While the Public Sector Unions whine about what they can't do, they ignore what
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
August 22, 2011 11:25pm CST
what they are still able to do for the employees who choose to remain union members.
"Any individual employee, or any minority group of employees in any
collective bargaining unit, may present grievances to the
employer in person, or through representatives of their
own choosing, and the employer shall confer with said
employee or group of employees in relation thereto if the
majority representative has been afforded the opportunity to be present at the conference." 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 10, Sec 287, 111.83
In other words, the unions have not been stripped of their ability to represent their members in redressing of grievances.
However, I have yet to hear of a union leader or member bringing that up. They seem more interested in whining about what they can't do anymore. A few unions have even decided not to bother with certification, because they don't think the yearly certification process is worth what little they can offer members.
Could it be that the redress of grievances isn't a priority to the unions? After all, there's no money in that.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/11Act010.pdf
3 responses
@sam3m1 (190)
• United States
23 Aug 11
ted, i think the problem was denial of collective bargaining rights, not grievance procedures. presenting grievances is far from collective bargaining. most of my career was on the administrative side in a state where strikes and similar actions were illegal.
i'm not sure why people don't see this action as a way to remove support from the democratic party by dismantling unions, just as the voter suppression actions by some governors is designed to reduce the number of democratic voters. while many republicans may applaud these tactics, what happens when the democrats are in the same situation?
it may be my liberal bias, but it seems that much of what some in the gop are doing is immoral and unethical, if not illegal. calling complaints "whining" may serve to mollify some, but it doesn't change what is happening.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
23 Aug 11
It's already been challenged up to the state supreme court. The fact is, there is nothing illegal, unconstitutional or immoral about it.
Apparently collective bargaining and not having to foot the bill for collecting union dues are the ONLY things the public union leaders care about. Redress of grievances apparently mean nothing.
They are so worried about the cash cow, they ignore what they can still do for the members.
@sam3m1 (190)
• United States
23 Aug 11
ted, sorry, but i ignored the comment about redress of grievances. you're a great researcher. i'm sure that unions don't have an option. whenever a member brings a grievance to the union, they must, by statute, follow through with that grievance, even if the complaint is frivolous.
also, are you saying that voter suppression is not illegal or immoral?
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
23 Aug 11
the issue is about dues collection. IF the Union has to convince teacher to voluntarily give them the money it is a hard sell. When the Union has to ask you to gibe them $800 - $1200 a year up front or give them access to a charge card or your bank account people are hesitant to do so. Many of the public employees are finding it easier to deal with the administration or supervisors now that hard work is rewarded.
