Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1 Labor union sues Indiana, calls working alongside nonunion employees ‘slavery’ 
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,301
    Labor union sues Indiana, calls working alongside nonunion employees ‘slavery’

    In a lawsuit against three Indiana government officials, a labor union alleged on Wednesday that its constitutional rights under the Thirteenth Amendment — which outlawed “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” — are violated whenever its members are forced to work alongside nonunion employees.

    The International Union of Operating Engineers, whose members work as heavy equipment operators, mechanics and construction surveyors, sued Indiana’s governor, attorney general, and labor commissioner in February, alleging that the state’s “right to work” law is unconstitutional.

    Indiana’s law prohibits employers from making union membership a condition of getting or keeping a job. The union’s February lawsuit claimed the law violated its members’ Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection” under the law.

    But an amended complaint filed on Wednesday added a Thirteenth Amendment claim as well. The new lawsuit suggests that when nonunion employees earn higher salaries and better benefits because of the union’s negotiation on behalf of its members, the union has been forced to work for those nonunion employees for free.

    And being forced to work without compensation, the union suggested in its revised lawsuit, is slavery.

    “In this case, the Defendants have exacted compulsory service and/or involuntary servitude from the Union through the combination of the passage of the Right to Work law and the existing federal requirement of the duty of fair representation,” the amended complaint reads.

    “Through these laws, the Union is compelled to furnish services to all persons in bargaining units that it represents, but it may not require payment for those services because of the Right to Work law. The statute also requires dues-paying union members to work alongside non-union personnel, and that is compulsory service and/or involuntary servitude within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment.”



    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/la...#ixzz1speKyvhG
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,301
    This is incredible. So, working in a job and collecting a paycheck not to mention benefits, vacation, sick days, personal days, overtime, among other things is considered slavery because you might have to work along side people who do not want to belong to a union? I'll wait patiently for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to reprimand this union for trivializing slavery.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    [B][SIZE=4]
    But an amended complaint filed on Wednesday added a Thirteenth Amendment claim as well. The new lawsuit suggests that when nonunion employees earn higher salaries and better benefits because of the union’s negotiation on behalf of its members, the union has been forced to work for those nonunion employees for free.
    Interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    This is incredible. So, working in a job and collecting a paycheck not to mention benefits, vacation, sick days, personal days, overtime, among other things is considered slavery because you might have to work along side people who do not want to belong to a union? I'll wait patiently for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to reprimand this union for trivializing slavery.
    No, doing the work to effect collective bargaining and allowing someone else to get the same deal you did without the work and without union membership is stealing their labor. Objectivism 101.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,088
    Just pay the nonunion employees a penny more an hour than the union employees. You can't bitch when being in the union means you make less. Problem solved.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No, doing the work to effect collective bargaining and allowing someone else to get the same deal you did without the work and without union membership is stealing their labor. Objectivism 101.

    I had a coworker opt out of the union a few years ago. She got fired in 2010, although the process took several months because the union continued to represent her, even though she no longer paid dues and wasn't a member.


    I'll bet if she had paid her dues, they would have fought for her harder. Then again, my former boss, who is the one that fired her, told me that during her final hearing, all she did was yell and scream at the poor bastard that the union sent to represent her. Plus, the employer had a pretty iron-clad case against her fraudulent ass.

    I'm writing a novel about this particular ex-coworker. I just hope she doesn't recognize herself and sue me. Luckily, she's not really the reading type. She considers "The Shack" to be theology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Interesting.
    If, by interesting, you mean delusional, then yes, it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No, doing the work to effect collective bargaining and allowing someone else to get the same deal you did without the work and without union membership is stealing their labor. Objectivism 101.
    The argument presumes that the non-union employees are getting the same wages as the union ones because of the union's efforts, rather than because their work is of value to the employer. The union takes credit for other people's efforts, then complains that it is being exploited. If the union cannot prove that it is responsible for the working conditions of every person on the job, and it cannot, then its case is without merit. The solution is to dissolve the union and let everyone make their own deal.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I had a coworker opt out of the union a few years ago. She got fired in 2010, although the process took several months because the union continued to represent her, even though she no longer paid dues and wasn't a member.

    I'll bet if she had paid her dues, they would have fought for her harder. Then again, my former boss, who is the one that fired her, told me that during her final hearing, all she did was yell and scream at the poor bastard that the union sent to represent her. Plus, the employer had a pretty iron-clad case against her fraudulent ass.
    In Michigan a union is still obligated to represent an employee who's opted out of the union, well under certain circumstances. By representing though, it can be as simple as ensuring that the company followed the proper procedure during the termination process. Which in it's self, is usually how unions are able to bring people back, because of corporations failure to abide by the proper contractual and legal requirements. Quite honestly, I wish more iron-clad cases were brought forth against lousy employees/individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The argument presumes that the non-union employees are getting the same wages as the union ones because of the union's efforts, rather than because their work is of value to the employer.
    For what it's worth, that presumption is the typical standard business practice. As few large-scale operations see fit to individually merit a given skill-sets value to the corporation, the cookie-cutter approach for good or ill is the normal operating procedure with most large outfits whether union or not.
    Last edited by Artois; 04-23-2012 at 04:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •