Should The Next Contract Address "Scabs?"

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by Overpaid Union Thug, Mar 10, 2015.

  1. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I'd like to see everyones thoughts/ideas on whether or not scabs (for the purpose of this thread a scab is an hourly employee that doesn't pay union dues) should be addressed in the next contact. Would it be legal? How should it be addressed? Obviously this mainly applies to those of us in the RTW states but everyone else please chime in.

    My solution would be simple. I do believe everyone should have the right to choose whether or not they join the union but if they decided no then they should be at the bottom of seniority lists until they join. I'm tired of these people refusing to join but don't hesitate to take advantage of seniority. Among other things that mostly exist due to the fact there is a union to demand and enforce them. Let them keep the pay though. That way when they are stuck with the worst jobs/routes they will at least appreciate the union negotiated pay that they are getting for the extra heavy work those lower seniority jobs entail. And maybe see the error in their ways and join.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  2. UPSmechanicinblue

    UPSmechanicinblue Active Member

    nothing can be done-RTW was to fabbed up to weaken and bankrupt the UNION. Also companies can now monitor payroll to see how many members support the union by who pays dues, when this number gets low enough they can vote to decertify.
  3. Lead Belly

    Lead Belly BANNED

    Republicans started right to work and they won't stop till there are no more unions period.
  4. UPSmechanicinblue

    UPSmechanicinblue Active Member

    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • List
  5. Atomic_Smurf

    Atomic_Smurf Well-Known Member

    The article you posted is true. When union leaders cry about being "forced" to represent nonmembers they are crocodile tears. Union leaders actually agree to represent all employees in a bargaining unit & then turn around & lie to the members, claiming RTW forces them to do so. If union leadership wants to bargain for members only, they are free to do so & may even hype the idea...but when they get behind closed doors, at the negotiation table, they won't.
  6. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Ok maybe I should have said chime in only with actual suggestions on how to address scabs in the contract and not just political comments that belong in the current evens forum.
  7. box_beeyotch

    box_beeyotch Well-Known Member

    Wait your telling me these clowns have seniority rights even though they don't pay dues? That should automatically void your right to representation and everything due paying members have.
  8. DriveInDriveOut

    DriveInDriveOut This Is The Last Stop

    A private sector union operates under a legally enforceable "duty of fair representation," that is, the union must “fairly and equitably…represent all employees..., union and nonunion.” International Assn. of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 761 (1961). This means a union cannot discriminate or act arbitrarily toward any employee due to the nature of his relationship with the union, and all employees are equally entitled to the union’s fair and vigorous representation. All members and non-members must receive the fruits of the union’s bargaining – wages, benefits and all other rights and protections – and enjoy full access to the grievance and arbitration process that is established to redress adverse or improper actions by the employer. 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(2); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 204 (1944); Bowman v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 744 F. 2d 1207, 1213-14 (6th Cir. 1984). This right to full and fair individual treatment by the union is legally enforceable in court and before the NLRB. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S.171 (1967); Plumbers Local 32 v. NLRB, 50 F. 3d 29, 31-32 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 974 (1995).
  9. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    My opinion is simple... if you want the job at UPS... its a union job... you should be in the union... If you dont want to be in a union.... go work for Fed Ex
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • Like Like x 3
    • List
  10. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    And that is exactly why I can't stand the people that are anti-union in my center. But they sure don't hesitate to use their seniority or file a grievance the second they are disciplined or fired.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  11. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    Life's not fair!
  12. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Fredom of choice takes "fair" out of the conversation.
  13. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I think that less people would have an issue with RTW if the laws didn't require that unions equally represent scabs. That is what's not fair. Sure let them opt out. But they shouldn't receive all of the same perks as those of us that join and pay.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  14. MC4YOU2

    MC4YOU2 Wherever I see Trump, it smells like he's Putin.

    I don't think most of those that opt out have the foresight to see the benefits they take fur granted are bargained for by the union they refuse to support. On down the road, a weakened union can't save itself if it has to fight without funds to do so. I'd support a loss of their seniority, but I doubt that's possible.
  15. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    There are as many jobs within UPS that are non-Union as Union. :wink:
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  16. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    It's important to remember that the people behind RTW laws are anti-union and have zero interest in tailoring those laws to benefit paying union members in fact their goal is the exact opposite, to encourage people to quit the union by allowing them to collect all the benefits without paying union dues. They understand that many workers are short sighted and don't realize that in the long term reduced membership weakens the union's bargaining power and lessens their ability to negotiate those increased benefits. Then they'll point to the reduced benefits and go "Look guys, the union is screwing you with all these give backs to the company because they take you for granted! You should vote for more rtw laws so you can hold them accountable!".
  17. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    I think the fundamental question then is whether the union has a business relationship with the company or the individual employees.
  18. realbrown1

    realbrown1 Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.

    I think you got that wrong. That's a FAIL for you.
  19. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    No, actually it isn't. The union negotiates on behalf of the employees of a company. It exists independent of rigorous or lax activity of the employees.

    Do most choose to contribute or not? Is there a group that once paid dues but in growing dissatisfied with union leaders or representation decided to withhold dues?
  20. UPS4Life

    UPS4Life Active Member

    I really see this as a problem that's just beginning. I argue with a few I work with because if they're in a RTW state they're saving money from union dues and get all the perks the union members get. (Their mentality)

    I really wish the union could force their hand and have two pay scales. Have a union pay rate of 34$/hr or whatever is negotiated on and for none union employees ya know what ups you can pick the wage because that's what a nonunion job would do right? Just look at Walmart. The company says 27$/hr but the union thinks that is just too high why not 24.50$. If only this scenario could actually exist and it goes much further than just pay. Let the scabs represent themselves. I was told when I was hired that this is a union job and I have to join the union. I was ok with that because if I wasn't I could have walked out the same door i just walked in.

    I feel like the union is losing its backbone and that needs to change or we'll all be in trouble in another 10 years.

    Sent using BrownCafe App