this is a reply to Ed Marth, and referencing Leo Lefrancois
Dear Ed,
I would have to disagree with your statements below.
"For those who feel that their interests are well protected by the changing administrations at Storrs and in the capitol, and that their views are always taken into account, it is understandable that they will not favor voting for collective bargaining. That has to be respected. Those who want to have an organization that uniquely theirs to be their advocate and in their individual corners when needed, this discussion has another hue."
If the union is voted, nobody can opt out, it is union for all the faculty.
I see this moment as unique opportunity to get an attempt to change this CT-law.
The interested faculty from UCHC should form and sign a letter (petition) and submit to the congressmen or to the CT assembly to ask for the law modification.
As a person who comes from past socialist country, I can say that even there, if you choose not to be part of the union (as individual) you could be out and not get the union charges (1%) and be out of the union negotiated benefits as well. Your employer and you then have a mutual business relation, as usual.
In these regards I completely agree with the following statements made by Dr. Lefrancois.
"My other issue with unions is that one does not have a choice to join or not- if the vote is passed you cannot opt out- apparently you can but the dues are still extracted. Any organization that forces servitude is not a viable option for me."
Regards
Ivo Kalajzic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With all due respect, I find this comment to be beside the point. One can still respect the rights of those who do not wish to have collective bargaining without insisting that they be able to opt out. That's why we have an election. You see, the fact is that Connecticut is not a "right to work" state. If a majority of those in a unit for which the enabling legislation applies, chooses collective bargaining, then a "union shop" is formed. No, this is not an opportunity to fundamentally change Connecticut's labor statutes. Even if one sees it that way, it is certainly the case that a bunch of UCHC faculty would not sway the legislature and the citizens on such issues. I doubt one would get even a substantial number of faculty at UCHC to petition to change the state's right to work statutes. Actually, I think that it would be quite harmful to have some faculty in and some out of a union. Such a dichotomy would be untenable with different parts of the faculty having different conditions and terms of employment. As in most elections, there are not multiple winners. If a union is voted in, then those who voted "no" do not have a choice. The majority rules on this one. That's Connecticut law. So, whatever your point of view, it can still be respected.
ReplyDeleteFrom Donald Kreutzer
ReplyDeleteIvo
We live and function in American, a democracy, and not in a socialist country. As such the voters make the decisions. If a majority decides in favor of unionization, the elected union will represent all voters. However, if the majority of voters decide against unionization, we all have to live with that decision too. This is just how the democratic process works.
Don