Marine Says He Faces Termination for Refusing to Pay Teacher's Union Fee

[Bob Hubbard]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/0...union-dues-faces-termination/?test=latestnews

A retired U.S. Marine who runs a Massachusetts high school's ROTC program says he faces termination if he doesn't pay a $500 union fee by next week, a levy he refuses to pay because he already receives medical and dental benefits from the military.

Again, just more proof to me that Unions today are little more than free money to people who deserve none.

 

[CoryKS]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/0...union-dues-faces-termination/?test=latestnews



Again, just more proof to me that Unions today are little more than free money to people who deserve none.

That, plus you can't have a labor monopoly with a GDI on the staff.

 

[Empty Hands]

That's what a "Closed Shop" means. It doesn't matter either if he was a Marine, a circus clown, or Jesus Christ returned. The rules don't say "closed shop, except for Marines."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

he has been teaching for the Educational Association for Worcester for 15 years -- including 14 at North High School -- without having to join the union or pay an "agency fee" toward the cost of collective bargaining. "I just want to save my job here," the 58-year-old father of two said. "I've been doing this for 15 years. Nobody has ever told me to join the union or be terminated."

Might have been nice if they hadn't waited 14 years to "close the shop."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

More info...

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/r...equest_dues_diligence/srvc=home&position=also

 

[punisher73]

If the union does not have/give him any benefit in anyway, including helping to set his wage than he should have the choice not to be in the union. If ANYTHING he does as far as pay or any other benefit that is gained by the union negotiations than he should have to pay.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

If the union does not have/give him any benefit in anyway, including helping to set his wage than he should have the choice not to be in the union. If ANYTHING he does as far as pay or any other benefit that is gained by the union negotiations than he should have to pay.

Not if he would be forced to pay for benefits he doesn't want. It should be pro-rated based on the actual benefit provided to him by the union, such as that of negotiation of salary.

 

[punisher73]

Not if he would be forced to pay for benefits he doesn't want. It should be pro-rated based on the actual benefit provided to him by the union, such as that of negotiation of salary.

How can you seperate the two? If you have ever been part of a contract negotiation, MANY times the salary is tied into the benefits part of the package. I know there were times that we gave up something in one area to get a bigger pay raise.


As a side note, I should have mentioned in my first post, I have a problem with the fact that he hasn't been a member for 14 years and why is it an issue now? I would be interested in what made them decide NOW that he has to pay.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

How can you seperate the two? If you have ever been part of a contract negotiation, MANY times the salary is tied into the benefits part of the package. I know there were times that we gave up something in one area to get a bigger pay raise.


As a side note, I should have mentioned in my first post, I have a problem with the fact that he hasn't been a member for 14 years and why is it an issue now? I would be interested in what made them decide NOW that he has to pay.

It is my understanding that by paying this amount, he will be receiving medical benefits. Those have a defined cost associated with them. I don't know how it works in that school district, but he can pay for the actual cost of negotiations, but shouldn't be forced to pay for the medical benefits.

Reading the article more thoughoughly, it doesn't appear as if they're telling him to join the union, just to pay a fee. If I read it right, that would be for the costs of negotiations, etc.

 

[geezer]

Well gents, I'm a teacher and live in a "right to work state". Out here unions have less power than the Shriners or the Loyal order of Moose... or is that "Mooses"? Anyway that means teacher's salaries are about 30%-40% lower than in Mass. On one hand, I can see why this guy doesn't want to pay $500 dollars to a union he doesn't need. On the other hand a similarly qualified teacher in my anti-union state would earn about $25,000 or $30,000 dollars less a year (depending on the district, etc.), so my heart doesn't exactly bleed for the guy. But don't worry about me. It's our students who really get shafted. Not only are they crammed into crowded classrooms taught by harried, underpaid teachers who've lost all tenure and seniority protections. We also spend less than half of what Mass. does on educating each student!

You know... maybe there's something worse than unions having too much power. Unions with little to no power. Just a thought.