What happens if you don't join the union?

[JonFrum]

. . . the NLRB has stated that simply being present constitutes representation. . .

Where has the NLRB stated this?

The Law says the Union has a "Duty of Fair Representation," and anyone who feels his case was not handled properly by the Union can file charges against the Union for lack of representation.

Two sources to check out are:
http://www.nlrb.gov
http://www.nrtw.org/

 

[Nimnim]

Part of the reason everyone is covered regardless of being a member of the union or not is the nightmare of having 2 groups of people doing the same job at the same time with 2 different rules to govern them. Like how would health insurance and wages go? If the non union member was on a performance based pay and was either higher or lower than someone present at the same time governed by the contract what happens if they then join the union? Or how about bidding for positions? It'd really just be a huge nightmare and much more of a headache than it's worth.

 

[hypocrisy]

Where has the NLRB stated this?

The Law says the Union has a "Duty of Fair Representation," and anyone who feels his case was not handled properly by the Union can file charges against the Union for lack of representation.

Two sources to check out are:
http://www.nlrb.gov
http://www.nrtw.org/

To a member who felt he did not receive fair representation (not by me, but I agreed with him) and I was present when he was told this. He attempted to file several NLRB actions and the 'fair representation' motion was shot down cold. He had a Steward present at his termination meeting and a Business Agent represented him at his panel hearing. Cold hard reality meeting idealistic notions can be ugly.

Personally, if I have a non-member who comes to me for representation and I think they have character and potential, I will usually use the opportunity to show them what the Union can do for them- once. If they just blow me off then they get the bare minimum from then on. Those type of people are good at hanging themselves anyway.

To the OP: The whole idea of removing closed shops etc was to castrate Unions. Unions are always at a disadvantage financially compared to the employer so this further widens that gap by reducing the dues collected. It doesn't give the Union any strength at the bargaining table if say only 50% of your workforce actually belongs to the Union that is threatening to strike during a difficult contract negotiation. Rarely will you get 100% participation in a strike and if half are already virtually guaranteed to stay on the job you can bet the other 50% aren't going to walk.

While I get where you're coming from as far as freedom of association, you have to remember that American's seem to be more than willing to 'get something for nothing' and not worry about the long term consequences. I'd encourage you to do more research about the effect Unionism has on wages etc and I think you'll find you wouldn't feel so bad about being required to join a Union. It's not like just because you become a Teamster you have to register as a Democrat and vote that way (I'm not and I don't). You certainly don't have to agree with everything it stands for. You can always participate and work to change whatever you don't like.

As an aside, it's kind of funny to me that I bet if you added it up, more people are forced to be members of HOA's than Unions, and that is a fairly recent phenomenon that should have never happened if freedom of association was such a dearly held belief.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

To a member who felt he did not receive fair representation (not by me, but I agreed with him) and I was present when he was told this. He attempted to file several NLRB actions and the 'fair representation' motion was shot down cold. He had a Steward present at his termination meeting and a Business Agent represented him at his panel hearing. Cold hard reality meeting idealistic notions can be ugly.

This sounds like a strong argument against unions. You seem to be saying that union representatives are inherently unfair and unethical and knowingly break the law all the time. If you're trying to convince anyone that unions are great, then this is a terrible way to start your post.

Personally, if I have a non-member who comes to me for representation and I think they have character and potential, I will usually use the opportunity to show them what the Union can do for them- once. If they just blow me off then they get the bare minimum from then on. Those type of people are good at hanging themselves anyway.

Like I said...

To the OP: The whole idea of removing closed shops etc was to castrate Unions. Unions are always at a disadvantage financially compared to the employer so this further widens that gap by reducing the dues collected. It doesn't give the Union any strength at the bargaining table if say only 50% of your workforce actually belongs to the Union that is threatening to strike during a difficult contract negotiation. Rarely will you get 100% participation in a strike and if half are already virtually guaranteed to stay on the job you can bet the other 50% aren't going to walk.

If closed shops were made legal, (making it legal to fire or not hire non-union members), then you must also make it legal to fire people for joining a union. Turnabout is fair play.

While I get where you're coming from as far as freedom of association, you have to remember that American's seem to be more than willing to 'get something for nothing' and not worry about the long term consequences. I'd encourage you to do more research about the effect Unionism has on wages etc and I think you'll find you wouldn't feel so bad about being required to join a Union. It's not like just because you become a Teamster you have to register as a Democrat and vote that way (I'm not and I don't). You certainly don't have to agree with everything it stands for. You can always participate and work to change whatever you don't like.

I've done a lot of research. Also, I've tried to be even-handed in my questions. However, as many have expected, I generally don't like unions. I'm open to the idea that some unions may be good. However, from what I've read and heard, there are many unions I strongly oppose (UAW, NEA, AFT, for example). Most of what I know about the UPS union I've learned from this thread.

As an aside, it's kind of funny to me that I bet if you added it up, more people are forced to be members of HOA's than Unions, and that is a fairly recent phenomenon that should have never happened if freedom of association was such a dearly held belief.

I would only buy a house with an HOA if I was forced to.

 

[hypocrisy]

This sounds like a strong argument against unions. You seem to be saying that union representatives are inherently unfair and unethical and knowingly break the law all the time. If you're trying to convince anyone that unions are great, then this is a terrible way to start your post.
Quite the contrary, and that's a heck of lot of inferences you came up with. I can't go into the details of this members particular case, but suffice to say if you just looked at the surface you would probably not support this member. I had personal knowledge that others were not privy to and he was able to refute the Company's case with facts. There is obviously a lot more to the story, but for an employee not in a Union it's pretty much "there's the door" and no opportunity for a hearing other than an expensive lawsuit most can't afford.


Like I said...
You asked what was different and I laid it out for you candidly. I guess we've pretty much exposed your agenda and you did not come here with an open mind as you thinly disguised at the start of this discourse.


If closed shops were made legal, (making it legal to fire or not hire non-union members), then you must also make it legal to fire people for joining a union. Turnabout is fair play.
I disagree. A closed shop is fair for the people who fought for the representation at their workplace. Workers should be free to unionize without employer interference. In fact, if employers were smart they would never have to resort to draconian tactics to avoid unions because they would simply offer a better deal. Read Confessions of a Union Buster for another perspective on this.


I've done a lot of research. Also, I've tried to be even-handed in my questions. However, as many have expected, I generally don't like unions. I'm open to the idea that some unions may be good. However, from what I've read and heard, there are many unions I strongly oppose (UAW, NEA, AFT, for example). Most of what I know about the UPS union I've learned from this thread.
Well it was fairly apparent you had an agenda but you have been very polite about it. I think you are venturing into trolling territory now, please prove me wrong. I don't think you are open at all to the idea that Unions are good. A lot of what people think they don't like about UAW, et. al. is shaped by what they've absorbed from the media and their parents. I had a generally unfavorable opinion of Unions based completely on my own ignorance when i started at UPS and it took a few years and some maturing to figure it all out. It pretty much boils down to understanding that the good wages, benefits, and contract we enjoy here at UPS were not gifts from our Employer. These were fought for, tooth and nail, over 100 years. To just walk in and say "Oh I'll take all the fruits of their struggle but you guys can count me out in that whole Union thing" just boggles my mind now especially when I've learned more facts about Unions in America.
If you think that all of this would come without the Union, just ask any Fedex driver how their wage and benefit package compares. I did that when I first became a package driver and I was shocked that a Fedex driver who had been on the job 17 years (I was in my 6th year) was making over $3 an hour less than I and I wasn't at Top Rate yet. So take a look at who is telling you Union's are bad and I guarantee they don't represent the workers best interest.
I love hearing one of these RTW proponents argue that people should negotiate their own wage/benefit package. That rarely works for the majority of people. I just tell anyone to go in to their boss, demand $90k a year, full paid benefits, 7 weeks vacation, sick pay, 401k, and a generous pension then see what happens./COLOR]


I would only buy a house with an HOA if I was forced to.

On this point we can certainly agree. Some cities have mandated HOA's so it becomes a challenge to avoid buying one. My city has done so and it is a hotbed of Republicans, how's that for irony?

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Well it was fairly apparent you had an agenda but you have been very polite about it. I think you are venturing into trolling territory now, please prove me wrong. I don't think you are open at all to the idea that Unions are good. A lot of what people think they don't like about UAW, et. al. is shaped by what they've absorbed from the media and their parents. I had a generally unfavorable opinion of Unions based completely on my own ignorance when i started at UPS and it took a few years and some maturing to figure it all out.

I resent this. I don't have an agenda. I've learned a ton from this thread. I admit that we've gotten off-track, though. In fact, I wanted to either end the thread, or try to pull it back on track. However, JonFrum, Nimnim, and grgrcr88 have already answered my questions.

The thing is, crowbar, JonFrum's posts contradict yours about how the union is supposed to treat non-members. JonFrum has said that they are obligated by agreement and law to represent non-members equally. You have said that they don't represent non-members equally in practice, and you see no problem with this. I do not see how both of you could be correct. It is this specific issue that has kept me asking questions.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I resent this. I don't have an agenda. I've learned a ton from this thread. I admit that we've gotten off-track, though. In fact, I wanted to either end the thread, or try to pull it back on track. However, JonFrum, Nimnim, and grgrcr88 have already answered my questions.

The thing is, crowbar, JonFrum's posts contradict yours about how the union is supposed to treat non-members. JonFrum has said that they are obligated by agreement and law to represent non-members equally. You have said that they don't represent non-members equally in practice, and you see no problem with this. I do not see how both of you could be correct. It is this specific issue that has kept me asking questions.

It's pretty easy. The union is supposed to represent all bargaining unit members, however much like everything else in life, it doesn't always work that way.

Look at UPS management for ex. Are they supposed to be handling packages? They still do. Do police officers obey all speed and traffic laws? No, they don't. Does the union fairly represent all bargaining unit employees, or actual members?

....that's my basic understanding.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Okay, then. So, according to crowbar, the union underrepresents non-union members.
I said "You seem to be saying that union representatives are inherently unfair and unethical and knowingly break the law all the time."
crowbar replied:

Quite the contrary, and that's a heck of lot of inferences you came up with... for an employee not in a Union it's pretty much "there's the door" and no opportunity for a hearing other than an expensive lawsuit most can't afford.

So, crowbar seems to reaffirm my point: That non-members are not properly represented.
Now Sleeve_meet_Heat said:

It's pretty easy. The union is supposed to represent all bargaining unit members, however much like everything else in life, it doesn't always work that way....
No, they don't. Does the union fairly represent all bargaining unit employees, or actual members?

So, then, if both of you are correct, then the union does not represent or defend non-members equally as members. I completely understand why unions would want to do this, because non-members don't support the union.
But, according to JonFrum, this disparity is illegal, unethical, and violates regulations and agreements, because the union is supposed to represent both equally.
So, then, crowbar, is the only reason you asserted that such treatment is legal and ethical because you don't like non-members? Or is there something I'm missing?
Yes, that was a sincere question.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Okay, then. So, according to crowbar, the union underrepresents non-union members.
I said "You seem to be saying that union representatives are inherently unfair and unethical and knowingly break the law all the time."
crowbar replied:

So, crowbar seems to reaffirm my point: That non-members are not properly represented.
Now Sleeve_meet_Heat said:


So, then, if both of you are correct, then the union does not represent or defend non-members equally as members. I completely understand why unions would want to do this, because non-members don't support the union.
But, according to JonFrum, this disparity is illegal, unethical, and violates regulations and agreements, because the union is supposed to represent both equally.
So, then, crowbar, is the only reason you asserted that such treatment is legal and ethical because you don't like non-members? Or is there something I'm missing?
Yes, that was a sincere question.

What are you trying to prove? Out of curiosity; the world is imperfect, there are bad seeds everywhere.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Crowbar: "Jonfrum is correct that Stewards must represent all persons in the Bargaining Unit, whether Union members or not. "

threadkill?

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Crowbar: "Jonfrum is correct that Stewards must represent all persons in the Bargaining Unit, whether Union members or not. "

threadkill?

Fine. I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was just wondering why Crowbar asserted that different treatment was legal, while JonFrum said it wasn't . Crowbar said that presence, alone, was enough representation. JonFrum disagreed, and said that they had to fully represent non-members. I was simply trying to find out who was correct. Perhaps it is legal for unions to represent non-members less. I don't know. I'm not trying to "prove" either case. I just wanted to know who was right.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Fine. I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was just wondering why Crowbar asserted that different treatment was legal, while JonFrum said it wasn't . Crowbar said that presence, alone, was enough representation. JonFrum disagreed, and said that they had to fully represent non-members. I was simply trying to find out who was correct. Perhaps it is legal for unions to represent non-members less. I don't know. I'm not trying to "prove" either case. I just wanted to know who was right.

I think the correct answer is and we all agree that legally the union was bound to represent equally.

 

[hypocrisy]

Okay, then. So, according to crowbar, the union underrepresents non-union members.
I said "You seem to be saying that union representatives are inherently unfair and unethical and knowingly break the law all the time."
crowbar replied:

So, crowbar seems to reaffirm my point: That non-members are not properly represented.
Now Sleeve_meet_Heat said:


So, then, if both of you are correct, then the union does not represent or defend non-members equally as members. I completely understand why unions would want to do this, because non-members don't support the union.
But, according to JonFrum, this disparity is illegal, unethical, and violates regulations and agreements, because the union is supposed to represent both equally.
So, then, crowbar, is the only reason you asserted that such treatment is legal and ethical because you don't like non-members? Or is there something I'm missing?
Yes, that was a sincere question.

I see the misunderstanding. I should have said employees in a non-union company have no other option other than to quit or be fired and pursue expensive litigation later.

You don't seem to have a real perspective about what representation is all about. If a non-member has a seniority violation or some other typical contract issue, he has the right to file a grievance and it will be processed the same as any other grievance because to allow those violations to continue would harm everyone. However, when the non-union employee approaches me, I have no duty to hold his hand and walk him/her through the procedure. I don't even have any duty to provide them with a grievance form (I'll tell them to go down to the hall and get one, same as I do when they want a contract). If they go into a disciplinary meeting my only duty is to see that they are disciplined in accordance with the contract. There is no duty of what I like to call "vigorous representation". So in the legal sense, they are properly represented. I guess it's one of those things you learn in life that there are no free rides and no handouts. Jonfrum hasn't said he's a steward, so he can think what he wants about the legal requirements to represent non-members. I've been a steward for more than 15 years and attended several conferences put on by labor attorneys where this issues was specifically addressed so that is what I base my actions on, not simply my distaste for bottom feeders.

Now back to your game of trying to play each of us against each other using loaded verbiage.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

...when the non-union employee approaches me, I have no duty to hold his hand and walk him/her through the procedure. I don't even have any duty to provide them with a grievance form (I'll tell them to go down to the hall and get one, same as I do when they want a contract). If they go into a disciplinary meeting my only duty is to see that they are disciplined in accordance with the contract. There is no duty of what I like to call "vigorous representation". So in the legal sense, they are properly represented... I've been a steward for more than 15 years and attended several conferences put on by labor attorneys where this issues was specifically addressed so that is what I base my actions on, not simply my distaste for bottom feeders.

Crowbar, you are correct. I thought you were talking about a union company in your example. So you're not saying that you underrepresent non-members. You just don't go above and beyond, like you sometimes do for a member. I appreciate the clarification.

I am a direct person. I ask straightforward questions, and try to be sincere. I do not intend to sound sarcastic, if I come across that way.

Now back to your game of trying to play each of us against each other using loaded verbiage.

I believe I've been direct, and I'm not playing a game. I believe that you truly support your union and believe in what it stands for. This entire tangent was started when JonFrum said the union must abide by a "Duty of Fair Representation," while you said that non-members get "the bare minimum" from you, unlike members. I believe my interpretation of your statements was wholly logical and within context.

I'd be okay with the thread being locked now.

 

[hypocrisy]

Why? It's just getting interesting and I love sarcasm.

Since it seems I've satisfied your questions, how about answering one of mine:

As we now know your positions on Unions, we can surmise that your original post is more about feeling out what will happen when you work at UPS and don't join the Union. While you are legally within your rights not to join, and you have shown great concern about legalities, how to your morally and ethically live with the decision not to join yet reap all the benefits we have fought for you? Say you put in your 30 or so years and retire, will you then accept a check from the Teamster pension fund for the rest of your life? Or will you return?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

This thread reminds me of a story involving my father. His health had declined to the point where we had to put him in a nursing home. He was on both Medicare and Medicaid. When we sat down with the nursing home director he told us that it was their policy that the staff not know whether the patient was self-pay or Medicaid. We asked him why and he told us that this was to ensure that everyone received the same level of care regardless of their financial status. This was the ideal--the reality was the staff knew who was self pay or not and while everyone received the same basic care those who were self pay did receive extra attention.

Why the story? I think it ties in with the duty of the union to represent all of it's members equally regardless of their status. In reality all would receive the same base level of respresentation while the dues paying member would receive full representation.

We do have the option here of opting out of the union but do have to pay 99.44% of the current dues.

Union dues are tax deductible if you itemize.

crowbar poses an excellent question---"How do you morally and ethically live with the decision not to join yet reap the benefits we have fought so hard to provide for you?"

 

[menotyou]

You wouldn't have anyone to protect you. Not that the teamsters have been doing their job. You will still have to pay 92% of the dues. You will not have teamster benefits, i.e. dental, eye, pension.

 

[SloppyJoes7]

Why? It's just getting interesting and I love sarcasm.
Since it seems I've satisfied your questions, how about answering one of mine:
As we now know your positions on Unions, we can surmise that your original post is more about feeling out what will happen when you work at UPS and don't join the Union. While you are legally within your rights not to join, and you have shown great concern about legalities, how to your morally and ethically live with the decision not to join yet reap all the benefits we have fought for you? Say you put in your 30 or so years and retire, will you then accept a check from the Teamster pension fund for the rest of your life? Or will you return?

To dispel any guesswork, I started this thread for two reasons.
1) To verify that it is illegal to be forced to join a union to work for a company. (This was surprising to me, when I read it a week ago.)
2) To ask what it's like to be a non-member in UPS. Including treatment and legal rights.
Now to answer your question: It is true that I am generally against today's unions. I was serious when I said I knew little about the UPS union, and I didn't necessarily dislike it. I still don't know if the UPS is part of a larger union.

But why am I inclined against unions? Because I think they tend to harm their members, their companies, their sectors, and the economy. Labor law has already ensured a minimum wage and abolished (unnecessarily) unsafe working conditions. Therefore, that being taken care of, I support the Adam Smith school of classical economics. This is founded on fair competition, which rewards innovation and hard work.

From what I've read and heard, unions tend to make seniority more important than performance, (trying to ensure all are treated equally). They make training and experience more important than ability or work ethic. These systems tend to reward laziness, and punish those who are exceptional in ability or performance. It makes it difficult to fire the incompetent, and illegal to quickly promote the extraordinary.

Now, if people want to unionize, that's their right. I just think they do it at their own peril. It only becomes a real problem, however, when unions create/exist in monopolies. Monopolies (such as the federal government and natural monopolies) should not allow unions, or such unions must be tightly regulated. (This is why it was made illegal for federal unions to go on strike.) If you have an oligopoly, and every company is unionized, you've essentially allowed unions to have a monopoly within an entire sector.

In short, I think unions generally are bad for the economy and workforce in general.

 

[JonFrum]

The Contract provision below applies in all non-RTW states. (A Driver's Helper or other temporary employee has the option to become an Agency Fee Payor instead of a regular union member even though this quote only speaks of becoming a union member.)

ARTICLE 3. RECOGNITION, UNION SHOP AND CHECKOFF
Section 2. Union Shop and Dues
. . . 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 . . .

 

[JonFrum]

You wouldn't have anyone to protect you. Not that the teamsters have been doing their job. You will still have to pay 92% of the dues. You will not have teamster benefits, i.e. dental, eye, pension.

Unfortunately, many employees find the Teamsters do a poor job of representing them. So even if a Steward has an (illegal) bias against a non-member Agency Fee Payor, the non-member may end up getting the same poor level of representation as full fledged members.

Technically the 92% is an Agency Fee, not dues.

You will have Teamster benefits, i. e., dental, eye, pension. After all, you, as a non-member are paying for them just like a member. The funding comes out of your overall compensation package.