When Bethlehem's School Directors meet this evening, one of the agenda items listed is a 3-year collective bargaining agreement with the teachers' union. Though the agreement itself is absent, one of the items included is what is known as a "fair share" clause. This requires theschool district to withhold union dues from the salaries of all teachers and other professionals within a bargaining unit, regardless whether they are members. School Board President Michael Faccinetto explains that all the other collective bargaining agreements contain such a clause. Seventy per cent of all teacher contracts contain this kind of clause.
This is a controversial issue nationwide. One the one hand, why should a union be required to provide representation to someone who won't pay dues? But why should teachers be forced to contribute to unions who take their money to support candidates that individual teachers oppose? I have no answer. If anything, I would tend to side with the union on this issue.
What I do know is that good government requires transparency. It appears to me that no notice has been given to the public concerning this clause. This issue deserves more scrutiny.
Clarification: By law, union dues paid by nonmembers may not be used for campaign contributions.
19 comments:
When someone who is not a member of a union has money withdrawn from their pay, that money is less than the amount a member pays. The reason for this is that the money from a non member may only be used for activities that support the day to day functions of the union. Such as salaries of staff and office expenses. Only full members may have part if their dues diverted to the unions PAC. So the amount that is the difference between a member and non member is what goes to political contributions.
Thank you for that explanation. I was sure that nonmember dues are used for political contributions. And I guess I was wrong.
My pleasure. Most people don't realize this. This is from the website of the national right to work legal defense fund, an anti union group.
"The Supreme Court, in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that under the National Labor Relations Act the most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment."
I clarified my post in response to your comment. Thanks.
Bernie,
As one who organized CIU 20 transportation workers and now serves as a shop steward, Fair Share is still viewed as "unfair" by some of our most anti-union members now within the ranks, though we have had converts.
Those came after the Local defended them in disciplinary matters or pay disputes. Fair Share members are entitled to union representation, just as full dues paying members are. Others saw the benefit of the union when our first contract got us a some paid holidays and personal time off (previously, we had 0), plus keeping health benefits and the end of favoritism in work assignments (instituting seniority bidding).
The difference of saving 15% by being a fair share member means those that choose not to pay full dues keep an extra $2.00 - $3.00 in their paycheck every two weeks, but lose their right to vote on union matters.
We still have a few diehards that refuse to be a full dues paying union member, but will undoubtedly demand union help when they need it. We provide it, as we would for a loyal member.
And that's OK with me. The converts we get after we save their job often make the best union members. The light bulb suddenly comes on for them.
As for me, I may not always agree with the choice of candidate that my money goes to, but the choice is made on the candidates "attitude" toward unions. I can't get everything I want in any candidate, but if a few of my dollars goes toward one that protects my rights as a worker and my union, I don't complain.
Matthew A. Dees
More controversial is the renewal of a contract with no details given to the public before the time of the meeting. A renewal happening while every other group is in the midst of a pay freeze. More than half of the employees of BASD are not teachers and get to pay for the teachers' raises.
Actually lets get this straight for once. Unions can't by law take union dues either from full members or fair share members and use them for political purposes. The only money that goes towards political contributions is through the PAL Program, where union members can give an additional amount that goes specifically to political contributions.
Also we don't view fair share members as non-members. They get all the benefits except holding office and voting privileges. Those benefits are held only for full share members.
Contract renewals are tricky when it comes to transparency before the board votes. We do not negotiate in public like some do and a deal is not a deal until both sides ratify. It is no different than negotiating with a vendor for professional services. I agree 99% of what we do must be public and in the sunshine, but a complex agreement like a CBA, teachers or another group, can't be published until it's finalized. The fact is the 9 members of the board were elected to make decisions and we do our best for the district and the community. Unhappy parties are welcome to file petitions Feb 17th for the upcoming election.
Unhappy citizens only recluse is to run for office? What happened to Courtesy of the Floor?
You really don't have that much contempt for the public, do you, Mr. Board President?
*recourse
At 10:04
So you would have the board read and get approval from the public during a school board meeting before they vote? Why stop at Courtesy of the Floor? Why not just put it on the ballot and let the populace vote on it?
Your school board is elected to make the contract decisions, just as state legislators are elected to make decisions without a ballot vote. If you don't like those decisions, vote them out.
Residents of the district are certainly welcome to speak at courtesy of the floor. Additionally we receive multiple emails from the public around hot topics. However the contract details still would not be public until the board ratifies. My comments were in response to Bernie's concern of no time for public to review the details before the vote. The greatest power of the people is to speak at the ballot box by voting us out if you don't agree or stepping up to serve.
Mike, I appreciate the explanation. I know these contracts are madr part of the agenda in the county. I think once you reach consensus in executive session, you should make it public.
Is the entire CBA part of the agenda before the vote or just highlights?
Mike, I usually see the entire agreement before the vote. I can understand keeping things under wraps during negotiation. But once management and the union reach consensus, and you folks nod your approval in Executive Session, I would urge you to make it public. In most instances, it won't matter. Even here, it won't matter. I doubt people feel strongly enough to demand a lot of your time. But the more public vetting, the better. One of my own misunderstandings was eliminated within minutes of publishing my story.
Let me add that the CBAs at the county level are the exception, not the rule. I do not see copies of them at township meetings. I do see them at Bethlehem City Council. Thanks for your participation in this topic. It's always refreshing.
But I still think anyone who wants to be a school director is nutz.
And I believe the BEA has already accepted the agreement.
And don't get me wrong. I want the teachers to get a deal - I just would like to see all the other people struggling on pay freezes to get some relief.
I'm a fair share employee and while my "dues" aren't suppose to support a political cause the union sure sends me enough crap telling me who to vote for.
Hank_Hill
Post a Comment