Thursday, April 26, 2007
enlarge
Staff photo by Andy Molloyfrom the Kennebec Journal
Sport of Kings
New Medicaid billing system inspires doubts among some
Christmas spirit
Guidance counselor: Dismiss complaint based on criticism of same-sex marriage
CHELSEA: 'Practice burn' provides thrill for 9-year-old
Trust eyes orchard purchase
GOLFER OF THE YEAR: Bonenfant rises up Cony ranks
YOUTH SOCCER: Local team gives 'care package' to children in Afghanistan
All of today's:
News | Sports
from the Kennebec Journal
from the Morning Sentinel
YES ON 1 BACKER REBUTS CLAIM
New system for Medicaid payments worries providers
After petition drive, Clinton police force budget will go a third time before voters
A rock musician makes trip home via Black Taxi
MADISON: After revaluation, abatement requests reviewed
Parks to have facelift
GOLFER OF THE YEAR: Sweet does job for Madison
YOUTH SOCCER: Local team gives 'care package' to children in Afghanistan
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
previous page | next page1-10 of 49 comments:
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
Secondly, I strongly contend that I AM paying my "fair share." For better or worse, I am included in the contract negotiations that are the reason for MSEA's existence. The cost (as abstract and debatable as they are) of those negotiations, , would be exactly the same if I quit or retired tomorrow.
Thirdly, if the purpose of this "fair" share proposal were a true sharing of the cost of collective bargaining, the end result would be a reduction of the pro rata share paid by membership and thus, one would presume, a reduction in MSEA dues. As this is not the case, I would have to assume that the extorted windfall enjoyed from the "fair" share mandate is earmarked toward financing a political agenda and for funding future union junkets.
I have the utmost respect for my colleagues who have chosen to belong to MSEA and I feel that my choices deserve the same consideration. However, I am puzzled by the fact that those paying a premium for MSEA membership do not demand much more from well compensated leadership. report abuse
Your comment about the pro-1604 speaker comparing MSEA to nazis and communists and being threatened with removal
by the police was taken completely out of context. Maybe we were at different hearings ? I can't speak for the person you're
talking about, but I believe he was comparing forms of government. He wasn't calling MSEA, or anyone in MSEA nazi's.
As far as being threatened with removal, this happened only after his (3 min.)time ran out and he had gone past the point of gentle
suggestion to wrap up his statement. Sen. Strimling suggested that he would be escorted out if he didn't comply, at which
point he did, and without protest I might add. You made it sound as though he was out of control, which couldn't be further
from the truth.
Just sharing the other side of the story, which is too often left untold.
report abuse
I felt a need to respond to some of your comments. Where to begin ??
Your suggestion that MSEA members weren't at the hearing because they were working would be one theory.
My theory would suggest that maybe they didn't feel this issue was important enough to use their vacation time on.
I have to wonder if the MSEA members and Stewards that attended the hearing used their own vacation time as well ?
Your statement about ONE pro-1604 speaker saying that only bad or lazy employees support the union does not speak
for everyone on the pro-1604 side. The point the speaker was making was that in their experience, they have personally
seen cases where MSEA has supported someone who perhaps was not deserving of support, and perhaps should have
undergone some type of reprimand, or even termination. I myself have seen this happen in the workplace, more than once.
Your suggestion that quantity doesn't always equal quality is entertaining to say the least. How many times have I seen
photos of union members gathering together in 'solidarity', while the caption for the photo is usually MSEA taking credit
for something they supposedly did ? As a matter of fact, I think I saw that exact thing just today. Purple shirts at the State House,
singing the 'solidarity forever' song. Quantity equaling quality truly IS in the eye of the beholder.
You statement about pro-1604 speakers despairing their fellow employees is a ridiculous one. I lost COUNT of the time
MSEA speakers called the pro-1604 'freeloaders', 'free riders' and the like.
More in the next posting...report abuse
Staff Salaries at MSEA in 2004
Carl Leinonen (former exec director) $97,900 this is now Tim Belcher's job
Tim Belcher (former MSEA general counsel) $72,042
Susan Mitchell, director of policy & legislation $70,411
John Graham, director of field services $70,361
Joan Towle, director of finance & administration $69,424
Matthew McDonald, director of organizing $63,640
Steven Butterfield, IS director $61,656
Chester Hillier, employee rep $61,656
Ronald Ahlquist, employee rep $57,218
Pamela Morin, employee rep $56,889
Todd Ricker, employee rep $53,010
Stephanie Von Glinski, organizer $53,007
Harvey Carr, employee rep $47,992
Leslie Manning, employee rep $47,980
Ethelyn Purdy, insur Coord. $39,504
Mary Labbe, support $34,794
Debra Roy, support $34,105
Diane Sharpe, admin assist $34,085
Melissa Powell, support $31,147
Andrew Wing, support $30,531
*** Plus a few benefits (most likely) ***
while
Maine's median household income is
just $39,395
Think about it. Do you really think your worth that much. I do not!
20 year state employee but i'm not sure how much longer.report abuse
As an informed board member of MSEA, could your union pass a procedural audit? This is one way to resolve part of this debate over your so-called "fair share" fee.
By the way, is it really a good idea to have a convicted felon handling cash at the MSEA-SEIU Local 1989? Since your union has the Social Security numbers of most state employees, does she also have unlimited access to those files?
report abuse
previous page | next page
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.