Thursday, April 26, 2007
enlarge
Staff photo by Andy Molloyfrom the Kennebec Journal
QUESTIONS REMAIN
No complaints from those who switched to Somerset County center
Vote on 1 may hurt some in election
Steeple at center of debate in Whitefield
VETERANS REQUIRE ASSISTANCE: Homelessness takes center stage
J.P. DEVINE: Overcome sadness with hope
BASKETBALL: NBA Hall of Famer Barry doles out advice at Thomas College
HIGH SCHOOL CROSS COUNTRY: Maranacook sophomore Mace dominates Class B field
All of today's:
News | Sports
from the Kennebec Journal
from the Morning Sentinel
A year later, families await answers on fatalities
Owner of topless coffee shop on the comeback trail
Officials report cheaper, better service after switch
Two people in critical condition
Young Marines stick to program
Issue of homeless veterans at center stage
GIRLS SOCCER STATE CHAMPIONSHIP: Winslow falls to York in Class B
Bard hits her marathon stride
All of today's:
News | Sports
from the Morning Sentinel
The workers, nearly all of whom wore large green buttons that said "Vote Yes, LD 1604, Freedom of Choice," told the Legislature's Labor Committee they don't think they should be fired for refusing to pay the fee.
"The bottom line is, people should not be forced to subsidize an organization they don't agree with," said Michael Smith of Gardiner, who works for the state's information technology office.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Scott Lansley, R-Sabattus, would disallow the state from requiring state employees to join the union. It also would not allow the state to require employees to pay union dues or fees.
The debate over the "fair share" payments dates back to 2003, when the state and union signed a contract that required all new hires to join the union or pay a portion of union dues.
Two years later, the new contract required all employees -- not just new hires -- to join the union or pay the dues.
That's when a group of employees, many of them longtime state workers, decided to fight the provision. To date, about 200 have not joined or paid their "fair share," said Tim Belcher, executive director of the Maine State Employees Association.
Those workers will soon get another notice informing them that they must pay or face being fired.
The union represents about 10,000 state workers.
"In 2005, the longtime free riders were required to pay their fair share," Belcher told the committee.
The fee for nonunion workers is $4.65 a week, which is less than half of what union members pay. It covers "all expenditures germane to collective bargaining," Belcher said.
While urging the committee to reject the bill, Belcher said the measure would not have the legal power to change the contract that's currently in place. The state and union are in the midst of negotiating a new two-year contract.
Committee members appear to be split on the issue, with some asking clearly prounion questions, and others voicing support for the workers who want to be able to choose whether or not to join the union.
The committee will take a vote on the bill at an upcoming work session.
Lansley, who sponsored the bill, said he felt that it was unfair of the state and the union to require existing state employees to join or pay partial dues to the union. It's one thing if it's a condition of employment, he said.
"I am against forcing people to join an organization as a matter of principle," he said.
Sen. Lois Snowe-Mello, R-Poland, said she heard from many constituents who wanted her to support the bill.
"It wasn't part of their contract when they were hired," she said.
State worker Julie Churchill, who works for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, said she supports the bill because she doesn't want her money going to the union and its national affiliates.
Also, as a supervisor of four people, she doesn't think it's right for her to be forced to join a union that represents the people she supervises. "The fees go for other things I don't believe in morally or ethically," she said.
Maine State Employees Association President Dana Graham said those who don't want to join or pay are looking for a "free lunch." He said it's not fair for those who pay their dues to support those who don't.
"They'd get to enjoy all the rights included in their union contracts -- the pay raises, the benefits and the improvements in working conditions that unions secured on their behalf -- and they'd get it all without paying a cent," he said.
Susan Cover -- 623-1056
scover@centralmaine.com
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
It is however, a fatally flawed argument that they are less deserving of respect and equality because they choose not to join MSEA and should be automatically excluded from receiving health benefits and adequate compensation.
What if the state employee negotiates a better deal for him or herself. What if the state agrees that they are the more productive and competent and experienced in their capacity to do their their work and therefore worth more in pay and benefits.
The MSEA would be the first ones to demand equal pay for its' members!
Would MSEA members also agree to recognize the "debt" they owed the non-union employees in the form of a "representation" fee? Or would they say their Union's campaign contributions exempts them.
Collective bargaining while providing a floor for some, but is a ceiling for others and that is something the State and the MSEA have chosen to ignore.
It shouldn't neccessarily translate, that a State employee is viewed as something less by the STATE in terms of their pay and benefits solely on the basis of their Union affilitation or their political beliefs.
"Fair share" is inherently discriminatory toward the non-union employee on that basis alone.
The State of Maine is the Employer not the MSEA. How has it come to pass that the MSEA demand that anybody be fired? Or that any state employee is a freeloader?
Absolutely ludicrous on it's face for a Labor Union and a corrupt policy for the Baldacci Administration and Maine's Legislature.
To pretend otherwise is absolutely derelict.
Dana Graham was quoted as saying "in Maine we do things as neighbors" when this Fair share issue started.
Yet the MR. Grahams insist the "neighborhood" burn down any neighbor's house that has a dispute with the water utility where Mr. Graham works. Incidently, Neighbor A works for the Fire Dept.report abuse
For the Legislature, here's a suggestion: There is a clearly defined list of employees who are opposed to this. There is a great term out there, which is often used in business decisions, called a Grandfather clause. Grandfather these employees, stop allowing threats to be issued to them for not paying, and let's move on. report abuse
Many say, if you don't pay a fee you are a free loader. You should revert back to the days when first hired. Man, I wish I could.
How can I be a free loader when it costs no more to represent one employee than it does 100?
I've been a state worker for 10 years. I've worked hard and done my job and had zero complaints. I had the ability to retire at 49 when hired. Not today. Not with the Union negotiating a loss of 6% per year retiring early instead of 2%. Not when they are changing the retirement date, increasing the medical costs, and for several years didn't include any pay raise at all. So please tell me, for all those years, exactly what were union members paid for? The sad thing is; no one knows. Union members have no idea to what and where their money goes. I care where my money goes and I do care what it supports. Apparently, members and "fair share" forced payers will be supporting politics and SEU. It will have little to do with raises.
I have not said I will not support the Union who represents my best interests. Heck, if the Union truly cared about the employees, reduced dues for everyone else, and proved that the monies collected were used ONLY for our best interests, I'd pay. Yet, none of that has or will happen. I will not support MSEA. You see, MSEA is not supporting me and hasn't for 10 solid years. Not only is alot of my money leaving the state; but alot is going to political campaigns I do not support. And through all this, I as an employee, get little results when concerning raises and benefits. In all honesty, the benefits have decreased and become less inviting as each year passes. MSEA has been caught red handed; using money for inappropriate means. Is anyone truly surprised? Let's see what another organization can do. Competition never hurts. Maybe now MSEA will have to work again and be accountable; like they used to be a LONG TIME AGO!report abuse
Show all 49 comments
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.