|
kingcobweb posted:JANUS v AFSCME 
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
kingcobweb posted:vote count starts soon (?) for UAW unionizing a mercedes plant in alabama https://vote.uaw.org/mercedes-alabama uh oh.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
my bad, i forgot Janus was a person's name. it's Janus v AFSCME
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:uh oh. that sucks
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
no bueno
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
Booooo. A win would have been huge, but at least it was not a blowout loss. I think there's some room for optimism. Not to conflate 2020 voting preference with union alignment, but in 2020 Tuscaloosa county went Trump/Biden pretty closely to No/Yes votes 2020 Presidential: 56.69%/41.88% 2024 Union vote: 56.37%/43.63% Again considering even blue collar democrats these days are so iffy on unions that these numbers hopefully are a data point toward people's opinions to unions thawing.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
:| keep up the good fight
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 03:54
|
|
|
https://thechiefleader.com/detail.html?sub_id=7c2b04b429quote:Staffers at Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union filed to unionize with the Washington-Baltimore News Guild, a subsidiary of the Communications Workers of America, in April. The SEIU local declined to voluntarily recognize the union and, in recent weeks, the more than 250 clerical, secretarial and administrative workers in the proposed bargaining unit say they’ve been facing intimidation and union busting from leadership in Local 1199.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
for context, a union not voluntarily recognizing a staff union is almost unheard of.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 14:39
|
|
|
amazing, swedish tesla workers are still on strike (since nov ish 2023) tesla just lost their suit trying to force the sympathy acting postal service to deliver license plates so theyre still basically shut off. https://www.dn.se/direkt/2024-05-16/bakslag-for-tesla-i-skyltstriden/ union statement w list of 10 collective bargaining agreement advantages for both workers and employers https://www.expressen.se/debatt/grattis-tesla-har-ar--10-skal-att-skriva-avtal/ (the embedded video isnt related, its just some rear end in a top hat being mad about drag afaict)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 15:24
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:for context, a union not voluntarily recognizing a staff union is almost unheard of. my AFSCME Council sure did give the staff union a lot of unnecessary poo poo tho
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 16:10
|
|
precious
|
Lazy_Liberal posted:my AFSCME Council sure did give the staff union a lot of unnecessary poo poo tho oh they’ll do subtle union busting for sure. almost any union or NGO or political organization will do that even as they’re SO HAPPY their staff is unionizing
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 16:14
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:oh they’ll do subtle union busting for sure. almost any union or NGO or political organization will do that even as they’re SO HAPPY their staff is unionizing *cries in NGP VAN*
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Carthag Tuek posted:amazing, swedish tesla workers are still on strike (since nov ish 2023) extremely good poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
[goofy noises] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/business/disneyland-actors-unionize.html?smtyp=cur&smid=bsky-nytimes
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2024 21:57
|
|
|
more on 1199 busting their own staff union: https://documentedny.com/2024/05/20/seiu-1199-union-nyc/
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:more on 1199 busting their own staff union: https://documentedny.com/2024/05/20/seiu-1199-union-nyc/ a tale as old as time
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:more on 1199 busting their own staff union: https://documentedny.com/2024/05/20/seiu-1199-union-nyc/ Is it normal for union staff to have to pay dues to the union without receiving any benefit or representation? That part seemed wild to me but I guess it could just be business as usual.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Geight posted:Is it normal for union staff to have to pay dues to the union without receiving any benefit or representation? That part seemed wild to me but I guess it could just be business as usual. CWA staff are voting members CWA, in addition to dues paying. theoretically paying dues to your employer or not shouldn't matter as long as you consider the "real" salary to be the after-dues amount; if your employer pays you 60k and takes back 2% that means it's a 58.8k job.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyDl0JaPwvU on the defeat of the Mercedes unionization vote
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 10:05
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:CWA staff are voting members CWA, in addition to dues paying. Yeah that all makes sense, it's the part in that article where it says those SEIU staff are dues paying but not voting members or anything, that seems weird. Like the guy in the article asks, "Why am I paying dues if I'm not a member?"
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
some unions require initiation fees of new members; if you choose not to pay the fee, you're not a member, and hence cannot vote. but in a non right-to-work state, you must pays union dues (or agency fees)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
Geight posted:Is it normal for union staff to have to pay dues to the union without receiving any benefit or representation? some locals are pretty strict about not representing non-members in meetings (weingarten rights), but most are pretty loose with it. meaning even if you don't want to be a member, a shop steward will still represent you and help you in meetings that could lead to discipline for yourself or others. some shops also won't file grievances on behalf of non-members, but that's even more rare (and kinda dirty in my opinion), since any violation of the contract should be dealt with, no matter the status of the worker involved.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
Unions have to represent non-members, it's an established part of labor law. Of course, you have to ask for it, but the union can't refuse to represent you. Using a union's services without paying dues is still a dick move in my book though.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 03:59
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:a little more detail here: it's normal in non-right-to-work states. you're paying dues because your job is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and a union negotiates those wages, benefits, and working conditions. you benefit from those things whether you're a member or not. if you choose not to be a member, fine, but you can't vote on something you're not a member of. I think some wires got crossed here; what the post you’re responding to is about is union staff- employees of SEIU 1199- paying dues to their employer, 1199, despite not having a union of their own and not having voting rights in 1199
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 04:13
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Unions have to represent non-members, it's an established part of labor law. Of course, you have to ask for it, but the union can't refuse to represent you. Using a union's services without paying dues is still a dick move in my book though. many countries are not the US, so they may have different rules.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 04:27
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:I think some wires got crossed here; what the post you’re responding to is about is union staff- employees of SEIU 1199- paying dues to their employer, 1199, despite not having a union of their own and not having voting rights in 1199 Yeah this is the part that I am having trouble wrapping my head around. These are staffers at SEIU, who are not themselves unionized, having to pay dues to the union that is their employer, but not their representative in any CBA. This seems like a bit of a strange arrangement but I guess if it was uncommon, there would be more attention paid to that in the media coverage. If they win their vote to organize with CWA, do they stop paying dues to SEIU and pay CWA instead?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 08:16
|
|
|
kingcobweb posted:I think some wires got crossed here; what the post you’re responding to is about is union staff- employees of SEIU 1199- paying dues to their employer, 1199, despite not having a union of their own and not having voting rights in 1199 ah okay, got it, you’re right
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Chris Smalls attending the People's Conference for Palestine in Detroit: https://x.com/votesocialist24/status/1794757490149634146
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
i can't figure him out. i've never met him, so who knows, but the last few years of JFK8 has been pretty messy
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:i can't figure him out. i've never met him, so who knows, but the last few years of JFK8 has been pretty messy the vibes have been getting worse and worse and objectively they haven’t done poo poo since they won the election
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
thinking of becoming a steward for my local.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2024 03:02
|
|
|
Queer Grenadier posted:thinking of becoming a steward for my local. DO IT DO IT!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2024 03:14
|
|
|
Have been trying learn more about no-strike clauses and wanted to ask about one from this recent TA between student workers and Western Washington University. Is the wording "Nothing in this Agreement permits or grants employees the right to strike" actually different from expressly forbidding strike actions, or is that just soft wording? What does a "good" no-strike clause look like, if there has to be one at all?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2024 04:03
|
|
|
Geight posted:Have been trying learn more about no-strike clauses and wanted to ask about one from this recent TA between student workers and Western Washington University. Is the wording "Nothing in this Agreement permits or grants employees the right to strike" actually different from expressly forbidding strike actions, or is that just soft wording? What does a "good" no-strike clause look like, if there has to be one at all? https://labornotes.org/2023/02/no-s...%20remove%20it. ignore the highlighting, phoneposting
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2024 04:08
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:i can't figure him out. i've never met him, so who knows, but the last few years of JFK8 has been pretty messy tbh pretty easily summed up as "extrovert attention-seeker"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2024 04:28
|
|
|
I've got a legal/union question you all might be able to help me with. Some background: I work for a town government and my union (which I'm on the board of) covers multiple municipal departments. It's a small union, not associated with any larger organization. The only real outside support we get is that we're paying for a labor lawyer to back us up on issues. As a result we're a pretty weak union. The town just created a "Deputy Director" position for a town department, replacing the former "Assistant Director" position. The Assistant Director position was a member of our union, the Deputy Director position was (without consulting us) not placed in our union, even though there is a lot of overlap in the job descriptions. There are also differences in the job descriptions, and the Town is saying those differences are enough to make the Deputy Director a management position, legally speaking. The Town recognizes that our union is losing a position and is prepared to offer the creation of a new union position equivalent to the old Assistant Director. The thing is, our lawyer says there's nothing in the Deputy Director position that makes it management, legally speaking. He told us that Massachusetts law has a clear definition of "managerial" positions, and it comes down to setting policies, which the Deputy Director won't be doing. So we're asking for the town to put the Deputy Director position to be put in our union. The town says "absolutely not" to that because their lawyer has told them with equal confidence that the Deputy Director position is, legally, managerial. Someone's lawyer is wrong. Our next step is to file complaints with state labor boards and such. In other words our next step is to pay our lawyer a lot of money. We have only had this lawyer for a little over a year, and while he has been quite helpful on past cases, I can't help but think about what a financial incentive he has to tell us we have a case. Does anyone have any idea how I could go about getting a 2nd opinion? The rest of our union board is gung-ho about fighting the town on this point, and I would be too... if I were confident that the town was wrong. As I mentioned, we're a small union, so the cost of fighting this would be a significant percentage of the total money available to us, and I just want to be more sure that our lawyer isn't just taking advantage of us before we spend all that money.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2024 15:46
|
|
|
Can't hurt to get a second opinion from another lawyer given the financial stakes, but from a quick look it sounds like your lawyer is right that the definition of "managerial" in Mass is pretty limited, and it seems pretty clear even to a layperson based on the summary: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/summary-of-law (ctrl-F for "managerial"). They have to set policy, be involved in collective bargaining strategy, or exercise independent appellate responsibility (the latter two of which also inherently involve setting policies/priorities). Has the town given you any specific info about why they/their lawyer think the position is managerial that makes you doubt your lawyer's take? It's true your lawyer has a financial incentive for you to pursue this but they also have an incentive not to gently caress you over by pushing you to challenge the employer on something spurious (for the sake of their own reputation and keeping you as a client). If you feel you can't trust your lawyer, that's another issue and probably means you need a new lawyer.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
dprk -i juche.deb posted:Can't hurt to get a second opinion from another lawyer given the financial stakes, but from a quick look it sounds like your lawyer is right that the definition of "managerial" in Mass is pretty limited, and it seems pretty clear even to a layperson based on the summary: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/summary-of-law (ctrl-F for "managerial"). They have to set policy, be involved in collective bargaining strategy, or exercise independent appellate responsibility (the latter two of which also inherently involve setting policies/priorities). Has the town given you any specific info about why they/their lawyer think the position is managerial that makes you doubt your lawyer's take? The town has given us no legal justification for why the position is managerial. I even hinted a few times before our last meeting that the union doesn't think it's legally managerial and they might want to have the case for why it was managerial ready for the meeting but when I asked that in the meeting they clearly hadn't asked their lawyer and said some vague stuff about it being supervisory (which is obviously different than managerial). I'm actually not sure how hard to push this- if it's really as plain as all this, is there a chance our lawyer could actually just... convince them their lawyer is wrong? That seems far fetched, but it would be nice to avoid a bigger legal fight. I have no actual reason to mistrust our lawyer, and you're right he has an incentive to not gently caress us over so we keep using him, but I'm pretty new at all this and have trouble trusting anything. My stance has been to go along with whatever more experience people in the union are saying, but ask a lot of questions along the way, and this is basically part of that process for me.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Eiba posted:I've got a legal/union question you all might be able to help me with. Is there a way to resolve this kind of dispute in your CBA rather than going to court about it? Arbitration could be a lot cheaper. FYI I'm talking out of my rear end about this part, I'm an organizer not a contract-language-knower-guy
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2024 01:23
|
|