Economy

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

catherinea — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:56:08 GMT

I'm completely of your opinion. This bill would really go against the rights of government employees.

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

gypsy — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:31:29 GMT

There is no extortion going on because government employees must join a union and pay dues. The union has been recognized as the legal bargaining agent for those employees. The employees have a voice in how their union is managed, and how they represent their interest. Naturally, not all employees will agree with what the union does, or supports. That is endemic to democratically run organizations.

We all have to pay taxes, although we may not support how some of our tax dollars are spent.

This bill is an unabashed attempt to take the rights of government employees to bargain collectively away from them. It should, and I hope will, be defeated.

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

guardsman — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:34:18 GMT

It's about time that Lansing took measures to stop the state sponsored extortion of our employees. Requiring workers to pay a fee to an outside agency to be able to work for us is extortion, plain and simple. Unions can use these "fees" in their contributions to political candidates. Thus we are forcing non-union workers into supporting a political body simply for the right to keep their job. This is against everything we stand for as a free nation.

As far as a bargaining unit issue, it is immaterial in how we determine pay and benefits for our employees. We simply have an obligation to treat all of our employees equally, union or non-union. If we pay union employees a certain wage, we must pay non-union the same. That is our responsibility as the employer, not the fault of the non-union employee, and they should not be penalized.

Thank you to Rep. Amash for your efforts to right an egregious denial of civil rights of Michigan government workers.

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

MichL1 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:00:14 GMT

changeagent:

FreeSpeaker:
Workers who decide to not join the union that represents their employee group nonetheless benefit from the contract bargaining done in union members’ behalf by their union.

It seems that employees who choose not to join the union should also not be covered under the other terms of the union contract. This would allow the employer to pay them less (or more) than their union counterparts. If this is the case, then this bill should pass as it allow more individual freedom of choice rather than compulsory union membership in order to hold a job.

That would seem to be the case, but it is not. Non-union employees are covered under the terms of the union contract. I can't recall the exact case, but there have been court decisions making it so.

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

changeagent — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:43:04 GMT

FreeSpeaker:
Workers who decide to not join the union that represents their employee group nonetheless benefit from the contract bargaining done in union members’ behalf by their union.

It seems that employees who choose not to join the union should also not be covered under the other terms of the union contract. This would allow the employer to pay them less (or more) than their union counterparts. If this is the case, then this bill should pass as it allow more individual freedom of choice rather than compulsory union membership in order to hold a job.

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

FreeSpeaker — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:14:05 GMT

Workers who decide to not join the union that represents their employee group nonetheless benefit from the contract bargaining done in union members’ behalf by their union. It is only fitting that all employees pay for the bargaining services from which they benefit. Non-union employees have been required to pay an “agency fee” for this purpose.

This legislation would prohibit government employers from requiring employees who choose not to join a bargaining unit (union) to pay an “agency fee” to the union. The agency fee ordinarily is one of those “bargained” items, that is better settled at the bargaining table by agreement between the employer and union.

I am no fan of unions, but do recognize the important contribution the union movement has made to the welfare of American workers. This bill is intended purely to undermine the union position in bargaining in behalf of represented workers. It should be rejected.

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

larenne2001 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:52:19 GMT

THIS IS A GOOD BILL HOW CAN IT HURT A UNION EXCEPT BY GIVING THEM MONEY THAT THEY DIDN'T EARN.

WHY SHULD I PAY UNION DUES TO A UNION THAT WON'T EDFEND ME IF i HAVE A COMPLANT?

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

gypsy — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:35:13 GMT

Just an attempt to undermine the unions. I oppose this legislation.

Re: 2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

Marty — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:10:25 GMT

No. Bad legislation. Next.

2009 House Bill 5044 (Repeal mandate for government employees to join union )

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the House on June 4, 2009

Click here to view bill details.