss steps during his tenure. Such as the mural, putting words in the mouth of Forbes Magazine, “little beards”, and whining about a “tracker” when he is a public figure. Just to name a few. I would prefer a more level headed candidate who will look to strike a balance between business and labor. Someone who will seek the approval of a wide cross section of Mainers and not just Koch heads and the Marden brothers. Any luster Mr. LePage had is long gone and I predict he will go down in the history of Maine politics as a one term mistake and somewhat of a laughing stock.
Cheesecake, you keep posting that LePage has accomplished things with his pro business agenda. What are they?
The single most important thing he did was get a handle on our state debt.
When Baldacci left office the debt number in this link was increasing. Now it is decreasing one of a dozen states to find themselves in this situation. (none of which are blue by the way)
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-maine-debt-clock.html
Our children will be better off because of it.
Come on Cheesecake, be fair. Gov. LePage has said and done too many outrageous things all by himself to be blaming all his troubles on the BDN. Other papers have criticized his action and pronouncements as well as the BDN. Even the national media has pointed out his foibles.
The first thing most newly elected governors do is make nice noises about the great state they are about to govern, tell everybody how they are going to work for everybody and do something special that appeals to everyone.
They don’t go sneaking into an office late at night, take a fairly innocuous mural off the wall, hide it and refuse to tell people where it is. Face it, that wasn’t the smartest first act the governor could have done.
I agree that getting rid of the mural alone doesn’t indicate lack of respect for workers. However, LePage has made enough demeaning comments about the working poor and the lower middle class that I have to believe he does not respect a lot of working people.
At least I know who my daddy was.
Thereby implying that I am ignorant of my own parentage? How witty. Sounds like my implication that you were given the business by daddy might have been right on the mark. Usually when someone bashes unions and people who actually work for a living, it is someone who was born with a silver foot in their mouth and one HONEST day’s work would kill them.
Pot/Kettle?
My inheritance was a funeral bill. Try parleying that into a fortune. I have been self employed most of my life and always paid my employees a living wage. When you work for every thing you have, you have empathy for anyone who works for every thing they have.
That’s a really ugly and unnecessary comment.
He specializes in them.
If as Ms Feldman says, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a union may charge non-members for their fair share of costs incurred in performing its “statutory duties as exclusive bargaining agent.” then what legal mechanism allows state legislatures to override this ruling and become RTW states?
In many cases political forces will write laws which to most appear unconstitutional. It will usually take lawsuits to overturn those laws. This does not stop the extreme right wing nuts from trying to push their ALEC agenda. They just hope either no one will notice or care enough to file a lawsuit. Unfortunately for them the internet has made it extremely difficult for them to isolate states or groups to take advantage of.
Just because something has been held to be Constitutional does not mean that it has to be the “law of the land”. It doesn’t make the opposite Unconstitutional.
Obviously Right to work laws for example have been around a long time without challenge. The legislature can make laws as they see fit.
My guess is the law can pass a partisan legislature and be signed by a partisan govnah, and if not challenged in court successfully may stand for a time. If and when it is challenged the earlier precedents might work to overturn the legislation, but in these days of activist, partisan justices it is anyone’s guess whether precedents will hold sway. Law is anything but black and white, especially when there are big money interests involved in the legal challenge.
I am sure you will find the courts would not jump into this. Nothing for them to adjudicate.
Well sure. Someone would have to bring suit.
What would the suit consist of?
You’re asking me…? I’m not a lawyer. Just speculating I suppose a union might have some leverage through contract law in the contracts they negotiate with management. But I’m just speculating. The point is, as you probably know, the only way precedent is important is in how a court looks at established law. Overturning precedent is not impossible but is generally not common unless the court is an activist one and determined to change something it’s doesn’t like.
Well first of all. It would have to be some egregious violation of civil rights for the court to get involved, I would think. The legislature has wide latitude in what it does. Even though the court ruled that there is nothing illegal in so called “fair share”. That does not mean it is some sort of protected right. You need a law passed by the legislature to make it so… or conversely to make it not so.
That is why there has never been a suit requiring the abolishment of RTW laws. It would take a whole re-reading of the Constitution and the relationship of the states to federal government to make it so.
Maybe the case is in the definition of “statutory duties” That is what the legislature does. Make statutes.
RTW states have lower wage and benefit averages. This is a union busting law plain and simple.
Maybe if unions offered a compelling enough product, everyone would buy in without legally sanctioned coercion. Everyone in the union gets the benefits of collective bargaining and representation, everyone else is on their own.
How could unions offer more compelling services than they do now? What more should they be doing for their members?
:shrug: I don’t know. Shouldn’t need a law to compel their use if the “product” is worth it
That’s a pretty weak reason to dislike unions and wish for their demise.
They need to offer more flexibility. I heard the UAW President admit that on NPR this last week, touting their own new-found “flexibility.”
I don’t hate unions as some seem to…and they do have an important role today. But they need to recognize that labor is not in demand as it once was, and adaptability is the future. I think they are seeing that now.
The parasites that refuse to pay for the services they receive in RTW states do get all the same benefits and representation as a matter of law. Look it up, then come back and admit it if you have the guts.
No, the pension costs are not over 11% of salary. The State pension cost is barely 3% with the remaining percentage being a payback of monies stolen by politicians of both stripes. The Employee pays 7% and for the mathematically challenged like former treasurer Poloquin, that is double what the state pays.
The statement you made above is correct for most state employees. However, everything I stated in my letter is correct. At last count there was over a thousand state employees we taxpayers are paying over 11% that is a fact. If you do not believe me check it out. I fully stand by the accuracy of my letter.
I stand corrected. You were speaking about confidential employees, who may not join the union by state rules, where the state pays ALL of the retirement.
Thank you for recognizing the hit all of the other State employees are taking.
Mr. Tibbetts, The mural was a piece of propaganda. Two judges have determined that Gov. LePage had the authority to have it removed. Get over it. It is a dead horse that the libs keep beating to death and is only making you all look silly. Have you actually seen the mural? It was paid for from the unemployment fund business owners unknowingly contributed to. They did not ask for this mural to be painted. If it was supposed to represent Maine’s “history”, why was the former head of the Maine Dept. of Labor painted in the scene? If Baldacci was such an advocate for the “laborers”, why did so many businesses leave under his admin. Also, where was your outrage when Gov. Baldacci went to Cuba and met with Fidel Castro, one of the worst dictators in the world who does not believe in workers rights, let alone human rights? The water bottle dumping was exposed under Baldacci’s admin. If you do not know Maine History, then you would not realize that welfare increased 75% under Baldacci’s term. If you actually ever met with Gov. LePage, maybe you would realize that he wants to cut welfare so that people cannot move to Maine and be on welfare the rest of their lives. What’s wrong with that? I guess this is the Maine you want. Also, if you ever have the opportunity to meet with the Gov. in person, you would realize he is very concerned about the drug problem. Particuarly the methadone clinics. These clinics have done nothing but increase the drug problems and crime. Just look at Bangor. This methadone expansion all happened under Baldacci’s administration. As for Maine History and the teachers. Evidently you went to a government school, therefore you are not aware of the 40 years of Democrat rule and how we have become a welfare state. We had some great Republican leadership, however that was over 40 yrs. ago. LePage has been trying to make a difference. Unfortunately, the last election was led by the low information voter who is victim to the media propaganda. Are you aware of all the family and friends Baldacci had hired in his administration? There were many, the media was or course silent with regards to all the relationships.
“the low information voter who is victim to the media propaganda. ”
From the inability to understand the difference between opinion and fact displayed in your posts it would seem that you, not the Democrats are the low information voter. I count at least 5 opinions you posted that indicate a very low level of information on that particular topic. Some of your ” facts” border on simple fabrication.
That is just asinine to call the mural propaganda. Which is it, propaganda or “government speech.”
“Gov. Paul LePage can’t change Maine history by removing the labor
murals. Our history shows hard labor workers trying to improve working
conditions — better wages, health insurance, safer work conditions and
so on.”
Exactly right. Time to table this settled issue. Move on and stop wasting energy and resources.
I know a lot of people aren’t fans of the governor but most of the things listed in the letter he nor the government has control over. Which is often the case for most elected officials even though they may be blamed for things out of their control. Though criticizing teachers over state history is pretty low in my opinion, should of worked with administrators to get it into the curriculum.
If the Union is providing a valuable service then the workers will want to pay for it. If I don’t think they are providing me a value I shouldn’t be compelled to buy their product.
Apparently the courts have already decided what they provide is valuable. I don’t have a dog in that hunt, so just sayin.
Wrong. The unions must provide the services by law whether you pay or not.
So the question is: Do you support freeloaders or not?
Union services: They bargain for your wages, health insurance, pensions, hours and working conditions. They provide a frame work to settle disputes that you or a group of workers may have with the corporation. They provide lawyers and other legal help if you or a group have a case against the corporation. During strikes they support your family financially even during extremely long strikes. How are these services not valuable?
For 1% of my salary I got professional assistance, the authority of group power and the promise of legal help should I ever need it. How is this not a bargain?
“Right to work” is one of the more blatant examples of a rhetorical hijacking… This phrasing make it sound as if non-union members are being DENIED a right to work by unions, which isn’t true. Clever but disingenuous use of language which serves the union busting efforts of management. I’m not a union member, so I don’t have a dog in that hunt, but giving management , especially in larger companies more power over workers lives is in most cases good for management, bad for workers.
Unions are a thing of the past, dead,,,, and the Mural is at the landfill, the one along I95 in Hamden.. Bottom line, tough pill to swallow folks.