Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    The Rest Of The Story

    By JGillman, Section News
    Posted on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    Tags: Michigan, Mackinac Center, Labor, Right to Work, Freedom To Work, FTW, RTW, Teamsters, Dearborn (all tags)

    If one was to only read the story today by Tom Gantert at Capitol Confidential, it might seem strange that the Mackinac Center advocates a very oppressive position.

    A quick read of the article makes it seem that the Mackinac Center is suing the Teamsters to compel them to represent a non-paying employee in a grievance action. It seemed strange to read:

    "The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit Thursday on behalf of four former Teamsters union workers who say charging them a fee to file a grievance because they opted out of paying dues is in violation of the right-to-work law passed in December.

    Teamsters Local 214 in the city of Dearborn said effective July 1, it would charge $150 to employees who opted out of paying union dues to file a grievance, according to the lawsuit. .."

    But.. aren't they NOT paying for that service?

    Gantert's story DOES reference the key:

    "The lawsuit contends that even though the four employees no longer pay dues, they still are forced to be represented by the union."
    However, it is something that might also be said to mean 'the union still negotiates the salary/benefits'; often used to make the 'free-rider' argument by labor supporters.

    The real story lies elsewhere.

    Continued below the fold.

    The real test is that of control.

    The Teamsters continue to argue for complete and total control of all aspects of employment over union AND non union employees.  While there is an understanding that compensation will be based on whatever has been negotiated by the union, the at-will employment; and all aspects of the handshake that accompanies such an agreement remain between the employee and the employer.  The accompanying link to the Mackinac Legal Foundation story is an important part of the narrative.:

    "Teamsters Local 214 does not even allow individual employees to arbitrate a grievance or go to a department head or higher unless he or she goes exclusively through the union. "
    Therein lies the essential truth.

    Without knowing this, it seems out of character for the MC to be supporting a position forcing one entity to provide for another without compensation.

    The quote from an attorney will seem very logical for those who are missing the underlying problem of absolute Teamster control. Further in the Cap Con Article:

    "David Nacht, an Ann Arbor private attorney who specializes in labor law, said in an email he hasn't reviewed case law under the National Labor Relations Act or other state labor laws to determine if courts have imposed burdens similar to what the plaintiffs seek in other right-to-work jurisdictions, but he said he thought the claims by the plaintiffs seemed unfair.

    "The lawsuit seems to suggest that unions have an obligation to provide grievance representation for employees who aren't paying for the union to provide those services," Nacht said. "Unions, like companies, or any other entity, have to cover their costs. In general, the Mackinac Center is opposed to government regulation that imposes regulatory burdens on the private sector. In this case, however, the Center is asking the courts to interpret the state law to impose a significant burden on a private entity, which is what unions are, without getting paid for it. I think a court is going to have trouble finding that position to be reasonable. Why should some public employees get for free what others have to pay for? That's not fair." "

    On its face it seems so, but was Nacht aware of the absolute control the Teamsters still wish to hold over the non-union employees?

    This is an important aspect to remember as the arguments begin to escalate into the next election cycle.  Reasonable people would have to argue that payment to the Teamsters for grievance handling would be appropriate if not expected.  A service as Nacht points out that has a cost.

    But payment for those services are not legitimate sans self determination by the employee.

    < The Daily Dillon | Nerdpublicans Built That >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    But was Nacht aware? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Corinthian Scales on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 11:53:58 AM EST
    From the Moscow on the Huron offices of Nacht Law for Goonions.

    Also note, another Blanchard...

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search