Posts
The Dubuque Telegraph Herald (free registration required) has a story about a public hearing Rep. Pam Jochum held this week about the proposed Fair Share law.
If the bill is passed, it will not automatically mean non-union workers have to pay; it just allows Fair Share to be among the issues that can be included when labor negotiates a contract with management.
"Iowa values teach us nothing is for free," Lynch said. "I want to pay for services that are provided for me."
If Fair Share becomes law, it will affect only a small percentage of Iowa's work force, Lynch said.
Union officials say some 38,700 Iowans, or about 2.6 percent of Iowa workers, are currently covered by union contracts but are not union members. About 160,700 Iowans belong to unions.
Fair Share won't force people to join unions, it only means people will be paying their fair share for the services they receive. I am a member of the teacher's union. In my section of the building, only 3 out of the 8 teachers are members. Contract negotiation is a service the union provides. It isn't fair that I am paying for the union to negotiate the other teacher's salaries and the other teachers get the benefits for free.
Republicans believe in personal responsibility. Fair Share means no more free rides. That sounds like something that Republicans can get behind.
3 comments:
Here is a problem I can see. (The law would have has no effect on me, so correct me if I don't know what I'm talking about.) But, seriously? Do the Unions need anymore money? They give millions and millions and millions of it away to politian, i.e. Democrats mostly.
Now, I have never, and will never donate any money to any politian. I'll vote for 'em, but as far as giving any money to anybody... Never. None of them deserve my money. So, make a fair share fund that has to stay in the union and can't be given away to Democrats or Republicans and I could see it being ok.
Anyway, that'll teach my mom for voting Democrat all the time, she hasn't been a member of the teachers union in a long time. :-)
I think the Democrats have risked opening a Pandora'Box with the "fair share" legislation, one that may come back to haunt them if they're not careful. On a semantic note, yes fair-share doesn't "force" an individual to join a union, but it does require that you pay the dues either way. Granted, this doesn't force you to join, but who would be stubborn or hard nosed enough not to join if they're having to pay the dues?
I've been teaching for 11 years, and I've taught in state that had fair share and Iowa. There's already several negative misperceptions about teachers' "unions" (associations) in Iowa, and fair-share will merely exacerbate them. I can provide a plethora of reasons as to why this should fade away, but I don't want to risk providing more fodder for the bottom feeders who will use them to further solidify their misperceptions.
I'm just throwing this out there, but I just assume the unions WANT to negotiate non-union member's contracts.. Why? Simple, if the non union members took it upon themseleves to do it and got a better deal, it would further weaking the teachers union and more would not leave.
So answer me this, why can't a teacher not join the union and take care of their contract negotiation themselves? It's not hard.. at my home school, where my mom teaches, it seemed the people who were doing the negotiation for the teachers where those first year teachers right out of school who didn't know any better and got stuck doing it. Doesn't seem too hard.
Post a Comment