Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

Florida Education Association

Founded 1886
Members 137,000
Country United States
Affiliation AFT, NEA, AFL-CIO
Key people Andy Ford, president
Office location Tallahassee, Florida
Website www.feaweb.org
The Florida Education Association (FEA) is a statewide federation of teacher and education workers' labor unions in the state of Florida in the United States. Its 137,000 members make it the largest union in the state. It is a merged affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA), and is a member of the AFL-CIO.

The FEA was founded in 1886. After leading the nation's first statewide teachers' strike[1] in 1968, the FEA split into two separate federations in 1974. The two groups merged again in 2000.

Not sure what your point is but quite obviously florida teachers do have access to unions.

Don1

My point is Florida, is a RTW state and in Brevard County where I live, only 48% of teachers pay dues. You get what you pay for..........If they don't. want to pay dues they won't. have a strong union to negotiate with repugnant legislators or Boards of ED.+

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

I on the other hand in live in a non rtw state and people are forced by repugnant legislators to pay union dues whether they choose to belong to the union or not.

Don1

Unfortunate..I hope your pay is higher than FL..

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Gee sweetie, I thought you were the one responsible for the attacks. Do you not want the accolades for them, or just want to share your bliss with your lord and master barack?

Kevyn

No they pay something called a maintainence fee which covers the cost of collective bargaining and grievance arbitration. It is less than dues and only pays for the service they recieve preventing free loading. As a result they enjoy higher pay and benifits than the scabs in right to work states.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

It that right? Tow plants, same company, one in Florida, one in Ohio, Ohio show was union, Florida was not, exact same pay scale, exact same benefits, Florida a lot warmer weather. The plant I was at tried three times to get me to move with them paying for everything in the move. Ohio paid dues and got nothing extra, so unions do what?

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

Constitutional libertarian, in your response to me, you asked the following. I will attempt to answer you.
-----
In your post there is a lot of reverence to the UAW claiming that the majority of employees have signed on. I would only assume that if that were the case then this would no longer be a question that the plant would already have become a union plant ???
Speaking specifically about the VW plant, in Chattanooga, the majority of workers did indicate a willingness to have the UAW become their bargaining representative. The Chattanooga plant is the only VW plant, in the world, without some sort of worker/union representation. VW wants a union to represent its workers for VW's "Works Council" at the plant. Every other VW plant has a "Works Council." This is how VW operates its plants. This isn't what the UAW wants, per se, but if VW wants a union in its automobile plant, why not the UAW?

The issue lies with the very anti-union feelings that are rampart in the South. The Tennessee legislature is solidly Republican controlled and the governor is a Republican. Tennessee Republicans will go to any lengths to deny unions entry into businesses. They even had Grover Norquist come in and start an anti-union organization, "Center for Worker Freedom," to fight the union. Now, how would you like some of your elected officials to be so openly biased against a portion of their constituency?

BUT, these legislators and the governor forget that they're supposed to represent ALL Tennesseans, not just the business owners and the titans of industry. The governor is part owner, along with his brother, of MAPCO gas stations. The brother also owns the Cleveland Browns. To say these guys have money isn't a stretch. Also, Sen Corker owns a large development company in Chattanooga and was its mayor when VW announced its decision to build in Chattanooga.

As I understand the situation now, the UAW has withdrawn its objection to the v**e count and the plant is still not unionized. Where the State of Tennessee stands in reinstating its $300,000,000 incentive package that it withdrew when it looked like the plant may unionize, I don't know that either. It's like the whole situation simply vanished from everybody's radar.

It's a crying shame that a whole state's reputation went down the drain over its interference in VW's business. It's like Tennessee thought it owned VW and could dictate to it whether or not it could unionize its plant in Chattanooga. Whether or not the expansion goes to the Chattanooga plant, or to one in Texas, or one in Mexico, remains uncertain to my knowledge.

The Repubs claim to be anti big government, to be in favor of government staying out of how, businesses run their affairs, and that there are too many rules and conditions that businesses must deal with. So, what does Tennessee do? They do the very things they blast the Federal government over. Total hypocrisy!

I too must disagree without hard evidence that any union has forced someone to v**e a specific way.

But what I take great issue with is within certain disciplines forcing people to join a union. Like in MN and the new child care providers union. These aren't plant workers, these are small business owners being told by the union and the state that they don't have a right to work. They must pay union dues wether or not they join the union and if they choose not to join then they are not eligible for any government programs.

This is just plain WRONG !

The following is from a web site titled: tomcopelandblog.com." I don't know Tom Copeland in any way, shape or form. But, as you mentioned the unionizing effort in Minnesota, I Googled it and found this site. From my reading, the author seems to be unbiased in his reporting. I'm passing it along for your info. From the title of the report, there is some verbiage that precedes this. Note the word, "continued." I searched and couldn't locate it. Perhaps, you'll have more success that I.

In the later parts of this report, there seem to be answers to your concerns regarding being forced to join a union. I'll interject my personal thoughts on that topic now. Being a "union rep" for several years, Ive heard all sorts of reasons as to why some people wouldn't want to join a union. They don't want to pay, or can't afford to pay the dues. They don't think that union membership can benefit them. They plan on moving up into management in the company and feel that being a union member would be a detriment to their promotions. Or, for some reason, they simply don't like unions.

Now, I don't believe that anyone should be forced to join a union if they don't want to. That said, I don't believe any non-union employee of a company should receive the same benefits that are gained for the unionized employees by the negotiation process. Where the grey area lies is in how the company and the union, together, assign who negotiates for the non-union employees. In many instances, the company tells the union that any negotiated benefits pertain to both, the union and non-union employees.

Now, how do you feel about your union getting you a raise and better benefits and charge you a monthly fee for the work of the union leadership done on your behalf? Most people are happy to get more money and benefits. But, how would you feel if the non-union employees received the very same thing as you did, yet didn't pay one single penny for them? I'd be highly urinated!

Now, if the non-union employees weren't assigned to be included in the unions "bargaining unit," and were left to themselves to, individually, negotiate with the company for their wages and benefits, do you really think that the company would take them seriously on an individual basis? No. But because the union represents ALL of its members, they and the company, can negotiate for many people at one time, instead of many people, one at a time. Hence the reasoning behind non-union employees being counted as part of a union's bargaining unit."

But, what about being forced to pay dues even if you're not in a union? In many cases, the non-union workers pay a "fair share fee." I believe it's addressed in the blog, too. "Fair share fees are usually a percentage of the monthly union due. If I had my way, non-union people who received the same benefits as union people should be required to pay the same amount of "fair share fee" as the unionized employee pays in dues. If the "fair share fee" is a percentage of the union due, then the non-union employee only gets the same percentage of increase in their wages and benefits as is their "fair share fee."

Questions and Answers About Union Organizing in Minnesota - Continued
Here’s the original language:

“Meet and negotiate. If the commissioner certifies a labor organization as
the majority exclusive representative, the state, through the governor or the governor's designee, shall meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of the family child care provider unit regarding issues of mutual concern. Issues of mutual concern include quality standards and quality rating systems, the availability of training opportunities and funding, reimbursement rates, access to benefits, changes to the state system of providing early childhood education services, the collection and disbursement of established dues or fees to the exclusive representative of family child care providers, licensing and licensing actions, the monitoring and evaluating of family child care providers, and any other matters that the parties agree would improve recruitment and retention of qualified family child care providers and the quality of the programs they provide.”

There have been significant changes to both bills. Here’s the latest language of the Senate bill:

“Subd 7. Meet and negotiate. If the commissioner certifies an employee organization as the majority exclusive representative, the state, through the governor or the governor’s designee, shall meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of the family child care provider unit regarding grievance issues, child care assistance reimbursement rates under chapter 119B, and terms and conditions of service, but this obligation does not compel the state or its representatives to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.”

In the newest version of the House bill it limits the issues to negotiate over to:

“1) child care assistance reimbursement rates under chapter 119B;
(2) fringe benefits, including those paid upon termination, but not retirement
contributions or benefits, and not other benefits to be paid when a person is no longer a family child care provider; and (3) grievance procedures regarding matters in clauses (1) and (2).”

As you can see, the most recent versions drastically limits the scope of what the union can bargain over to the subsidy program. However, what does “terms and conditions of service” mean in the Senate bill? I’ve asked several people who have experience with labor law and no one can answer this question. If it’s the intention of the union to limit the bargaining to CCAP issues only, then I think it would be helpful for them to clarify this point more specifically. I have spoken to a union representative about this issue and asked for such clarification.

If the union is limited to bargaining over CCAP, then I believe that this should alleviate the legitimate concerns of many licensed providers about being excluded from v****g for or against a union. Since the union wouldn't be able to bargain over anything but the subsidy program, licensed providers who do not care for subsidized families will not be affected by any negotiations. And since they don’t care for subsidized children they shouldn’t be allowed to v**e for or against a union.

If it’s the union's intention to allow the union to bargain over licensing issues and other broader issues, then I share the concerns of licensed providers who would not be allowed to v**e on the issue of certifying a union.

2) Why should legally unlicensed providers be able to v**e on whether or not a union is to be established in Minnesota?

For many years legally unlicensed providers have cared for CCAP families. Since they would obviously be affected by changes in the CCAP program, it makes sense for them to be represented by a union that is trying to raise CCAP rates.

As of March 2013 there were about 10,000 licensed family child care providers in Minnesota and about 6,500 legally unlicensed providers who care for CCAP families.

I’ve heard many licensed providers say that only licensed providers should be allowed to v**e. The reason is that they want a voice in decisions that may affect them. However, the same logic can be used to argue that legally unlicensed providers (who are certainly affected by the CCAP rates) should also be included in the v**e. So, why would it be okay to exclude legally unlicensed providers from the v****g process but include licensed providers who don’t care for CCAP children?

3) Will the bill prevent family child care organizations such as the Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association, local family child care associations, child care resource and referral agencies and individual providers from meeting or communicating with the Department of Human Services (DHS), or talking to their legislators about CCAP or any other issue?

No. The Senate bill clearly addresses this: “Subd 10 Rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with: 2) the right or obligation of any state agency to communicate or meet with any citizen or organization concerning family child care legislation, regulation, or policy; or 3) the rights and responsibilities of family child care providers under federal law.” the House bill has language that is very similar.

I’ve heard from many providers that they are concerned they will not have a “voice” at DHS or in the legislature if the bill passes. I think this concern was legitimate under the old language of the bills. Other than the question of what “terms and conditions of service” means, I don’t believe it is an issue anymore. I would urge MLFCCA, local family child care associations and others to continue their efforts to advocate on behalf of family child care and children.

4) Will I be forced to join the union?

No. Minnesota and federal law prohibits anyone from being forced to join a union. If providers v**e to allow AFSCME to represent them, providers can voluntarily join the union or decide not to. Providers who do not care for CCAP families can join the union but won’t be able to v**e on negotiations with the state over the CCAP program. If the union is established, all providers who care for CCAP children will be represented by the union in their negotiations with the state. CCAP providers who are opposed to the union will get any benefits negotiated by the union. The union would be required to assist providers who have complaints about the CCAP program even if the provider does not join the union.

5) How much will union dues be?

Currently, AFSCME union dues are $25 a month. Union members decide what dues to charge themselves. This could go up in the future.

6) Will I be forced to pay “fair share” fees?

Providers who care for CCAP families and do not choose to join the union are likely to be charged a “fair share” fee. This is a fee to cover the costs of the union to bargain with the state over the CCAP program. By law, these fees cannot be greater than 85% of union dues. At the current rate of $25 a month, this would mean a “fair share” fee could not be greater than $21.25 per month. If union dues go up, “fair share” fees could also go up.

7) What does the union do with union dues and “fair share” fees?

The union members make their own decisions about how union dues will be spent. They cannot be spent on supporting political candidates. Some of the union dues (and “fair share” fees) will go to the national AFSCME office. In return, AFSCME provides support and expertise to the Minnesota union. I have heard some anti-union providers say that millions of dollars will be sent to the national office. I do not know where this figure comes from. “Fair share” fees will be used to pay for the cost of negotiating with the state.

8) Family child care providers are independent business owners. How can they be an “employee” of the state of Minnesota?

This is a difficult issue to explain. If providers choose to set up a union to negotiate with the state this will not affect your ability to continue to operate as an independent business owner. The union cannot tell you what rates to charge parents. They cannot tell you what to put in your contract or policies. They cannot interfere with your relationship with parents. According to the bill, “Family child care providers shall not have the right to strike.”

Under the law, for a union to negotiate with the state they must have a financial connection to the state. This connection is the CCAP program. The only way for a union to negotiate with the state is for them to be considered an employee, but only for purposes of negotiating over the CCAP program. The Senate bill says, “This section does not require the treatment of family child care providers as public employees for any other purpose.”

The House bill says, "Family child care providers have the rights and obligations of public employees only for the purposes of meeting and negotiating on issues specified in subdivision 7, paragraph (a).... This section does not grant family child care providers status as public employees for any other purpose than the use of procedures in this chpater...." So the use of the word “employee” is meaningless outside of the bargaining room. Providers are not eligible for any benefits state employees enjoy and cannot file for unemployment benefits. Providers should not worry that their right to operate their business as they choose will be affected by a union.

9) Haven't the majority of family child care providers already expressed their opinion that they don't want a union?

Several years ago AFSCME and the SEIU union got thousands of providers to sign cards saying they wanted to be represented by a union. Recently, the Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association did an online survey asking its members if they wanted a union. They received a 20% response rate and over 80% of those v****g said they didn't want a union. I don't know what the majority of providers (licensed or legally unlicensed) want. I think the only way to find out is to hold a v**e.

During the union campaign several years ago there were instances where some family child care providers were deceived by union representatives into signing the cards. Some providers had their cards withdrawn after contacting the union. I deplored these actions at the time and spoke to both unions about it. I do not support any actions that confuse, mislead or deceive providers. I do not know how many cards were withdrawn.

10) What does it mean that the union will collectively bargain with the state?

The right to collectively bargain with the state is something only a union can obtain. Under our current non-union environment, individual providers, provider associations and other organizations can approach DHS and the legislature and propose changes in Rule 2, urge them to raise the CCAP rate, allocate money for more grants, etc.. (Note: if a union is formed, this can still happen.) But without a union, DHS does not have to sit down and bargain about these issues. They can listen (if they choose), but they don’t have to respond to or agree to anything that the child care community might want.

Under collective bargaining rules, DHS would be forced to sit down with the union and negotiate in good faith over issues solely dealing with the CCAP program. If they fail to do so, the union can file a complaint and force DHS to negotiate fairly. This does not mean that DHS must agree to anything the union suggests. But, because DHS would be forced by law to negotiate, this shifts the balance of power to a more level playing field between DHS and child care providers. Since the union can’t strike, it can only be effective by convincing DHS that its positions are reasonable. Since DHS has to listen and has to respond to the union recommendations, it is much more likely that they will come to an agreement with the union.

Here’s how this might proceed. After the union is formed, union members would sit down and discuss what are their most important priorities regarding CCAP. Let’s say they decide they want the CCAP rates raised by 6% in 2014 and 5% in 2015. They then sit down with DHS and discuss this. DHS might say they don’t think it’s reasonable to raise rates higher than 3% in 2014 and 2% in 2015. They also say they don’t think the legislature will pass a bill that sets rates any higher. The union argues with DHS and eventually they agree to a contract that will raise rates by 4% in 2014 and 2% in 2015.

Any contract about CCAP rates decided by the union and DHS must be v**ed on by the legislature. The legislature can either v**e up or down on the settlement reached by DHS and the union. During economic hard times the union might not even propose a rate increase. In some states where family child care unions exist the state legislature has approved increases in subsidy rates. In some cases, not. In some states the union has been successful in preventing rates from being cut.

Here is the main reason I support the efforts to unionize. I have been a part of the child care field in Minnesota since 1981 and have participated in many campaigns to try to raise the CCAP rates. We achieved some successes in the 1990s, but the rate has remained stagnant for many years. In fact, the legislature cut the rates by 2.5% in November 2011. The current rate is not adequate to give a provider a reasonable living wage.

A typical family child care provider works long hours (on average over 60 hours a week). If a provider cared for one toddler and three preschoolers who were all subsidized by the state, and she worked 60 hours a week, how much would she earn per hour?

In the highest paid county (Hennepin) she would earn $9.70 per hour. In the lowest paid county (Murray) she would earn $6.03 per hour. In 60% of the counties, family child care providers would earn less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. That’s working 60 hours a week caring for four children! These numbers do not take into consideration any expenses associated with caring for children (toys, supplies, etc.).

Of course these numbers are imprecise because all providers are different. Some providers only care for CCAP children, while others also care for private pay parents. Some providers care for more than four children. And so on. The point is, however, that by any measure the amount providers receive from CCAP is not adequate.

I strongly believe that Minnesota is much more likely to see higher CCAP rates if there is a union engaged in collective bargaining with DHS than if there isn’t a union. I can’t guarantee this. I can’t promise it. But collective bargaining puts power into the hands of family child care providers as never before. In addition, since AFSCME has also organized thousands of other workers in Minnesota it can bring political power to elect a legislature that is more sympathetic to children and child care providers.

Note: Currently AFSCME has formed a child care union and has recruited a very few members. However, the union has no right to collectively bargain without the state legislature passing a law giving them the power to do so.

11) What has happened in other states where family child care unions have been formed?

The results in other states has been very mixed. Successful union efforts in other states have generated tens of millions of dollars for increased subsidies for low income parents, lower parent co-payments, as well as increased access to training, and a strong voice for family child care at the state level. In some states there have been no increases in subsidy rates. In some states where a Republican governor replaced a Democratic governor the union was dissolved. If you want to judge unions purely from a financial perspective (“Are the financial benefits I receive equal to or more than my union dues or “fair share” fees?”) then the answer would probably be negative for many states. However, other non-financial benefits providers receive are real and providers continue to support a union in some states.

The National Women’s Law Center has published two comprehensive reports on the movement to organize family child care unions. Their latest report, “Getting Organized: Unionizing Home-Based Child Care Providers” was published in 2010.

12) Will licensed providers not be eligible for grants unless they care for CCAP families?

No. This has never been the case and will not be the case under the union bill. The grant application says that providers "may not refuse service" to CCAP families. So, a provider who decides she will not take CCAP families (either because she doesn't want any of her money going to the union, or for any other reason) will not be eligible for the state Child Care Services Grant program.

13) If the union is certified to represent family child care providers, is there a way to get rid of the union?

Yes. Unions are a democratic organization and if a majority of its members decided to disband the union, they can do so. If those who are not in the union and are opposed to unions want to introduce legislation to revoke the right of the union to organize they can do so.

Do we live in a free country or don't we, do we not have a right to choose union or don't we. You chastise the government of Tennessee yet you turn a blind eye to other states forcing people to join unions against their free will.
Personally, I believe in the right of everyone who wants to work, have the opportunity to work. I'm NOT a "closed shop" person. But, I don't believe it's fair for those employees, who don't want union representation, to be represented by the union during wage and benefits negotiations. Again, if they want to negotiate their wages and benefits on their own, then have at it. My experience is that employers WILL NOT negotiate with employees below their management scale. You may find a few, small firms that will take the time to do one-on-one negotiations with their employees. But, those employers are far and few between.

I hope I have given you some 'food for thought,' here. I hope, too, that from reading my epistle and the blog, that you'll see that being "forced" to join a union never was "the case." "The case" is usually brought about by the anti-union people who spew lies and innuendo about unions and how they operate in their efforts to keep unions out.

I will end at this. In the past, unions have been troublesome to many. Union corruption is just as valid a topic as is corrupt businesses or corrupt stock traders or corrupt government officials.

But, I would ask that you go and read what the working conditions were like before unions came on the scene. Look up how people were "forced" to work in life-threatening conditions; literally beaten by "thugs" hired by business owners to "force" workers back to work; to be treated worse than share-croppers by their employers because the employers literally owned the land the employee worked on. It owned the stores the employees bought goods from. It owned the houses the employees lived in. It paid the employees just enough to keep the employee in perpetual debt to the company; not allowing the employee to quit until the debts had been paid. How would you like to be able to be fired for no other reason than because the boss didn't like the shirt you wore to work. I could go on.

So, thank the union for the 40 hour workweek; for overtime pay, for better work conditions; for better pay and benefits; for paid holidays; for paid vacations; and just about every other positive you can think of that allows you to go home to your family at night, safe and sound.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

-------
I would venture to guess that the union plant, in Ohio, negotiated the wages and benefits for both plants. That's how many companies operate. The union MUST negotiate for the non-union employees. So, that's what the unions do.

joe1941

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

My wife ran an in home daycare for 12 years. Independent business woman doing her own thing, trained and licensed by the state of MN.

Then along comes a bunch of union organizers who get the MN legislator to pass a law that states all licensed daycare providers must join their new union. Or if you choose not to join you still must pay union dues and will not receive any federal or state child assistance money.

You explain to me how this makes a small business owner a scab, you are a pathetic uneducated lap dog why don't you go sit in the corner and lick yourself.

joe1941

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

joe1941

Unions do not negotiate for employees they negotiate for the employee position. One reason the company couldn't give me a raise in pay (the position would pay more even if someone else got it) so they just paid me for hours I never worked.

Kevyn

Union membership was only contingent on the receipt of government pay, if she limited her business to the private sector she would not need to join and dosn't need to pay any dues. your post is both ill informed and dishonest.