June 08, 2010
— Dave in Texas As has been mentioned, this is the fight.
A retired U.S. Marine who runs a high school ROTC program in Worcester says he faces the boot for refusing to pay local union dues, leaving the 58-year-old father of two crying foul and school administrators bewildered.
I'm not bewildered.
Major Stephen Godin is a 20-year veteran of the USMC, an F-4 pilot who was deployed five times. He hasn't missed a day of school in 14 years. He's the instructor of North High School's Naval JROTC in Worcester (pronounced WOOSTER WUHSTAH, I heard that once incorrectly, by every damn person). He doesn't get a stipend for after school activities like coaching their drill team. He gets half his salary and all his other benefits from the military.
Sounds like the kind of guy you'd want in your schools, teaching your kids.
But the Massachusetts Teachers Association (or the local I guess) has demanded he either join the union and pay the dues, or cough up a $500 "agency fee" which goes toward the cost of electing Democrats collective bargaining activity.
Either way, they think they're entitled to the money. He contends they don't provide him any benefit, and don't negotiate his salary, so why the hell should he have to pay them?
Because the state legislature rigged it that way, that's why.
tip via Jazz over at H2
Posted by: Dave in Texas at
10:29 AM
| Comments (119)
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: dudeinsantacruz, knower of ladyparts at June 08, 2010 10:32 AM (KYOhR)
Posted by: Bugler at June 08, 2010 10:33 AM (VXBR1)
Posted by: dudeinsantacruz at June 08, 2010 10:35 AM (KYOhR)
he either join the union and pay the dues, or cough up a $500 "agency fee" which goes toward the cost of electing Democrats collective bargaining activity.
This was referenced in Christie's "this is the fight" video. Except in NJ those teachers who wish to remain non-union get 85% of the union dues deducted from each paycheck, rather than 100%.
NJEA: Heads, we get your money. Tails, we get your money.
Posted by: kallisto at June 08, 2010 10:35 AM (+FkcS)
Can't have teachers electing NOT to join the union, can we?
He needs to fight this tooth and nail.
Posted by: looking closely at June 08, 2010 10:36 AM (6Q9g2)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at June 08, 2010 10:36 AM (uKraB)
Posted by: Vic at June 08, 2010 10:39 AM (6taRI)
I know this is about Mass., but the line that really got to me in one of Christie's recent speeches was his explanation of how non-union teachers still had to pay 85% of union dues to the union, so that they... didn't have to be in the union. What did he say - "it's like Hotel California... you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"?
How can an organization you're not a part of force you to pay membership dues? Or non-membership dues? I would love to take a look at these laws.
Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at June 08, 2010 10:39 AM (8uZ8A)
State law requires certain public employees to join unions as a condition of employment or pay a so-called agency fee, which goes toward the cost of collective bargaining.
Who writes the State law in MA? Why the State Legislature, of course. And who is in the MA State House? Well, right now its 144 Democrats and 16 Republicans.
Posted by: looking closely at June 08, 2010 10:39 AM (6Q9g2)
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at June 08, 2010 10:40 AM (5lHuA)
Posted by: sTevo at June 08, 2010 10:41 AM (mFu/p)
Posted by: Massachusetts Teachers Association at June 08, 2010 10:41 AM (QKKT0)
Because, because THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ!
<sob> You mean, mean man, you!
Posted by: Neo Keynsians everwhere at June 08, 2010 10:44 AM (zgd5N)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 08, 2010 10:44 AM (r1h5M)
Right To Work has nothing to do with public employee unions.. they have their own sets of rules that do not need to follow other state labor laws.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 08, 2010 10:44 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: USA at June 08, 2010 10:45 AM (YZISw)
Right To Work has nothing to do with public employee unions.. they have their own sets of rules that do not need to follow other state labor laws.
FIFY
Posted by: dudeinsantacruz at June 08, 2010 10:46 AM (KYOhR)
I don't hear a lot of bitching about the TSTA.
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at June 08, 2010 10:47 AM (5lHuA)
If NJ is anything like WI, then they don't pay 85% of the dues in each paycheck, they pay 100% and then have to write a letter between two certain dates (they're not exactly the same every year, but generally around january) to get the "refundable" portion of the dues back. That's right, the unions actually get your money as an interest free loan, and even then, you don't get all of it back.
Posted by: GMan at June 08, 2010 10:47 AM (sxq57)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 08, 2010 10:47 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 08, 2010 10:48 AM (9Cooa)
Nice little teaching career you got goin' there Godin. Be a shame if somethin' was to happen to it.
Choose the weapon and name the place assholes.
Posted by: Major Stephen Godin USMC at June 08, 2010 10:48 AM (ynf6y)
Posted by: Vic at June 08, 2010 02:39 PM (6taRI)
**sigh**
Posted by: dananjcon at June 08, 2010 10:49 AM (pr+up)
The legal key is that the union must be prepared to show - in court, where it counts - that the union has "materially negotiated or aided in" the establishment of the pay and/or benefits of the (in this case) JROTC Instructor position held by Major Godin. (IANAL - but that's the general concept as it was applied to the collective-bargaining agreement under which i worked as a teacher, many years ago - won't have changed materially).
It's possible to exempt the Major's position from the collective-bargaining agreement - and, as long as the school district has a contract with the union that includes the "closed shop" provision that enables this sort of thing, they must do just that, or the union has the legal right to collect.
T'aint right, maybe - but them's the rules, legally.
Personally, I hope he pays them - only, do it the way I would: Cast $500 in dimes in a solid block of clear epoxy - then, hand-deliver it (you'd need a forklift) to the union offices...and demand a receipt. And alert the media just before delivery...
Posted by: J.S.Bridges at June 08, 2010 10:52 AM (H1Kw5)
Posted by: Jim R. at June 08, 2010 10:53 AM (CrfXY)
That's right, the unions actually get your money as an interest free loan, and even then, you don't get all of it back.
I see, the little brothers of the IRS.
Posted by: kallisto at June 08, 2010 10:53 AM (+FkcS)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 08, 2010 10:53 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Pelvis at June 08, 2010 10:53 AM (LlaBi)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 08, 2010 10:53 AM (r1h5M)
Posted by: not Pelvis at June 08, 2010 10:55 AM (LlaBi)
Agreed,
If the State wants to contract with the Union to make ALL education hires, that's one thing.
But if not, why should the union be the only party the State negotiates with?
Posted by: looking closely at June 08, 2010 10:55 AM (PwGfd)
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at June 08, 2010 10:56 AM (5lHuA)
Posted by: ziptie at June 08, 2010 10:56 AM (ljAGw)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 08, 2010 10:58 AM (E4Pj8)
Posted by: Jean at June 08, 2010 10:59 AM (OlnxK)
Posted by: sTevo at June 08, 2010 02:47 PM (mFu/p)
...but those union fellas are gonna look awful funny trying to eat corn on the cob with NO F*CKING TEETH!
Once again life imitates "The Blues Brothers"...
Posted by: Nighthawk at June 08, 2010 11:00 AM (OtQXp)
Every year I write a letter demanding the return of all funds that were used for funding lib moonbat campaigns. This year I got $19.87 back.
Fuck the unions.
Posted by: CSEA Sex Slave at June 08, 2010 11:00 AM (gLNLT)
Major Godin can fight the head of the local teachers union inside Thunderdome.
If the union head wins, the can have the PPV reciepts. If they lose, they disband.
That's not a fair fight and you damn well know it.
Works for me!
Posted by: ErikW at June 08, 2010 11:00 AM (AovSW)
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at June 08, 2010 11:01 AM (5lHuA)
Um. I think your missing some other rules. You cannot contract an illegal activity.
1. Military members may not legally join a union.
2. The school cannot legally require a person employed by another party to pay union dues.
3. If the school is required by law to have or allow an ROTC program, then, the trifecta is complete.
A contract to make said ROTC instructor pay union dues violates law, is illegal, and therefore null and void.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 08, 2010 11:01 AM (0q2P7)
FUCK
THE
UNIONS
Posted by: CSEA Sex Slave at June 08, 2010 11:03 AM (gLNLT)
Posted by: Farmer Joe at June 08, 2010 11:03 AM (z4es9)
Posted by: Jim R. at June 08, 2010 02:53 PM (CrfXY)
And yet in British cookery, "Worcestershire sauce" becomes "wooster sauce." Strange people, those Brits -- why can't they speak English, like us Americans?
Posted by: stuiec at June 08, 2010 11:03 AM (W+GYq)
1. Put all of the South Koreans union members on boats.
2. Sink the boats.
3. Kill all the North Koreans Hire new teachers and pay according to performance.
4. Enjoy the peace and quiet your new education system.
* adapted from my comprehensive plan to bring peace to the Korean peninsula.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 08, 2010 11:04 AM (zPuoP)
Worcester rhymes with mister, not booster or muster.
No it doesn't. It's "woohstuh", with the oo as in book and hook.
Mister? You pronounce the R in mister.
Posted by: Prufrock at June 08, 2010 11:06 AM (rqDjT)
And yet in British cookery, "Worcestershire sauce" becomes "wooster sauce." Strange people, those Brits -- why can't they speak English, like us Americans?
Damn straight. Why can't those stupid limeys say Worche... Worster... Worstersheer... aw fuck it. I'm with the Brits.
Posted by: ErikW at June 08, 2010 11:06 AM (AovSW)
I will admit, I did not realise the unions, especially teacher's unions, were this corrupt.
Mish's financial website recently did a great post expressing that the Unions keep pushing for this kind of crap, and still are expecting the public's symapthy.
What the unions don't realise that people like me who used to support unions have now realised they are the new mafia, they will get NO sympathy from the public. And Chris Christie through youtube is making is easier to understand just how the unions bully taxpayers.
Its not about the teachers or the kids, its about the unions!
Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-democrat at June 08, 2010 11:07 AM (ACkhT)
Texas just made it illegal to allow payroll deductions for political groups from teacher paychecks.
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at June 08, 2010 11:07 AM (5lHuA)
I have a comprehensive plan to reduce the influence of unions.*
1. Put all of the South Koreans union members on boats.
2. Sink the boats.
3. Kill all the North Koreans Hire new teachers and pay according to performance.
4. Enjoy the peace and quiet your new education system.
* adapted from my comprehensive plan to bring peace to the Korean peninsula.
Classic EoJ right there.
Posted by: Raodking at June 08, 2010 11:07 AM (ynf6y)
I've always pronounced it worse-nes-sure
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 08, 2010 11:08 AM (0q2P7)
Oh dear, just came across this on a FB page...good stuff: RE Christie Vs. teacher unions. Of course no fact, no figures...just anecdotal drivel...
Its easy for a rich white man who lives in Medham,NJ to say that he can simply fix things by cutting programs that benefit inner city kids, people and persons with disabilities.
He is way out of touch and to me out of control, he has no idea that when you cut programs the kids will turn to others for help attention or guidance ... the others are ... See Moregangs. Guess what Mr. Christie, that budget you trying to fix in the way you are trying to fix it will cause more damage to NJ than you think. I'm afraid that you lack the capacity to understand because since you've been sheltered all you life in your suburban home, you have no idea what it is for these kids.
Many of these kids don't eat a breakfast like you and I, many are involved in the system through DYFS. Many have uncaring, unsupportive parents and the only positive person in their lives is their teacher and now you are talking about taking that away
Posted by: dananjcon at June 08, 2010 11:09 AM (pr+up)
oops heres the rest it gets better:
Mr. Christie not only do you not have brains, but you also don't have a heart and you could care less I know which is why you want to do what plan to do anyway. All I can say is that I truly hope that your plans do work, because if they don't the aftermath of what you are about to do will spill over unto suburbia, in one form or another. As you know the gangs have been growing in NJ, well and if you don't know just look at the Trentonian and you'll see how bad it is.
You, my poor detached, poor excuse for a governor will go down in history as the man who most damaged NJ, but hopefully all my fellow New Jerseyans will learn from this experience and never vote Republican again.
Posted by: dananjcon at June 08, 2010 11:10 AM (pr+up)
Posted by: Monty at June 08, 2010 11:10 AM (4Pleu)
you morons may remember me asking you yesterday about whether I should use the word shiv, shanks, or something else yesterday fora school violence brief.
Someone chimed in and said that I shouldn't use shiv or shank since as they implies racial bias I think that's a load of shit. Any thoughts?
Posted by: taylork at June 08, 2010 11:13 AM (0Hn5w)
Anybody remember Adam Sandler's "Toll-Booth Willie" skit? Welcome to Woostah!
Dollah twenty five, please!
Posted by: Toll Booth Willie at June 08, 2010 11:13 AM (AovSW)
Funny, their parents are collecting food stamps (free school meals not factored into family 'allowance.')...
Many have uncaring, unsupportive parents and the only positive person in their lives is their teacher
Maybe we should stop paying women to make kids they don't want to care for. Problem solved.
@lacey--'scumthugs' is great.
Posted by: HeatherRadish, Häßlich-Amerikaner at June 08, 2010 11:14 AM (mR7mk)
Facebook: Allowing people to advertise their inner idiot since 2004.
Posted by: damian at June 08, 2010 11:16 AM (4WbTI)
Posted by: Schlippy at June 08, 2010 11:16 AM (xm1A1)
I would but that's just me being all girly and stuff.
Posted by: mpfs, power point novice at June 08, 2010 11:17 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: HeatherRadish, Häßlich-Amerikaner at June 08, 2010 11:18 AM (mR7mk)
Well, yeah, but that's not it.
Maybe a Texas teacher can educate me on the unions here.
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at June 08, 2010 11:18 AM (5lHuA)
Posted by: sifty at June 08, 2010 11:19 AM (P5yVq)
I always said 'worschtershire sauce'.
Fuck the limeys. We didn't revolt from them just to have to continue to pretend phonics works however their inbred 'tard king thinks it does.
From now on it's pronounced 'warkester'.
And it's spelled workester.
Fuk your prissy frankish C's.
Karry on.
Posted by: Entropy at June 08, 2010 11:21 AM (IsLT6)
83 dananjcon--I wonder what those people think will happen when taxes are raised to the point the only people willing to live in New Jersey are government employees demanding massive salaries and welfare recipients. School breakfast just going to fall from the sky?
Don't be silly. There's plenty of money from Obama's stash.
Posted by: Truman North at June 08, 2010 11:21 AM (e8YaH)
They are nothing but greedy LAZY ASSES
It must be nice to work just over half the year, get paid for a FULL YEAR, and get full HC.
How the hell do they STILL bitch/
Posted by: MelodicMetal at June 08, 2010 11:21 AM (x4S2a)
Make them explain how using prison slang is racially biased. Do they think that only certain people wind up in prison? Call them on their PC BS.
Posted by: Blackford Oakes at June 08, 2010 11:23 AM (w9BEi)
Posted by: nerdygirl at June 08, 2010 11:23 AM (YVlF6)
I wonder what those people think will happen when taxes are raised to the point the only people willing to live in New Jersey are government employees demanding massive salaries and welfare recipients. School breakfast just going to fall from the sky?
This is why they inevitably build walls.
And if they're too late with the wall, they'll blaim all their problems on their neighbors for not going all-in with them.
"It would have worked", they'll say for 50 years after, "if not for the greed of Texas!"
Posted by: Entropy at June 08, 2010 11:25 AM (IsLT6)
Public schools here in Oregon receive $11,000 per student/year.
Can't wait till they get a hold of health care.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at June 08, 2010 11:25 AM (IqfKc)
But Maj(ret) Godin is not a member of the union, so he's not represented.
I wonder if a case can be made that this is "Taxation without Representation" and thus inherently illegal?
Posted by: Arbalest at June 08, 2010 11:26 AM (BqSr3)
Making up their own "double-dipping" rules which also accomplish the same thing for the federal government jobs.
Posted by: LC LaWedgie at June 08, 2010 11:28 AM (up5GF)
Some more FB goodness...its a friggin gold mine! Comedy GOLF JERRY!
Well when Christie's house gets broken into or catches fire or he needs 911, what's he going to do when he's railroaded the police force and firefighters of NJ?? Who's he going to blame then!? He's messing with the wrong people and taking it out on the people who make this state function!!!!!!!!! Hello, where was Christie on 911????? Was he out there digging in the rubble trying to help and save people?? I think not! God bless the firefighters and the police!!!
Posted by: dananjcon at June 08, 2010 11:30 AM (pr+up)
I'm a union member of the CSEA in New York. I can refuse to be a member of the union, but I still have to pay 100 percent union dues. On top of that, by refusing to be a member, I forgo the contractual benefits that union members enjoy. I pay more than $50 a month in dues too. When I had a scuffle with management, the union reps completely bailed on me until I took matters into my own hands and threatened to go outside and contact the ACLU (yes the fucking ACLU). Bunch of fucking worthless fat fucks.
Every year I write a letter demanding the return of all funds that were used for funding lib moonbat campaigns. This year I got $19.87 back.
Fuck the unions.
Yep, I'm in the same boat. The bitch of it is, they refuse to disclose how exactly union dues are spent; they just get to make up very low number and claim that's the percentage of dues spent on political activity.
Does anyone really believe that less than 10% is spent on politicians and campaigning? I sure as hell don't.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 08, 2010 11:31 AM (plsiE)
Do even liberals still believe the "for the children" b.s.?
Children, stage props, whatever advances their agenda works.
Posted by: Dang Straights at June 08, 2010 11:31 AM (fx8sm)
HEYYY, and as if on cue, Chicago Teacher's Union suing public district for class size.
Turds.
---------------------------
You'll notice from the story that 90% of the classrooms have enough square footage to accommodate 35 students.
This is likely a bullshit lawsuit filed by the current Chicago Teachers Union president. She is in a very hotly contested race for the Presidency next week.. So, like with other things in Illinois lately.. you have to look one or two layers below for the real reason.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 08, 2010 11:34 AM (f9c2L)
>> Does anyone really believe that less than 10% is spent on politicians and campaigning?
*cough*LOANS*cough*
Posted by: Jimmy Hoffa in Texas at June 08, 2010 11:34 AM (WvXvd)
But Maj(ret) Godin is not a member of the union, so he's not represented.
I wonder if a case can be made that this is "Taxation without Representation" and thus inherently illegal?
NO. This isn't Taxation without Representation and it isn't inherently illegal. This is racketeering and it is totally illegal. The money is for "protection"....protection from the union.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at June 08, 2010 11:34 AM (IqfKc)
I was entertained by the CSEA "we demand RESPECT (and by "respect we mean MONEY")!!" billboard/yard sign campaign last year. That's organized-crime speak. And they put the signs in their front lawns, so we all know where they live.
Posted by: HeatherRadish, Häßlich-Amerikaner at June 08, 2010 11:36 AM (mR7mk)
Fuk your prissy frankish C's.
Ah, the educated edukated swearing of the morons...my kind of people...
Posted by: Mama AJ who survived publik skool at June 08, 2010 11:38 AM (XdlcF)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at June 08, 2010 03:34 PM (IqfKc)
Gangsters.
Posted by: davidt at June 08, 2010 11:39 AM (HtIec)
Posted by: Tabby's Cat at June 08, 2010 11:40 AM (OW0nw)
Many of these kids don't eat a breakfast like you and I
I never eat breakfast.
I thought child obesity was a big problem? Didn't Cali ban happy meals?
Posted by: Entropy at June 08, 2010 11:45 AM (IsLT6)
MA Teachers Union: "Major! Lay down your $500 fee!!!"
Maj. Godin: "TEACHERS UNION!!!! COME AND GET THEM!!!"
Posted by: EC at June 08, 2010 11:54 AM (mAhn3)
Posted by: mpur in Texas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at June 08, 2010 02:56 PM
Y'know, for a long time I thought the same thing, until I realized that most of the history of unions in America could have been written by Howard Zinn. When you dig a little deeper, you find that the unions were fighting mostly for their own power, they saw workers simply as cannon fodder, a means to an end. Any benefit accrued to workers through union action was usually accidental at best. Like the fight between Communists and Nazis, neither side really represented the "good guys".
Posted by: gebrauchshund at June 08, 2010 12:02 PM (d7k0J)
Posted by: GarandFan at June 08, 2010 12:17 PM (6mwMs)
@107: A Moron's guide to the correct pronunciation of Massachusetts cities:
Yes, and that brings us to the *ham nuance.
Dedham: Ded'm
Eastham: EastHAM
Chatham: Chat'm
Wareham: WareHAM
Wrentham: renth'm
Waltham: WalthHAM
the only way to know is to know.
Posted by: Prufrock at June 08, 2010 12:20 PM (rqDjT)
I believe Christie eats children for breakfast, it's just good economic sense.
Posted by: damian at June 08, 2010 12:21 PM (4WbTI)
Posted by: Techie at June 08, 2010 12:35 PM (B8k+q)
Three generations of imbeciles are enough, eh?
Posted by: Oliver Wendell Holmes at June 08, 2010 12:46 PM (NurK6)
#62 Mister? You pronounce the R in mister.
#71 Not in Mass. you don't.
Unless the word ends in 'a'. THEN it manditoryeg. Antenna = Antenner
Posted by: rabidfox at June 08, 2010 12:55 PM (CyHYE)
Finally, he threatened to quit, if challenged on this issue (an 0-6 with 30 years of service and no kids really does need the extra income.or the grief of dealing with teenagers). The union backed down, because it was too popular with the students, parents and teachers to try and push the issue.
Posted by: JFH at June 08, 2010 01:11 PM (cPQlR)
Posted by: JFH at June 08, 2010 01:21 PM (cPQlR)
A bunch of us eventually filed suit in federal court to object to paying for political donations and won, so we had to pay only for that which was used for union purposes and not political contributions, or 20% of the fair share fees. That's right: 80% of those dues go to PACS, mostly Democrat PACs.
The unions know that they have no right to take all this money but put the burden on employees to sue for relief. Unions lose these cases all the time.
So find a right to work lawyer, like these guys, http://www.nrtw.org, or someone they recommend, and donate so they can keep working for you.
Posted by: PJ at June 08, 2010 02:22 PM (dLFNL)
1. Military members may not legally join a union.
2. The school cannot legally require a person employed by another party to pay union dues.
3. If the school is required by law to have or allow an ROTC program, then, the trifecta is complete.
A contract to make said ROTC instructor pay union dues violates law, is illegal, and therefore null and void.
Who holds the position matters not at all - regardless of their status otherwise, regardless of whether they are actually compensated in any form (paycheck, stipend, benefits only, nothing whatsoever except a handshake and a thank-you), regardless of their legal ability/inability to join a union - what matters is a) whether or not there is a "closed shop" agreement in effect in the contract between the school district (or its governing body, the state government) and the union, and b) whether the position in question is specified as being covered by that contract.
It appears that, in fact, the position of JROTC Instructor in Worcester (however it's pronounced) is covered by the current contract. Ergo, whoever holds that position must either pay dues as a union member, or pay a "service fee" (in lieu of dues) as a non-union member. And there is nothing - apparently - illegal about that.
People, this is not at all unusual or new - I was a classroom teacher in Michigan (a state which runs neck-and-neck with a couple of others for Most Unionized [With A Second-Rate Economy To Prove It] In The Continental U.S.) for over 16 years, paid union dues or "service fees" every year of it - was even a union officer for some of those years, and helped negotiate contracts between the union and the school board for awhile - and the last year I taught there was 1985. (The last three years I was there, I paid only the "service fees", and was a non-union member - but that's another story for some other time). Union contracts - including "closed shop" agreements - pre-dated my tenure as a teacher by roughly ten years. Therefore, such contracts have been around in MI at least since the late 50's. Other places, they came along a bit later, perhaps.
The Worcester district's local board can solve this rather easily, BTW - all they need to do is to declare the position of JROTC Instructor to be "outside the bargaining unit/agreement" - and get the State of Massachusetts to uphold that. Since the position is no longer under the union contract - the union does not get to be paid either union dues or a service fee for the position. There's plenty of precedent - in many districts, such extracurricular/supplementary positions as athletic coaches are specifically excluded from union contracts, as they may then be held by volunteers - paid or (often) unpaid - who are not part of the regular school staff.
In my opinion, BTW, the union in Worcester is being greedy, arrogant and stupid - this is not an issue they should be pushing, certainly not for the sake of either a lousy $500 or "the principle involved." But then, I don't consider most union "officials" to be very smart - although many of them are pretty heavy on arrogance and/or greed.
There are some fairly good arguments in favor of "closed shop" agreements - but this is in no way an example of any of them.
Posted by: J.S.Bridges at June 08, 2010 10:01 PM (Yznlz)
After these 14 yeears, this article suggests he has been singled out to pay funds and receive nothing in return.
What? Supposedly, very suddenly, a union which has been around for a good while wants him to pay what other instructors pay. He DOES receive benefits - he may choose to NOT benefits from these - but thhey ARE available. The list is quite long and is the same for other members / instructors who might choose to take advantage of their being available..
I presume he is like other ROTC Instructors and has other duties at the school; such as 'educating' students In more than the ROTC.
"He doesn't get a stipend for after school activities like coaching their drill team. He gets half his salary and all his other benefits from the military."
They word have it sound as if he has worked 14 years for free! This is not even logical - much less FACTUAL. The information is there for the reading - search it out - they hide nothing.
Why mention the stiped he does not receive? Other teachers are in the same boat on after school activities. I did not make this up -- it is part of their employment agreement with the damned district.
The half-salary and other benefits from the military? Sounds like retirement benefits having nothing to do with his primary duties OR PAY at the school. I doubt MASS is different from districts across America.
This article is hosted by "ACE OF SPADES HQ" with a slogan, "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black-flag, and begin slitting throats."
Sensationalist reporting via THEIR BLOG; a BLOG that made a bi-line in local newspapers; not newspapers supporting them, but essentially condemning their statements. This organization tells only a fraction of the real story.
I applaude his military service - but highly question the "facts" in this obviously anti-union article. Articles like these, written to purposely distort the truth are just as bad as the situations they attempt to make appear as if they are being reported in a truthful manner.
If you give a damn about the Marine -- dig and find the FACTS - then make an informed decision. Don't base your anger on a freaking 25-cent BLOG REPORT that is 99% bullshit.
Posted by: Name at June 10, 2010 12:16 AM (ZfKyp)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2478 seconds, 247 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: HeatherRadish, Ugly-American at June 08, 2010 10:32 AM (mR7mk)