Bill to Force Non-Union Teachers to Pay Dues

ylexot

ylexot

Super Genius
Maryland Democrat to Introduce Bill Forcing Non-Members of Teachers Union to Pay Dues | TheBlaze.com
Del. Sheila Hixson, D-Montgomery County, will introduce a bill on behalf of the Maryland State Education Association to require nonunion educators to pay a so-called fair share fee to unions equivalent to about 68 percent of the local dues.

Under Maryland law, local teachers unions are required to negotiate contracts that cover all educators, whether or not they are members of the union. They also must represent nonunion educators in grievances.

Association spokesman Adam Mendelson said the bill wouldn’t force people to join the union, just require them to help pay for the union benefits they receive.
Click to expand...
How about we just get rid of the law that requires unions to to negotiate contracts that cover all educators, whether or not they are members of the union and represent nonunion educators in grievances. :shrug:
 
NorthBeachPerso

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
It's called agency representation. The reality is that the teacher's Associations (not unions in MD) negotiate for and represent the non-members as well as the members. The theory is that non-members should pay a fair fee for that negotiation and representation.

You all do realize that the the only things that the Associations are allowed to negotiate are salary and working conditions. MSDE has declared that items such as class size are not considered working conditions.
 
bcp

bcp

In My Opinion
NorthBeachPerso said:
It's called agency representation. The reality is that the teacher's Associations (not unions in MD) negotiate for and represent the non-members as well as the members. The theory is that non-members should pay a fair fee for that negotiation and representation.

You all do realize that the the only things that the Associations are allowed to negotiate are salary and working conditions. MSDE has declared that items such as class size are not considered working conditions.
Click to expand...

And, knowing that there are people not willing to pay the union, the union still negotiates.
I never paid union dues either, and never will. Unions are bad for America.
 
NorthBeachPerso

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
bcp said:
And, knowing that there are people not willing to pay the union, the union still negotiates.
I never paid union dues either, and never will. Unions are bad for America.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you do but if it's a trade you wouldn't be getting the wage rate you do if it weren't for unions.
 
bcp

bcp

In My Opinion
NorthBeachPerso said:
I don't know what you do but if it's a trade you wouldn't be getting the wage rate you do if it weren't for unions.
Click to expand...

Its not.
and if not for the inflated wages, I would not be spending as much for things as I do.
and, if not for inflated wages, a lower income on the part of union workers would still leave them with an equal buying power.

But, when you consider a company can move to mexico and pay a lower wage, then sell the product here for union prices, makes sense for them to leave and up the unemployment rate.

unions are destructive.
 
ylexot

ylexot

Super Genius
NorthBeachPerso said:
It's called agency representation. The reality is that the teacher's Associations (not unions in MD) negotiate for and represent the non-members as well as the members. The theory is that non-members should pay a fair fee for that negotiation and representation.

You all do realize that the the only things that the Associations are allowed to negotiate are salary and working conditions. MSDE has declared that items such as class size are not considered working conditions.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the article. Did you bother to read what I wrote?
 
NorthBeachPerso

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
bcp said:
Its not.
and if not for the inflated wages, I would not be spending as much for things as I do.
and, if not for inflated wages, a lower income on the part of union workers would still leave them with an equal buying power.

But, when you consider a company can move to mexico and pay a lower wage, then sell the product here for union prices, makes sense for them to leave and up the unemployment rate.

unions are destructive.
Click to expand...

Off shoring has been going on for years. When I worked in industry back in the 1970's companies were moving plants south. Were wages a factor? Yes, but mostly environmental and tax policies were more important along with the customer base having moved. The company I worked for was also building factories in Egypt, Venezuela, Colombia, Spain, Hong Kong, Taiwan plus countries I don't remember, all for exporting the product to the US. If the company only paid $1/hour they would have still built overseas because the wages there were $0.90/hour.
 
bcp

bcp

In My Opinion
NorthBeachPerso said:
Off shoring has been going on for years. When I worked in industry back in the 1970's companies were moving plants south. Were wages a factor? Yes, but mostly environmental and tax policies were more important along with the customer base having moved. The company I worked for was also building factories in Egypt, Venezuela, Colombia, Spain, Hong Kong, Taiwan plus countries I don't remember, all for exporting the product to the US. If the company only paid $1/hour they would have still built overseas because the wages there were $0.90/hour.
Click to expand...

If a company were to move overseas for a 10¢ savings, I would say it was run by fools.
However, when the union pushes someones pay to $30 or more an hour to perform some unskilled task like putting a nut on a bolt, then yes, it makes sense to move that job to a country where they can get that nut put on for $3.00 an hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top