Posted by
NAWER on Friday, August 24, 2007 5:43:34 PM
A great op-ed in Todays ABQ journal from a state employee-enjoy!
http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/588711opinion08-24-07.htm
Friday, August 24, 2007
Demand for Union Dues Nothing but Extortion
By Charles R. Ferguson
State Employee
The sounds of the final vote had hardly died in the Legislature before
Gov. Bill Richardson had signed the Public Employees Bargaining Act
into law. After all, he was one of the most ardent advocates of the
measure and did a good deal of lobbying to ensure its passage.
Why? You might have noticed there is a presidential campaign going on
and you know who is a candidate. Can't say as he's been doing much in
the way of being governor these days though. But I'm sure he's
collecting his pay and benefits, including a steady flow of cash from
the unions he helped to get entrenched throughout the public sector for
providing just such a campaign cash cow.
He was the one most insistent that the "fair share" clause be included
in every contract despite objections from some within the "bargaining
units" who didn't want their co-workers terminated or forced into a
union.
The unions certainly didn't object; after all, the fair share clause
makes their extortion and intimidation somewhat legal. Just think about
this: if you walked into a business and demanded money from them, and
told them to pay up or go out of business, the district attorney would
have a field day charging you with extortion and racketeering. But
stick a union label on that scenario and it's called "fair share" or
"agency fee." Ah, extortion by a different name.
If you're reluctant to put the extortion label on it, just stop and
think of the implications posed by their most recent twist: "You have
20 working days from receipt of this letter to settle this matter
before we will submit the outstanding balance to a collection agency."
If you've worked hard all of your life, treated others fairly, and paid
your bills on time, just stop and think about "collection agency" and
what that means. And then sum things up with: "we will notify the state
to issue a notice of contemplated action for dismissal and commence
termination process in accordance with the rules of the State Personnel
Board."
When the unions were "organizing" they were allowed (by the N.M. Labor
Relations Board— appointed by, you guessed it, Richardson) to utilize
"card counts," promissory membership cards that had to be signed by
prospective members. Nothing indicated that membership would somehow
not follow if you signed a card. The threshold for recognition was 30
percent of the "bargaining unit."
At that time, neither the union nor the agency actually knew who or how
many were in the "bargaining unit." The NMLRB fell all over itself to
grant standing to the unions despite not having verifiable tallies of
card counts or exact make up of the bargaining units. Those records
were never made available and probably don't exist today.
Contract "negotiations" were promptly undertaken to produce the
documents later signed by— again, you guessed it, Richardson. When
presented to the "bargaining unit members for ratification, only those
folks who had signed the promissory "card count" cards were allowed to
vote on the contracts.
Obviously, the majority of the bargaining unit was never allowed to
participate. Just look at the theoretical numbers that are involved
here. Only 30 percent had to sign cards. Once a contract was available
for ratification, only 16 percent (one half of the original 30 percent
plus 1 percent for a majority) of the entire "bargaining unit" was
needed for approval. I'm quite confident that if the ratification
process were opened to 100 percent of the "bargaining unit" members,
there wouldn't be single union representing any public agency.
I find it rather curious as to how the unions have been rattling
around, obviously unsure as to who the bargaining unit members were.
Obviously unsure— I point to Raam Wong's article in which Robin Gould
of SEA-CWA Local 7076 extortion letter fame, mailed letters to 500
people not knowing if they were in the "bargaining unit" or not.
These extortion letters were not sent by regular, $0.41 mail. Rather,
she spent $5.21 per letter for certified, return receipt service.
That's $2,605 versus $205; but then, we're talking about state
government, unions and political campaigns after all, aren't we? And
what a coincidence that these extortion letters get mailed just as the
presidential campaign needs a shot of cash to bolster a candidate's
image.
It is truly unfortunate that Gov. Bruce King refused to sign a Right To
Work Act years ago that would have prevented extortion by unions. I
don't object to people joining or having a union if that's what they
want to do. That's a right guaranteed by our Constitution.
But just as they have that right to freely associate, myself, and many
other non-supporters of SEA-CWA Local 7076 should be allowed the same
right to not associate with the union and its policies of deception and
extortion.