APWU’s President Burrus states that in March he sent letters to non-APWU members requesting that they join the union. The mailing included a postage-paid return envelope along with an APWU membership application.
Burrus noted that about 1000 postal employees chose to join the union, but many others chose to use the postage-paid envelope to express their negative views regarding the union and union membership – because of this, Burrus decided to publicize the names of those who identified themselves.
You may read Burrus’ statements and see his publicized list of employees choosing not to join APWU here.
pdogg… it tickles me to here a custodian or clerk complain about this union. Would you rather be excessed on the street? As I stated earlier…. this is your union. They would throw me under the bus in favor of you. Even though we’re both members. So, I have no sympathy for you and your group’s failure to recognize that. And you should thank the government for allowing the loophole needed to form a union in a government protected entity in the first place. At least they’re trying to hold on to your jobs. Us… by the time it’s all over, there’ll be nowhere to send us. But at least we have a skill that in industry wide. The strong will survive.
This union is a joke. This has got to be the weakest union there is. We have no leverage without the ability to strike. Management does whatever they want and th union stands by and lets it happen.In the past year we as clerks have all lost our jobs to mailhandlers on the flatsorters, tour 2 has been abolished, people being excxessed to 150 miles away. The union has done NOTHING!!!!
the union dont do crap for me. been paying my dues for 2 years and everytime i need them i get the cold shoulder. cant blame them for not joing
Unions once were very needed in the american mode of things. Thanks to the efforts of the unions… there are laws, rules, statutes, etc, etc, on the books that protects the good workers. The unions seem to think that this same confrantational style is going to garner more results. This “US against Them” attitude is rediculous. Company heads are human beings. If you confront me, about the company that i owned or managed… , i would tell you to go eat a bone. It’s been long proven that if you treat people like humans… they respond that way. Anyway… you can apply this to non members. If you take them seriouly, and listen and try to address thier concerns… then maybe, they will join. This BS about “scabs” and freeloaders and crap will do nothing but drive the wedge further in. Unions may be needed in some industries but NOT in the capacity that they once were. Unions are in desparate need of re-invention. Come up to the modern era. Protecting worthless, lazy workers, (which is what unions are known for), is not a legacy to maintain. a small business cannot afford to keep one of these employees on the books and maintain his or her overhead. Start protecting the good, performing workers. You’ll gain more respect and members.
You people who oppose anyone who dissagrees with the sorry pratices of this union are indeed major A-Holes. I’ve been a member all of my carreer but I’m at my wits end. I’m maintainance and this union is managed by custodians and clerks. Therefore the benefits that it seems to fight for are geared towards that end. In my facility alone, the custodians have gotten and won 8 grievences in the 12 years i’ve been here alone. The mechs. and et’s have goten 1. And that one wasn’t even originally filed on our behalf. It was actually manipulated and stolen from the original filers by the local heads. This union is full of Hoffa like shady individuals. I’ve been a skilled (schooled) mech. for years. Actually working in the position. I had been trying to get the perks of seniority the whole time. But this stupid union says that if a person… as long as they are in this installation and breath the air longer, will have seniority over me if they are promoted to my occupation. WHAT!!!! You mean that if someone gets a promotion to my ranks, i get a demotion??? How F’ed up is that. This has happened when custodians get promoted to mechanics and mech or anyone get promoted to ET’s. What the hell are we busting our humps for? Seniority means that they outbid us for everything. When you’re promoted to a higher level that should be your reward. Why do they have to cause grief to the workers already vesting time and effort in those positions. This is proof that this union rides the backs of the proffessional trades. If we weren’t in this union then they would have far less pull with management. We need our own union that really knows what we do and support us. And stop promoting these useless and unqualified peeps to our ranks. Because with every custodian with no real knowledge or experience of the job, the one’s who know have to work that much harder. And usually ther’re the one’s at the bottom of the “union defined” seniority list. This union sucks. In 12 years, I’ve not only seen it not get better… it actually got worst. I’m getting out. Why would i pay for getting screwed. We benefit because everything this union fights for… they must give to all. But it’s not with my benefit involved when they fight for it. You may dissagree with me if you wish. It’s your right to do so. Just as it’s my right to dissagree.
my wife is a union steward and she is in bed with management, and she need you to join the union.
HoagieHead – Dec 15, 2009 at 5:48 pm: “Your discloser left out one item-the posts are written by a MORON!”
Is this the best you can do?
I understand the vacuous nature of union advocacy renders impotent those who strive to defend the tyranny of compulsory allegiance to union ideology. Perhaps that is why you avoided such advocacy and went straight to the vandalization of another’s character. Like most things union, your uncorroborated opinion lacks practical value. Are you not capable of articulating in a coherent manner that which causes you to believe I am a moron? Or will your future silence stand as a monument to your inability to counter the writings of an individual whom you have declared to have the mental capability of an 8 to 12 year old?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
Oh Salty,
What a wordsmith you are! Why is your wonderful writing skills being wasted at the PO? Surely you could get a job(non-union no doubt) at some great urban newspaper-oh wait their all going under. A job must be awaiting you at some publishing house or maybe as a technical writer at a manufacturer. Your discloser left out one item-the posts are written by a MORON!
Stubster – Dec 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm: “As a union member, I see the need for reprensentation in our jobs.”
I agree that a need for representation exists in the workplace but what requires that representation to be performed by a labor union? What requires the representative to represent non-union member employees?
Stubster – Dec 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm: “Unions protect us from unfair management practices and do their best to make sure thing are done according to the rules.”
Who protects the employee from unfair labor practices by the union? Who ensures the union does things according to the rules? Who determines what the rules are?
Stubster – Dec 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm: “I also respect the rights of people to refuse union membership, even though we are pulling their weight.”
What would cause union member employees to believe non-union member employees are not pulling their own weight? What egregious burden are they placing upon their union member co-workers? Does that burden justify the hostility exhibited by union members toward those who refuse union membership?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
As a union member, I see the need for reprensentation in our jobs. Unions protect us from unfair management practices and do their best to make sure thing are done according to the rules. I also agree that many employees are acting like spoiled, lazy brats and hiding behind the union. I know one such person that abused the FMLA for months and still had a job when they returned. We are here to deliver mail, not make excuses or take loads of off time that we don’t earn. I also respect the rights of people to refuse union membership, even though we are pulling their weight. To those who are slacking, realize that times are getting tougher, and your half-ass work ethic is punishing all of us who want to work for a living.
Gregg – Nov 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm: “… you may not like paying dues because you are a cheapskate, …”
What a cheap shot. Other than expressing a disdain for union members, Gayle gave no reason for refusing to join the union.
Gregg – Nov 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm: :… but look at it this way: if you did not have a union negotiating your pay for you, …”
Why do you use illusionary stories of how bad life could be without a union champion protecting the non-union member employee? With less than 15 percent of private sector workers electing union membership, the rejection of unions is a factual reality. And it is not difficult to understand that union methodologies, such as their reliance on political force to compel others to submit to union control, are one of the reasons for that rejection. It seems the American worker realizes that unions are something other than the champions of labor they advertise themselves to be.
Your post ignores one indisputable Fact: Union members are the creators and instigators of the conflict between themselves and the non-union member employee. Solidarity, the unified force of labor against the employer, is essential to the survival of the union. Where solidarity cannot be achieved, suppression of non-union labor by whatever means necessary is an absolute operational imperative. A free market, where labor is bought and sold according to terms and conditions mutually agreeable to each participant in the transaction, is fatal to organized labor. It is therefore crucial for unions to control the employer’s access to labor and thus unions survive only to the extent they are able to destroy the free market.
The loss of the closed shop forced unions to change their tactics. Although less effective, their use of exclusive representation still enables them to control employer access to non-union labor. With their exclusive representative status secured, unions use that status to justify the imposition of a tribute upon the non-union member employees it has subjugated. Because right-to-work provisions in state and federal laws prohibit unions from imposing that tribute, unions aggressively and relentlessly assault right-to-work laws. If it were not for this deliberate aggression against their non-union co-workers, there would be no reason for any hostility between the two groups.
Salty
?
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
?
gayle, you may not like paying dues because you are a cheapskate, but look at it this way: if you did not have a union negotiating your pay for you, you would be making half as much money, a poor health care plan if any at all and working in sweatshop conditions. in other words, you would probably be on welfare because you would have been fired by now! of course, as a non union representative, maybe you would rather negotiate these benefits and salary for yourself with postal management! THINK ABOUT HOW EASY THAT WOULD BE! gregg L morrisville pa
FTAPWU…………………HAH. SCAB for life and PROUD. Union lackies are largely responsible for the state of affairs within the Postal Service. You folks won’t always be able to hide behind the auspices of union representation, sooner or later the folks paying you will put an end to the waste and abuse fostered in the underlying “union brotherhood and sisterhood.”
For every honest hard working dues paying member, there are 2 or 3 dues paying members that do great disservice to your organization. Please, before you blame me, the SCAB for riding your coattails, check the rolls and clean your own house before you point the finger at me……….SFL……..Scab for Life.
C.J. Edgin – Nov 1, 2009 at 12:27 am: “… I’m not a lawyer, but a low steward in our Local…”
From the content and context of your post, it is obvious that you and I are separated by a great gulf of disagreement. Is it possible for you to agree with me that the reason for having a union in the workplace is to protect the employee from the employer?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
Its about time! When you submit something you lose control over it and I applaud our President Burris for this action!
Those -Out House Lawyers who portray themselves as being something they ain’t-experts on labor law or contracts should wise up. Unions are what brought you, me US our five day work weeks, holidays and paid leave. Doubt this? Look it up.
Second I’m not a lawyer, but a low steward in our Local and serve all members-and I’ve heard every reason for those that dont belong. Its this, its that but it seems to revolve around one thing, the self. But thats okay-but dont pretend to be a grand knight and protector of knowledge-sorry charlie!
Personaly, I feel sorry for those non members, I can walk the floor and call out to my union brothers and sisters for support and know where I stand (no I;m not blind I know issues are everywhere), but together we stand or divided we fall.
msaved56 (October 10, 2009 at 9:27 am): “I’m a member of the APWU only because …”
Have you not, for the sake of peace, placed yourself under the union’s authority, subjecting yourself to its control and discipline as well as its power to tax your wages? Why would you do that to yourself? Have you considered the end to which union taxes are applied?
msaved56 (October 10, 2009 at 9:27 am): “‘Non-Union members are not riding for free.’ In the USPS it’s not a requirement to join!”
In the union lexicon, any employee who benefits from union representation while not paying their fair share of the costs of that representation is riding for free. This is what unions call their free rider problem. But, since unions are private associations of like-minded employees exercising their First Amendment freedom of association, unions, and by extension, their membership, do not have a free rider problem.
Not deterred by this factual reality, union leadership is relentless in its endeavor to subjugate and profit from those it represents. To the extent the actions of union members harass or intimidate employees into joining the union, they make known their approval or, as illustrated by the actions which generated this thread, actually initiate the hostility. Once subjugated to the taxation power of the union, employees are compelled to financially support the political and ideological agenda of the union.
Those who refuse to bend their knee to union tyranny by exercising their liberty to not associate with the union are but enemies worthy of denigration by word and deed. That such activity creates the hostile work environment you cite as your reason for joining the union is nothing more than what is necessary to cleanse the workplace of recalcitrant employees who refuse to submit to union domination.
It matters not to me why someone joins the union; only that they have chosen to associate with those who define me as an enemy in need of forceful subjugation or elimination.
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
PhilD – 2009-10-15: “I just want everyone to think about this very carefully, No lay-off clause after 6 years of service. That alone is worth the price of belonging to the Union.”
What is there to think about? A years of service clause is nothing more than a tenurial type modification to an existing seniority system. Since the clause operates on a time, rather than an affiliation bases, it protects all employees, union and non-union, who meet the time criteria. Represented employees who do not qualify for “tenure” have only the normal seniority system to establish the order in which they will be furloughed or terminated.
You seem to operate on the assumption that others easily see what is, at least to you, plainly obvious. But you fail to explain why this benefit alone is worth the price of union membership when it can be had without joining the union. Because of the union’s insistence on being the exclusive representative of all the employees within a bargaining unit, non-union member employees are able to enjoy union negotiated benefits without exposing themselves to union control and disciple; and, in right to work jurisdictions, union imposed financial obligations.
PhilD – 2009-10-15: “Do any of you who are scabs really think you would still have a job in this economy if not for the Unions?”
“Good grief!” Charlie Brown exclaimed while lying on his back after Lucy once again pulled the football away just as he swung his foot to kick it. (Sooner or later you would expect Charlie to learn he cannot trust Lucy to hold the ball).
What does one have to do with the other? Does the union create the job or decide who occupies the position created?
The customer, not the union, controls the demand for labor and the employer controls the creation, existence, and demise of the job. Can you explain how the union protects an employee’s job in a declining economy? In an economic climate that does not support the existence of a job the union cannot preserve that job without endangering the financial survival of the employer.
Lacking the power to hire and fire, the union is limited to negotiating the order in which employees will be furloughed or terminated. Perhaps because it is simpler than a matrix enabling the employer to terminate the inefficient or disruptive employee first, unions prefer seniority, i.e. time of service. But, because it restricts the employer’s ability to retain an efficient and profitable work force, especially in difficult economic times when it matters most, the seniority system is seriously flawed. Working against the employer’s financial interests, the seniority system, with its “last hired – first fired” structure, exposes employers to very real economic risks while being of dubious value to employees.
The time of service clause protects only to the extent the demand for labor declines less than the number of employees not qualified for tenurial retention. But what happens when demand declines to a level where financial prudency mandates the termination of employees protected by the years of service clause? What if all of a company’s represented employees are protected by the clause? Contractually bound to retain the protected employees, non-labor expenses will have to be reduced which may result in additional declines in revenue. At some point the clause will have to be violated or the company will cease to exist.
A negotiated concession, the time of service clause is agreed to by the employer who knows that in a bad economic climate the clause can be eliminated by arbitration, court decree, or bankruptcy. Not needed during a good economy and losable in a bad economy when needed the most, the time of service clause amounts to little more than a security blanket for the employee, a recruiting point for the union, and an incentive tending to reduce the employer’s workforce turnover expenses.
The consideration you encouraged others to undertake reveals the clause for what it really is; a shiny trinket having no tangible worth to the employee.
PhilD – 2009-10-15: “If the lay-off clause, by some chance, gets taken away by an arbitrator …”
Why do you accept as a good deal negotiated benefits which you do not control and which can be reduced, devalued, or eliminated by others?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
I just want everyone to think about this very carefully, No lay-off clause after 6 years of service. That alone is worth the price of belonging to the Union.
If the lay-off clause, by some chance, gets taken away by an arbitrator, then union fought senority will prevail. Do any of you who are scabs really think you would still have a job in this economy if not for the Unions?
The Union is Legalized Extortion. I’m a member of the APWU only because if I’m not it’s like being in a hostile environment. No one will talk to you etc. “Non-Union members are not riding for free””. In the USPS it’s not a requirement to join !
Pam (Sep 24, 2009 @ 8:26 pm): “Many employees get pushed around by management and threatened etc so the union is very good.”
“These rose colored glasses….” (Unknown singer)
Many employees get pushed around and threatened by the officials and members of unions. Because of unions, multitudes have lost their liberty and property, many have lost their employment, and some have lost their lives. It seems you give no room for a union and its membership to be bad; perhaps even evil. At what point along the scale of human behavior would you declare that good has turned into bad or bad into evil?
Or is it such an insignificant matter that union members need not waste their time considering the size of the foot print they leave in the lives of those they trample in their quest for material gain?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
Mr. Burris (May 29, 2009): “Generally, the responses from those who declined membership demonstrate that they fail to appreciate that every benefit of employment they receive is a direct result of union activity. * * * It would be in their best interest to have a voice in the decisions that will affect them, including their rate of pay, the number of hours they work, and the location of their employment.”
Is it possible that Mr. Burris’ statement, “It would be in their best interest to have a voice in the decisions that will affect them, . . . “, is a tacit admission that the voices of non-union member employees are routinely disregarded and that the APWU intentionally refuses to fulfill its court imposed duty of fair representation required of them in exchange for the privilege of being the exclusive representative of all the employees in the collective bargaining unit? Is Mr. Burris publicly admitting non-union member employees have a “voice” only if they join the union and subjugate themselves to union authority and discipline?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
Patty O (Jul 15, 2009 at 9:05 am) and those who believe as she does: “P. S. I don’t care if you join the union. I probably wouldn;t want you to join. But I am sick and tired of my dues going towards your pay, your health benefits and everything else.”
Well, that makes two of us. I am sick and tired of having union representation and its supposed benefits imposed upon me. You would not want me to join your union. I have absolutely no desire to associate with people who are so ignorant they are incapable of comprehending that it is they who create the situation they perceive as unjust while refusing to understand that it is they who hold the power to cure the problem they complain about. The conduct of the union membership in this regard is no different than that of an individual who continually complains about lying on wet sheets while refusing to get out of a bed saturated by his own urine.
It is almost beyond belief that union members can speak with such acidic rhetoric toward those on whose necks they stand. As a non-union member employee represented by a union, I am powerless to refuse union representation or the benefits derived from that representation. If you are so sick and tired of having your finances penalized by being forced to pay for the union representation and benefits received by non-union member employees, then stand up and challenge your union to seek recognition as a members-only representative. Since the union would only be negotiating on behalf of the union membership, non-union member employees would not be eligible for union representation or union negotiated benefits. This would solve the free rider problem union members continually whine about.
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
FC (Aug 10, 2009 at 7:02 am): “The Post Office gave the SCABS a raise so they would not join the union.”
It is a violation of Title 39, Section 1209(c) and Title 29 Section 157 for an employer to provide an incentive to an employee for the purpose of persuading that employee to either join, or to refrain from joining, the union and doing so would be an unfair labor practice as established by Title 29 Section 158(a)(1) and (3) .
Do you actually believe this rubbish? How is it possible for others to take you seriously when you make such obviously inaccurate statements? Do your co-workers agree with you or are they simply tolerant of your credibility deficiency?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
Patty O (Jun 5, 2009 at 8:13 pm): “What would be fair? If those who are not members were paid at the minimum wage and had no union representation.”
Parttimeunionfree (Aug 2, 2009 at 1:12 pm): “Have the union make two different forms of benefits with the usps, one for non-union and one for union.”
Can either of you explain why your suggestions would result in the union and the employer violating federal labor law?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
FC (Jul 16, 2009 at 10:49 am): “To all of the non union members bashing the union . . ., I have to ask. Have you turned down the raises or benefits that you received from the union since you did not negotiate them for yourselves? And then did you try to negotiate your own raise and your own benefits?”
FC (Aug 10, 2009 at 7:02 am): “I have not heard of ONE non-union member who has tried to carry his own weight by negotiating his own pay, sick leave, and other benefits. [ . . . ] Give it a try SCABS……next pay raise, sick leave, night d, benefits, etc. that comes about through union contract negotiations, turn the raise down and inform the post office that you want to negotiate your own raise.”
Is it proper for you to call the non-union member employee a SCAB because the employee will not negotiate his or her own terms and conditions of employment or decline union negotiated benefits when it is the union membership preventing the non-union member employee from doing so?
If I did not perceive your words as originating from the uttermost depths of the pit of ignorance, I would believe you are mocking those the union membership holds in bondage to the union.
Salty
Disclaimer: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you believe you are in need of legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
Terry Joe Chapman (May 31, 2009 at 9:00 pm): “Their excuses not to support collective bargaining are all foucused around the “freeloading” mentalitality of having someone else pay the way. I havn’t seen a ligitament excuse yet that doesn’t hide the fact that they are too cheap to pay their way!”
Patty O (Jun 5, 2009 at 8:13 pm): “I personally like to know who is riding on the coat tails of my union dues and profitting from paying nothing. What would be fair? [ . . . ] But as it stand they get the good wages and representation as well, [ . . . ]. They are leeches and sponge off the rest of us.”
Daveunion (Jun 24, 2009 at 7:51 pm): “For me it’s the union, I know there are freeloaders and it disgusts me terribially.”
Patty O (Jun 15, 2009 at 9:05 pm): If it wasn’t for the union YOU would not be getting the pay you get. [ . . . ] I wish all of you who are not members did not have a right to the benefits I just stated. That would be fair and just.”
Patty O (Jun 15, 2009 at 9:01 pm): “I am sick and tired of my dues going towards your pay, your health benefits and everything else.”
FC (Jul 16, 2009 at 10:49 am): “. . . but at the same time you quietly accept any and all benefits of the union without doing anything what so ever such as pay dues . . . ”
FC (Aug 10, 2009 at 7:02 am): “SCABS got these raises as well as union members.”
Frank Shirley (Sep 7, 2009 at 3:06 pm): “It will never sease to amaze me that non union folks want everything we have except the dues.”
These are the types of comments one hears when simpletons, who listen to union agents, speak. While what is stated is generally a mixture of truths and falsehoods, union members continually demonstrate an inability to discern one from the other.
Contrary to what most, if not all, union members seem to believe, the fictitious free rider problem was created by labor unions, Congress, and the Supreme Court. By perpetuating an erroneous belief that the non-union member employee is riding for free, union members blind themselves to the reality that the resolution of this fictitious problem is within the power of the union membership.
From where does the notion that the dues paid by union members fund the “pay, health benefits, and everything else” received by the non-union member employee? Is not the payment for the benefits selected by the employee deducted from the pay of the employee who selected the benefit? How then, can this claim be credible?
Federal case law prohibits unions from imposing upon non-union member employees the cost of benefits available only to union members. It also clearly states that non-union member employees are not entitled to benefits funded solely by union members. If that is indeed the law, how is it possible for non-union member employees to receive benefits paid for by union dues?
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
Hillary Blinton (May 31, 2009 at 5:30 am): “DOES NOT YOUR CONTRACT STATE THAT YOU WILL REPRESENT UNION AND NON UNION MEMBERS FAIRLY?”
You lay the wrong charge and appeal to the wrong authority. The collective bargaining agreement is between the union and the employer. Employees, union and non-union alike, are not a party to the agreement. Because of this, employees are powerless to enforce the terms of the agreement or to compel either the union or the employer to abide by the agreement.
Mr. Burris’ action can easily be characterized as an act of hostility toward non-union member employees, whom he is bound by law to represent without hostility. Rather than yelling at him, would it not have been more effective to submit an unfair labor practice complaint to the NLRB claiming a violation of Title 29 Section 158(b)(1)(A) arising from his interference with employee’s rights as provided in Title 29 Section 157 and Title 39, Section 1209(c)?
Because Mr. Burris did not explain his decision, the question remains as to why the names were published. What possible purpose could justify and give merit to his decision? Until such a purpose is provided, I am inclined to conclude that it is what it appears to be; an act of retaliation intended to intimidate recalcitrant non-union member employees by subjecting them to harassment, ridicule, mockery, and similar types of abusive persuasion by the union membership. Considering the amount of vitriol in the postings to this blog, it is difficult to see how publishing the names could have been done for any purpose other than to provide a list of targets upon whom the animosity of union members could be unleashed.
Salty
Disclosure: I am a non-union member employee represented by a union. While I have in the past been compelled to pay an agency fee to a union in order to retain my right to work, I do not pay union imposed fees at this time. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, am not licensed to practice law, nor can I give legal advice. My words do not constitute legal advice; they are not given in that context or for that purpose and should not be applied to that end. If you need legal advice, contact the appropriate attorney.
Well my husband is a union steward and has saved many jobs!!! Many employees get pushed around by management and threatened etc so the union is very good. My husband has even represented the non union members when they’ve needed help even though I told him not to!! boy they sure appreciated it! They actually signed up to be part of the union after that.
we know who you are scabs
united we stand devided we beg
It never “ceases” to amaze me what lapdogs the unions are to Barak Obama. You guys don’t seem to care that our country going down the drain. You don’t care that Obama has surrounded himself with communists and Marxists like Van Jones, green jobs czar. What a joke that title is. Our country has no money but they keep spending and coming up with new ways to spend trillions of dollars. You never talk about that. Don’t you care about the debt your children are going to have to pay for? Your grandchildren will be born broke because of this administration. I paid dues to the NALC for exactly 30 years until this last June. The NALC supports card check and this lame brained government takeover of my healthcare. That made my decision a very easy. You guys need to forget the union and the democrat/republican party and just be Americans who care about the country we are leaving for our kids. These politicians only care about themselves. Democrats only like unions because they always get their votes and republicans are just stupid. If you don’t believe that then you just naive or worse.
It will never sease to amaze me that non union folks want everything we have except the dues. But the same thing happens everywhere. When Scabs have a problem they always run to the Union, don’t want to pay the dues but sure want the help and all the raises the Union gets for them. They fail to undeerstand that with all these lean times, if not for Unions they would be fired. The only reason that they are protected by the Unions is because management types are to dumb to know if they are a Scab or not.
FC is exactly correct, the PO did not or would not give anyone a pay raise if not for the UNIONS.
God Bless
Frank
I have not heard of ONE non-union member who has tried to carry his own weight by negotiating his own pay, sick leave, and other benefits. As soon as the new contract has been negotiated and the pay increases announced, SCABS got these raises as well as union members. The Post Office did not voluntarily give the SCABS a raise because they liked the SCABS. The Post Office gave the SCABS a raise so they would not join the union. Hard to believe that SCABS would dare think the post office gave them or anyone else a raise on their own behalf.
Give it a try SCABS……next pay raise, sick leave, night d, benefits, etc. that comes about through union contract negotiations, turn the raise down and inform the post office that you want to negotiate your own raise. Who knows, maybe you will get a bigger raise then the union…LAUGH OUT LOUD!!!
Wrong! We work for our jobs! And he banked his sick leave for exactly what he used it for emergency sick time, he did not use his days for extra days off because “its hot out” or “to go to a ball game”. I was talking about the workers who take “NON” sick days instead of using their paid leave days!! This is what is costing the postal service so much for labor, when you pay two people for one job!! and the union may be what you want but when it comes down to it, it is what will cost us all our full time jobs! it is always easier and cheaper to pay a non union, contract person than a full time career person. and if you don’t understand what I mean go read the testimony from the postal service that took place at congress the other day! the post office is looking to eliminate thousands of full time career jobs. The union cant stop that from happening if they can prove they are not needed from the mail levels and time. I am thankful for my husbands insurance but we get those from our job through the post office not from the union reps! they(you) dont pay my wages and they(you) dont pay my share on my insurance costs! when you are hired they tell you the union is your choice and you are not offered anything different if you choose to be apart of it! So please do not be mad at those who choose not to. I would understand your anger if the union offered better insurance or extra and we got it even though we did not pay dues but we get what the post office gives us we did not ask for what the “union” gives. Have the union make two different forms of benefits with the usps, one for non-union and one for union. That way those of us who choose not to take part dont have to listen to this crap of “scabs” anymore!
” My husband also works for the post office and is non union too! he has over 49 sick days which is really awesome since he had 6 weeks off for surgery”.
Your husband can thank the union for saving his job, because without union protection, your hubby probably would lose his job for taking 49 days off sick.
Not only are you scabbs but hypocrites, to boot!
To all of the non union members bashing the union and to those claiming union members hide behind mamas skirts, I have to ask. Have you turned down the raises or benefits that you received from the union since you did not negotiate them for yourselves? And then did you try to negotiate your own raise and your own benefits? No, you took the hand outs for free while at the same time criticizing those with enough class to at least pay the union for the work.! You bash the worker who abuses sick leave, does little work, and runs to the union for help but at the same time you quietly accept any and all benefits of the union without doing anything what so ever such as pay dues, attend union meetings or thank the union stewards to list a few.
P. S. I don’t care if you join the union. I probably wouldn;t want you to join. But I am sick and tired of my dues going towards your pay, your health benefits and everything else.
Well I see a few non members exercising thier right to bash the union. If it wasn’t for the union YOU would not be getting the pay you get. YOU would not get the helath benefits and medical benefits. YOU would not have a retirement. YOU would report to work and then be told to leave as there would be no work hour guarentees. YOU would not get overtime until you worked over 40 hours, in most states and you would be making minimum wage. While I realize that there are some who take advantage of their co workers, it is nothing to blame the union about. I wish all of you who are not members did not have a right to the benefits I just stated. That would be fair and just.
Stooopid Stooopid tactic. American people and postal workers in particular are simmering with rage and let it out at every “safe” provocation. We work under threat and bullying all the time – for the union to resort to the same tactic is just the straw on the camel’s back, the icing on the cake and it is only common sense that it would be rejected. Been waiting for the union to wake up for years but now I say it is time for a new union.
Brainwashed, lickspittle scabs are enemies of the working people. All Union members should know the names of these traitors working at our side. They
need to be reasoned with, and shown the error of their ways.
I am a part time rural carrier that covers alot of those wounds too!! and if we had more employees that worked to earn their pays instead of using every single sick day they are handed we would not be in the hole we are!! When you have to pay two employees to do one job then its time to make a change. I work almost 30 hours a week as a sub! Get rid of those that use there union to cover their summer “fevers”. My husband also works for the post office and is non union too! he has over 49 sick days which is really awesome since he had 6 weeks off for surgery. There is a difference between those that have good work ethics and those that want something for nothing!!! Yes the union gave you those days but I dont think that the union meant for them to be used as extra vacation days! or “sick of working for my pay” days!! If we would only give out 2 sick days per quarter we would save alot of money!! how often are you really sick a year and the funny thing is we give out free flu shots to full time employees but they still get the flu!? I read over all the posting for the union and the charges being handed out to union reps and that is why I am not part off the union!! My husbands benefits came with his job!! and for his 5 years he gave for our freedom in the Marines, not the union!
Let me say to all the union people that as a non union member I do not care if my name is posted for all to see. The ones that are going to stand around and gawk at the list are the same union members who use the union as a snotty-nosed 5 year old uses his mama. The 5 year old throw a rock at someone or spits on someone or calls them some sort of name and then runs to mama and hides behind her skirt. Now, not all union members, but a vast majority of them, act just like the 5 year old. They shirk their duties, go extra slow and let someone else take their slack, call in on sick leave or fmla all the time or purposely do things the wrong way. Then, when they are called out for what they have done, they run to their mama, in this case the apwu, and stand behind her skirt and let her take up for them just like she has always done.
Now, with that said, there are non union people who do some of this kind of thing, also.
What I would like to see is for the apwu, as well as all unions, to adopt a 3 strike and out philosophy.
Stop babying these “grown” people and let them fall on their asses every now and then, pick themselves up and deal with the situation they have created for themselves. You can still be mama if you want to but cut the apron strings on some of the dead weight in the postal system. Without them, we can do a better job.
If the person in question is a habitual sick leave abuser, and I mean ABUSER(you all know who you are), cut him/her loose. We are already doing their jobs when they are not there, so let’s just do it that way ALL the time.
If the person is constantly falling short on standards and being disciplined, show them the door. You can not continue to run a business, and YES, the usps is a business, in the manner that has gotten extremely out of control.
Give these people a fair chance to improve. They do deserve that much. Keep good records on them. But when they become too much of a liability on the system CUT THEM LOOSE. Tell them all at the outset what will happen if they don’t do things correctly. That way they can;t say, “oh, I didn’t know you could do that to me!”
I come to work every day unless I am sick. I have a good sick leave balance so if I need it as I get older, I have it. Most of the local members where I work are never going to have that. They work harder trying to get out of work than they ever would if they just came to work and did their jobs.
And yes there is a need for a watchdog so things don’t get out of hand. I see all the headlines from postal unions all around the country and I know for a fact that we never have the kind of problems that I read about. We’re not perfect by any means. We have our problems.
Yes, management can be a real monster. But when one monster goes against another monster, who wins, really?
I don’t care if you call me a “freeloader” or a “scab”. The fact is that I can work circles around anyone on any given day. I get paid good money for what I do. For that, I say thank you to the union. But because we live in a society that allows me to exercise my right to choose weather or not I belong to any organization, I choose not to belong to the apwu. It is a law and as long as it is, that is my stand.
And as far as my being a scab, well let’s just say that there is no scab without some sort of wound. So stop being the wound that I have to cover up.
For me it’s the union, I know there are freeloaders and it disgusts me terribially. But for a small few who are convicted that there local failed to provide good representation, is there a better way to show there disenchantment. I wish representation for all was/is equal but that’s not always the case. So for that fact non-members should only get their names posted locally. And any free-loaders can come see me for extra income; I’ve got a non- union coal mine I need to dig. It’s SAFE no life threatening injuries ever happen. Take my word on it.
Dave
p.s. great pay $10 hrs and all the dust u can eat. You’ll even qualify for state aid, and burial cost on me!
What a bullying thug. Absolutely disgusting.
I a National Whistleblower was and might steal be a union member. Nevertheless, I had to file a complaint on the APWU and USPS management for violating the Federal Labor Standards Act. A certified letter was sent to APWU HQ and Burrus around 1990. My family and I like many other members of my postal family have received no Justice only Terrorism and torture under Racketeering and Collusion by All Government Law Enforcement Agencies sworn to uphold the Laws of the US Constitution. All the way up to the US Supreme Court ( case 99-565 & supplement out of Texas) even there subterfuge was used to deny me justice in an attempt to have me self-destruct like so many members of my postal family. Economics being placed over justice creating Terrorism. Well I have filed with the Dept. of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Again as the revelation receiver of the Peoples Righteous Kill Defense I say let my case service as a limitus test. A true American Patroit allegiance is to upholding the laws of the US Constitution, by any means necessary.
Hillary, Hillary Hillary. . . You should read the contract. Publishing non members names is not a violation of privacy, nor a contractual violation. The information is disclosed probably with the Freedom of Information Act. Although most non members are not forthcoming that they are not members and would like that fact to remain hidden. I personally like to know who is riding on the coat tails of my union dues and profitting from paying nothing. What would be fair? If those who are not members were paid at the minimum wage and had no union representation. They sponge off the rest of us who pay dues. But as it stand they get the good wages and representation as well, along with the health benefits and retirement that the union fights for each contract. They are leeches and sponge off the rest of us.
stan i bet she is lol and i bet she is fat
get over it love it or leave it i am glad i have a good job an be able to provide for my family. oh and by the way i am a vetran been twice to iraq suck it up nastys
I hav’nt looked yet but i bet Hillary is on the list.
Want to bet?
Their excuses not to support collective bargaining are all foucused around the “freeloading” mentalitality of having someone else pay the way. I havn’t seen a ligitament excuse yet that doesn’t hide the fact that they are too cheap to pay their way!
WILLIAM BURRUS,
HOW DARE YOU VIOLATE THE PRIVACY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE NOT TO JOIN THE UNION BY PUBLICIZING THEIR NAMES. DID YOU ASK THEIR PERMISSION OR GET A RELEASE TO PUBLISH THEIR NAMES? WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE? DOES NOT YOUR CONTRACT STATE THAT YOU WILL REPRESENT UNION AND NON UNION MEMBERS FAIRLY? OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT SIR. YOUR ACTIONS ARE APPALLING AND DISGUSTING!