Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fired for not joining union.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by rseantan View Post
    Can I be fired for not joining the union? Within the last year the company has agreed to a union shop clause. I am an employee with 15 years seniority and upon original employment joining such union was NOT a condition of employment.
    OK...... Have you any reply to the responses your thread has gotten?
    All postings by BadOrderKing are public information, works of fiction, sometimes resembling the rants of a madman and in no way should be construed to represent the positions, views, or thoughts of any particular railroad carrier. No one listens to him anyway.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by gsxr1000mxz800 View Post
      the union had to have been voted in by a majority plus 1 of the people employed in the craft desiring union representation. its not forced. its not the union doing something it shouldn't. the people spoke and elected whatever union to come in and hopefully make a better working environment.
      It is forced on the minority that did not want it. No matter how you try to spin it, there is no way around that fact.

      Let the people that voted to organize do so. Terminating long time employees just because they choose not to join a union is wrong.

      But the point is clear. It's not about what is right or fair. It is about control, power and money.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Iron Bender View Post
        It is forced on the minority that did not want it. No matter how you try to spin it, there is no way around that fact.

        Let the people that voted to organize do so. Terminating long time employees just because they choose not to join a union is wrong.

        But the point is clear. It's not about what is right or fair. It is about control, power and money.
        My calmer and sleepier head does agree with this point. After 15 years, it seems he has earned his place in the workforce. Also, after that long it seems wrong to force him into an organization he wishes not to be a part of.

        However, if he elects not to pay dues I have no heart for his seniority being frozen, rate of pay being at the carriers hands along with his fait in an investigation.
        All postings by BadOrderKing are public information, works of fiction, sometimes resembling the rants of a madman and in no way should be construed to represent the positions, views, or thoughts of any particular railroad carrier. No one listens to him anyway.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Iron Bender View Post
          Some peoples' ideas of freedom sure are interesting.

          Unions should have to earn their memberships, not force people to join under the threat of unemployment.

          It's bullshit if he is threatened with termination or loss of existing seniority for not joining any organization that he doesn't support and was not a condition of his original employment.
          First it isn't the "company" that brings the union in, it is the membership collectively that does, so the employee HAD a voice however large or small in allowing the Union to represent the group of employees, so it isn't FORCED upon anyone, it is voted on. As I said prior to allow someone to not belong just because they didn't vote for the union to represent them circumvents the entire rationale for the collective representation being there in the 1st place.
          Let's see...
          I don't like cutting my lawn, my town passes referendum where everyone has to keep lawn mowed or I/they get fined, I had the chance, and actually voted against the referendum , but the MAJORITY of those who live in my town voted for the referendum, is it fair for me NOT to get fined even though there is a law on file that if I don't do this I'm supposed to be fined? The referendum wasn't a "condition of " me originally moving there was it?
          Democracy isn't a spectator sport. You're part of it even if you don't like it, or the result of the process.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by BadOrderKing View Post
            OK...... Have you any reply to the responses your thread has gotten?
            I don't think this went the way he had hoped.
            -sigpicLet's All Hunch!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Hog&Tow View Post
              I don't think this went the way he had hoped.
              To be honest, I am very impressed this has remained as civil as it has. I expected this thread to get locked down quick.
              All postings by BadOrderKing are public information, works of fiction, sometimes resembling the rants of a madman and in no way should be construed to represent the positions, views, or thoughts of any particular railroad carrier. No one listens to him anyway.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by rseantan View Post
                Can I be fired for not joining the union? Within the last year the company has agreed to a union shop clause. I am an employee with 15 years seniority and upon original employment joining such union was NOT a condition of employment.
                Back to the original question. If a termination clause is in your agreement, due to an employee not joining the representative organization on your property, that employee may be terminated for failure to join that union. Where you seem to have a difficulty is understanding that in a democratic environment, the majority rules. Once the majority of a workforce elects to be represented by an entity, the agreements, including termination for failure to join that entity, become a condition of employment.

                Inquiring minds want to know: Has the union increased your pay and benefits or caused you suffer a decrease in one or both?

                The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides reports on Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. The attached pdf shows the disparity between a unionized workplace versus one with no union representation. For a member of the labor force, the choice should be quite simple, if the worker cares about his/her earnings and benefits potential. The $10 per hour difference between the two should by in itself, be enough to convince most that unionization of their workforce is to their benefit.

                Now, for those who wish to reap those unionized benefits, without providing their financial support - They deserve to be able to work non-union and receive corresponding wages and benefits. Once that occurred, the griping would cease.
                Attached Files
                Last edited by batman; 05-09-2010, 04:38 PM.
                NS should not require warm up exercises. We get enough exercise jumping to conclusions, flying off the handle, running down our bosses,knifing friends in the back, dodging responsibility and pushing our luck.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Excon421 View Post
                  First it isn't the "company" that brings the union in, it is the membership collectively that does, so the employee HAD a voice however large or small in allowing the Union to represent the group of employees, so it isn't FORCED upon anyone, it is voted on. As I said prior to allow someone to not belong just because they didn't vote for the union to represent them circumvents the entire rationale for the collective representation being there in the 1st place.
                  What difference does it make WHO is doing the forcing? You would be screaming and jumping up and down if after 15 years your employer suddenly required that you join an organization against your will or be terminated. Yet when a union does it, no problemo. No double standard or hypocisy there.

                  I don't like cutting my lawn, my town passes referendum where everyone has to keep lawn mowed or I/they get fined, I had the chance, and actually voted against the referendum , but the MAJORITY of those who live in my town voted for the referendum, is it fair for me NOT to get fined even though there is a law on file that if I don't do this I'm supposed to be fined? The referendum wasn't a "condition of " me originally moving there was it?
                  Damn straight it isn't right or fair. How do you feel about an elderly women being forcibly arrested by police for not watering her lawn (true story)?

                  Democracy isn't a spectator sport. You're part of it even if you don't like it, or the result of the process.
                  Probably illustartive of a difference in our political ideologies. You appear to be okay with mob rule whereas I am for the least amount of intrusion into our lives and liberties, whether from government or private organizations.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by batman View Post
                    Now, for those who wish to reap those unionized benefits, without providing their financial support - They deserve to be able to work non-union and receive corresponding wages and benefits. Once that occurred, the griping would cease.
                    Common sense says that unions would have to allow it to happen before it could cease. But common sense may not be so common any more.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Had a great-great grandpa who made buggy whips... He was against Henry Ford and the automobile. I didn't like spinach once either. Get over it.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by 6MaxNL View Post
                        Had a great-great grandpa who made buggy whips... He was against Henry Ford and the automobile. I didn't like spinach once either. Get over it.
                        Damn, that quote could come in handy in an RCO thread.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          As information, I am most definately pro union. A union that represents it members without any self serving motives and most importantly prioritizes its fiduciary repsonsiblities to its members. Now with that being said, a little history, my grandfather, my father, and myself have been loyal to unions. I was raised to believe in the collective efforts of many with a common goal. I was union member for 10 years before the compulsory mandate was placed in our latest contract. Our current representive union is nothing more than a lap dog for the carrier. For example, when I was a union member and would ask the shop steward to file a grievance, they were never done. If they were done, they were incomplete or they were not done in a timely manner therfore nulifying said grievance. Now, maybe I was the exception. NO... I was not. I work for a small carrier and our current staffing is less than 100 employees. 10 years ago the staffing was over 200. So it is fair to say that I know just about all of my fellow employees on a personal level. I have yet to speak to a fellow employee that has had a succesful resolution to a grievance with the company filed or most often not filed with the carrier by the UNION.
                          Another more blantant break in the unions fiduciary responsiblity is when myself and another employee filed grievances against the carrier without the aid of the union. We took it to the NRAB. Me and him invested nearly 300 hundred hours of personal time in research and learning about the Railway Labor Act, procedures for with the NRAB. Well this took nearly 2 1/2 years. It was a valid grievance with merit and the carrier new they would lose. A few months later, we received a call from the Union shop steward who asked to meet with us. We agreed. Upon such meeting the shop steward advise us that he was aware of the case against the carrier and asked us to drop the case. We couldn't believe what we were hearing. We were shocked, because first of all we never asked for the unions help and never made the union aware of the case. I asked the shop steward who advised him. "He said, Mr. B, the head of human resources."
                          So right then and there it was more than obvious the union is not an ally or a friend. The case was resolved and myself and co-worker were victorious. We rightful fought for and won meals and tranfer time for having to work continuously without interuption. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it. Something the union should have accomplished.

                          I really wanted a lawyer that specializes in railway labor law to answer the question. That is how this section of the forum was label. "Ask an attorney."
                          I didn't want a bunch of hog heads and pin pullers calling me a scab. I am far from a scab.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Why didnt you say so the first time? I dont see the connection from the first post to this one.

                            btw: I hope your victory was enough to get you another steward elected.
                            All postings by BadOrderKing are public information, works of fiction, sometimes resembling the rants of a madman and in no way should be construed to represent the positions, views, or thoughts of any particular railroad carrier. No one listens to him anyway.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Ummm... Nevermind then.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X