Right to work state

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
I am a Steward in a right to work state. I will give 100% to every member that needs represented. Most of the time I have no idea that they are non members because I try to be impartial. However, once I find out they are not members and I helped them out, I will take them a membership aplication and ask them to join. I will explain the benefits we help them to have and leave them the application. So far we are 99% members in my center and the only reason we are not 100% is the seasonal drivers that have not gained seniority.
I do the same thing, both because it's the law and because it's the right thing to do. Hopefully when a nonmember sees the direct benefit that the union can be to him/her, they will do the right thing and sign up. I don't believe in trying to "punish" those who haven't joined, I think that's the wrong approach.
 

JonFrum

Member
If an employee is working in a state with a minimum wage higher than the $8.50 starting contract rate, they start at the state minimum rate. No one is paid less than the state minimum wage per hour. After tax/dues/fees take home pay may be less but the hourly rate is at least the minimum wage in each state.
True. State Law always trumps contract law. But isn't it a devastating commentary on the Teamsters Union that their definition of "best ever" contracts contain part-time starting wages below one or more state minimum wages.
I'd say that this an accurate statement but incomplete in its content.
UPS part time employees out number the full time/top scale drivers and 22.3's combined.
They have the voting power to change their circumstances but repeatedly choose not exercise their voice in ratifying a contract.
This is why it is what it is.
Part-timers who are members of the Bargaining Unit but not members of the Teamsters Union in RTW states can't vote by law.

Part-timers who are members of the Bargaining Unit but not members of the Teamsters Union in non-RTW states (Agency Fee Payors) can't vote by law.

Contract votes are only held every five or six years. Relatively few part-timers are members in good standing when the votes are held. Many part-timers pass thru the revolving doors only to work for a few days, weeks, months, or years, and are not part-time when a vote is taken. Either they left the Company, or went full-time.

The worst wages and benefits are always reserved for the "unborn." This large block of part-timers who will be hired during the Contract's term, can't vote even though they will be eventually working under the Contract and will be dues paying Union members.

Some part-timers on the payroll who have not yet paid all their dues and initiation fees can't vote because they are not yet "members in good standing."

Some part-timers vote "Yes" because the Teamsters Union unanamously recommends the Contract, as does UPS. They are lead to believe it is the best offer that can be gotten, and a "No" vote means a strike, and possible job loss. They don't know any better because no one educates them.
 

old brown shoe

30 year driver
Right to work means right to part time,mininum wage no benefit jobs in your state. It will mean more jobs because for every full time job it will turn into two or more part time jobs. Also will put a burdon on your State as more people will need Food Stamps and other programs so they can survive in your Right to Work State.
 

brownIEman

Well-Known Member
In general, right to work states tend to have lower unemployment, yet lower average wages for those with a job. After factoring cost of living, percentage of people below the poverty level tends to be lower in right to work states. But it seems debatable how much if any of this actually has to do with the right to work status of these states. (BTW, Old brown shoe, taxes tend to be higher in non-right to work state, so I would have a hard time believing your food stamp theory would hold up under scrutiny)

There are no legal impediments to a union organizing a workforce in a right to work state. The only difference is that once they have organized, they cannot force represented members to pay them. Hence the problem of the "free-riders". Employees under a bargaining agreement that must be represented by the union but do not need to pay dues. This might then make it harder for unions in these states to fund organizing efforts as they may have fewer resources.

On the other hand, it may force the unions in these states to pay closer attention to the wishes of their members. Forcing them to spend more money on working for the employees and less on political campaigns and other efforts the members might not agree with. Due to the fact that they must prove their worth to employees to get their money.

I would be curious to see a tally of all the posts on this board about how the union has failed to represent the poster, and what percentage of them come from non-right to work states as apposed to right to work states...?
 

grgrcr88

No It's not green grocer!
They don't know any better because no one educates them.

What are we Teachers? They should educate themselves. Just like I did, and as the members before them have done. I would think if your joining a Union workforce and you don't know anything about the Union you would take the time to learn about it if you cared at all.

There is the true problem. Most part timers just don't care, therefore don't ever get involved.
 

JonFrum

Member
What are we Teachers? They should educate themselves. Just like I did, and as the members before them have done. I would think if your joining a Union workforce and you don't know anything about the Union you would take the time to learn about it if you cared at all.

There is the true problem. Most part timers just don't care, therefore don't ever get involved.

Isn't this also true of many full-timers as well?

Usually it isn't until someone is within about five years of retirement that they show a significant interest. And even then, it's usually only an interest in the topic of retirement.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
I'm not all that convinced right to work laws are really all that bad. I believe there are certain groups of people like part timers and combo workers who don't benefit from the union all that much. The level of representation they receive is pretty pathetic, and the best way to show that displeasure is to allow them the right to withhold their dollars from the union. If the union really wants to prove its worth it needs a motivation to do so. Since a union is a business anyways it should have to reinvent itself toward its members if it wants to survive by proving that its worth it to pay those dues. If my state were right to work I would probably continue paying dues as I feel I am finally in a group which really benefits from decent representation. Now during my previous jobs under previous union leadership and lackluster representation I would probably elect not to pay dues because in a lot of ways I felt they didn't deserve it.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Right to work means right to part time,mininum wage no benefit jobs in your state. It will mean more jobs because for every full time job it will turn into two or more part time jobs. Also will put a burdon on your State as more people will need Food Stamps and other programs so they can survive in your Right to Work State.

Truisms that are mostly false.
I assume you don't live in a right to work state and also you choose to ignore the people in your state who are not working for a Union company.
 

ups clerk

Well-Known Member
Not that I would do it, but if a person lives in a state that turns into a right to work state, would he have the option to dropout of the union? My state, Missouri is considering legistlation later in the year, and I was just curious. I am a steward and I will be approached this by many members in my building. We are not happy with our local and I could see a lot of people dropping out.
Somebody here said it will make the union work harder. In my local, our union definitely needs to reinvent itself.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
Not that I would do it, but if a person lives in a state that turns into a right to work state, would he have the option to dropout of the union? My state, Missouri is considering legistlation later in the year, and I was just curious. I am a steward and I will be approached this by many members in my building. We are not happy with our local and I could see a lot of people dropping out.
Somebody here said it will make the union work harder. In my local, our union definitely needs to reinvent itself.

Yes they can. Company and Union make it hard to do but persistence pays off.
 

grgrcr88

No It's not green grocer!
Not that I would do it, but if a person lives in a state that turns into a right to work state, would he have the option to dropout of the union? My state, Missouri is considering legislation later in the year, and I was just curious. I am a steward and I will be approached this by many members in my building. We are not happy with our local and I could see a lot of people dropping out.
Somebody here said it will make the union work harder. In my local, our union definitely needs to reinvent itself.

Refer them to your B/A. Nothing gets someones attention more than the membership letting them know directly that they lack confidence in their abilities and choose not to support them.
 
Top