Robert Donovan wrote:
I see no reason that I or anyone else should be forced to adopt a
political agenda in the process. It's a free speech thing. If California
were a right-to-work state, where unions are forbidden to make joining
the union a requirement of Employment, that would be one thing, but as
it is not, I think this is tantamount to legalized extortion. Pay for
our political agenda or we'll take your job away.
Robert Donovan
In fact, California /is/ a Right-to-work state in the terms you define
it. I looked it up in the California Civil code recently because, as a
paid IHSS healthcare worker, I am required to pay union dues, whether or
not I am a union member.
The gist of the applicable California Civil Code says that an employer
cannot make, as a condition of employment, any demands that require an
employee to become a member of, or cease to be a member of any organization.
However, it's a moot point. Because of the way the unions are allowed to
form and negotiate contracts, it /is/ legal to institute what is termed
as an Agency Shop condition on all employees. What that means is that
while an employee is not required to become a voting union member, he is
required to "pay his fair share" to the union as compensation for the
union's advocacy (laugh, gag) on his behalf.
The only condition in which you can avoid some of this, is that if you
can show that you are member of a religious group which has shown a
history of opposing, on moral or religious grounds, such contributions.
In other words, you have to prove you're the equivalent of a
conscientious objector.
If you manage that, you get a modest reduction in your dues, which will
be paid to a charitable organization of your choice. You don't get to
keep the money.
If you dig through the CA Civil Code, you'll find that such Agency Shop
provisions have actually been codified into actual state law for decades.
In my case, after the union formed about three years ago, it negotiated
with the State of California on my behalf (although without either my
knowledge, consent, or support). Implementing the Agency Shop provision
therefore, was done with the blessing of the State government. The only
way to remove that requirement is for the union membership to vote it
out. As I am not a union member, I have no voting rights (as if they
actually exist anyway). That's just never gonna happen. Union vote
tallying always follows union leadership needs. Always.
Oddly enough, my W-2's show that I am employed, not by the State of
California (although that's who cuts the check), but by my wife! The
County of San Diego, and the State of California are only third parties
to the employment agreement between my wife and me.
This is a great example of how deep and insidious the arm twisting by
union leadership is: it is sanctioned with blessing by both elected
officials and appointed bureaucrats, who are not even first parties to
the employer-employee contract.
It makes me sick every time I think about it. So I don't.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
