Marvin Defined

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Unions: Fair Share vs. Full Share

I come from a card carrying union family. In the last 60 or so years there have been including me, 10 members of the last three generations in 10 different unions. So I am well aware of the history of unions. I have though, formed my own opinion about unions. I can take them or leave them. I believe they are good and bad and necessary so that the worker and the employer both get a fair deal. I have worked as a public employee, and a member of a union that was Fair Share/ Full Share.

I was a member if the International Operating Engineers Union Bargain Unit 12. In 2006 Arnold Swartsnegger put four initiative's on the ballot. One was to bust up the union. He wanted the people to vote on whether the workers who didn't agree with the unions politics could opt out of dues. The problem was that they already did. It was because of the Fair Share/Full Share union model.

Full Share members paid $42 per month. That afforded you a vote on any contract. You also got the death benefit, promotional items for vacation and insurance and the like. You were also eligible to become a union steward. This money was used for a mix of political and bargaining purposes. There is no retirement benefit because the State and I pay for that from the state.

Fair Share members pay $36 per month. They are afforded nothing. What they get is the benefit of what ever is voted on, contract, or policy wise. This money goes to non political organizations. I believe that this is a fair way to deal with unions. Bargaining and representation costs money. So it is only fair to both sides. Most are content with this way of doing business.  

I was not a fan of this union, because they would not bargain, or didn't listen to the workers it represented. The people were incompetent, and abrasive. I tried one day to look into how would we go about decertifying this one and going to another. Well I contacted another Union,  and found out how hard it was to change, I did that because I felt that our current union was not listening to us and giving what we wanted or needed. Not ninety minutes later I got a phone call from my Union Rep. asking me what my problem was. Well he asked, so I told him. He and I went back and forth for the next hour or so in the middle of the day. He didn't know that I was a full Member, so he was on the ball. Needless to say I was persona non  grata in the union the rest of the time I worked there. The union is there just to make sure the state follows it's own rules and policies. Other than that it for the most part impotent.

Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois trying the same thing Arnold tried with us. They were attempting to break unions as a whole statewide. They started with the most public, and most vulnerable union; The public workers union. With a bad economy at the time, and a groundswell of anti public worker sentiment, the union was easy pickings. Also like Arnold Gov. Rauner is grandstanding for a particular voting block. Like Rauner will be it was shot down, an

The Fair Share/Full Share business model for unions in this day and age is the closest thing we have to fair. It allows both the union and non union workers to be represented equally, without putting undue burden on any one entity. Union membership is dwindling, mainly because workers don't feel their employer misusing them enough to seek help. The only need for unions is essentially to keep the employer honest. The unions served a purpose, and they did well. The majority of the economic, and vocational advances in the last 60 years have been done by unions and skilled union workers. Unions one day will outlive their usefulness. That has already started.





No comments:

Post a Comment