Corporate profits have doubled since 2001, while real wages have flatlined and the number of workers earning poverty wages has risen to nearly a quarter of the workforce.
A line tracing the rise of wealth inequality and one tracing the decline in unionization make a perfect mirror image of each other.
Please share widely!
What do you mean by that? If one doesn’t agree with every stance any union takes, does that make one “anti-union”?
I never said you had to be all in or all out. I understand shades of gray.
<
p>I’ve read through a lot of posts and comments on this site. My take on the debates that include unions is that there are more people than I would expect (on a “blue” site) who have negative reactions to unions in general. There are more that seem to easily accept arguments about teacher’s unions being the problem with education, the UAW being the problem with the American auto industry and unions in general having a beneficial impact on America only in a historical context.
<
p>Nobody has to agree 100% with anything to be a supporter. And I’m not asking anyone to take a loyalty oath or sign a pledge. I’m just surprised how balanced the discussions are about unions on this site. I would think it would be more one-sided in favor of unions.
<
p>I’m surprised and disappointed in the lack of support for unions among society in general. And yes, I do think unions hurt themselves to some degree. But I think a long and dedicated anti-union campaign by American business leaders has more to do with it.
<
p>I think the article cited had some good statistical information for why Americans might want to support unions a bit more. Take it for what it is.
We’re the 89% Democrat state that didn’t sell booze on sundays til a couple years ago!
<
p>Also, this is a state where the unions excersize a great degree of influence in ways that are publicized in a very negative fashion. Take the police unions and their opposition to flagmen instead of details. Every time I drive by a line truck and see a cop standing there doing NOTHING I’m not reminded of how the union ensures fair pay and benefits for our officers, but how they are costing our state mondo money for nothing.
<
p>Unions can blame management for running anti-union campaigns (and I would hardly call it a campaign) but unions have control over PR too, and stuff like the details and now the fire unions saying licensed mechanics are something that needs to be negotiated into a contract instead of just happening, well that causes a lot of people to scratch their heads in confusion.
<
p>Unions are the natural organization of labor capital, like you would see with any other commodity (people don’t like to think about labor as a commodity, it de-humanizes it).
<
p>You also have the expectations battle. People don’t just have an expectation for a union to behave in a greedy fashion, but they do for business leaders. You can’t really get people to be too upset or shocked when something they expect happens.
Govt workers unions are a fact of life in Mass. You deal with them the best you can, put up with the BS, sign an agreement and know they can’t strike.
<
p>Private unions are another matter. I used to be in an IBEW local and could not wait to bid on a non-union job. SENORITY was their only concern, if you didn’t have it tough luck, wait 20 years. It always seemed that the local always sided with the poor worker which mngmt was trying to get rid of. Would spend time and money fighting for their rights but the good worker just got what everyone else got. I put up with this for 8 years and was happy to get a mngmt job and never looked back.
<
p>I will acknowledge that the contract the union negotiates does set the tone and benefits that lower and middle mngmt gets, but I get rewarded for excellent work in the form of bonuses. Never got that reward in the union.
Government workers unions are a fact of life in Mass. and government workers need them. I’ve been one and and been a union activist.
<
p>We all have our favorite story of the government workers we don’t like but most of them do jobs other people don’t want to do.
<
p>There is a lot of pressure, twenty-four hour scheduling, constantly changing systems and power-tripping middle managers just to name a few of the problems.
<
p>The unions have fought to bring these jobs to the “middle class” level and to the extent they’ve succeeded that’s a good thing.
<
p>It is true that unions tend to be against performance bonuses, but then “excellent work” isn’t that easy to define.
There are lots of points regarding failures of unions that are totally spot on, the problem I have with much of the rhetoric on this site, however, is that these are often used as evidence to oppose unions in general.
<
p>Take the flagmen issue as an example. Imagine this was a “management” issue and it was the Captains in the police department saying flagmen were essential for people’s safety, regardless of the cost. There might be a call for the specific captains to step down, but there wouldn’t be a call to eliminate captains all together. People don’t call for the elimination of management as a group when a specific group of managers does a bad job. (See the comments on banking for plenty of examples, there are no credible comments using BoA or Citigroup’s failings to argue that the market has no role to play in lending money).
<
p>When unions or union officials do something terrible or stupid, however, they are held to represent the entire proletariat and their failures too often are used to call for taking power away from workers by dismantling structures that empower the working class.
<
p>Unions have steadily lost power over the last 30 years and the standard of living of Americans (meaning access to safe secure employment, drinking water and healthcare, not cheap plasma TVs) has suffered. EFCA is a flawed bill, but this is likely the only chance we get. To borrow from another thread, both progressives and liberals should support EFCA and the expansion of working people’s power, and I questions the credentials of anyone who doesn’t.
The BFD union is a scintillating example of inefficiency, stonewalling, and probable malfeasance. Then we can take a hard, long look at the UAW. Another standout in redundancy, Jand last but not least Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters and every organized criminal in America that hand their hands in the union benefit cookie jar.
<
p>America’s banks are about to go under and folks are worried about unions? There won’t be any evil companies to employ anyone. Of course POTUS Obama could then by executive fiat have the cental government open factories to produce “green thing a ma bobs”. That worked so well in the Soviet Union. I’m sure some “well intentioned” soul will soon raise this spectre. Amazing, in so few years we have finally committed the unimagineable. We are about to kill the United States of America. Pathetic.
how the unions destroyed America’s banks? I’m a little unclear on that.
now that you’ve done it. Somehow, I doubt that you’re one of those souls, though, at least not where working people are concerned. Banks are apparently more to your liking.
the very concept of collective bargaining over a working condition, that’s anti-union. And it has been voiced here.
I have not seen that sentiment expressed by anyone here, and it is certainly not a widespread view on this blog in any case.
of forcing workers in municipalities into the GIC, without bargaining.
Health insurance is, by any definition, part of “wages, hours and working conditions.” IOW, a subject of bargaining. And it has been repeatedly urged here to remove health insurance, and force public employees to accept whatever management wants.
<
p>That is an anti-union position.
I don’t believe that is anti-union. That is disagreeing with union policy. You can still be for unions and for collective bargaining, but disagree on the GIC issue.
Insurance is a working condition. Unions bargain over working conditions. If you think working conditions should be imposed by management without bargaining, that’s anti-union.
<
p>I can’t believe anyone could argue otherwise.
Disagreeing that unions can negotiate the level of health care, prescription coverage, co-pays etc is anti-union.
<
p>Disagreeing that the provider of that insurance can not be changed without union approval is not anti-union it is disagreeing with policy.
<
p>
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think moving into the GIC means giving up the right to negotiate the types of plans offered and also the insurance plan design (amount of copays, deductibles, etc.). State workers, currently under the GIC, don’t have that right.
<
p>I believe the GIC has a board which approves changes in the plans and plan designs. Unions have some seats on the board but that is a far cry from the right to collectively bargain over these issues.
jhg, that to get municipal employees into the GIC, where they can no longer bargain over insurance, it currently must be bargained. The bargaining is essentially over what you get for giving up the right to bargain in the future. So the demand to force that change means employees are denied the right to bargain over giving up a right. It’s pretty clear to any union worker that it is “the government” telling us what is good for us. And then systematically disempowering us.
<
p>Clearly the employees in Adams, who approached their Mayor about the GIC, wanting to join (he refused to consider it), do not get the power to do that, but the Mayor in some other community can force the employees on to the GIC, under this proposal.
<
p>They wouldn’t have this discussion on Redmassgroup. They are clear that they are anti-union and anti-public employee. What’s strange is seeing people here refusing to accept what the proposal is: anti-union.
From one who is not anti-union, but I am, anti-public union, you’re precisely correct. BTW, not relevant to your comment, but, I’m anti-public union because it’s antithetic, IMHO, for a group to be allowed by the common good, to seek enhanced benefits against the presumed common good.
<
p>It’s hypocritical to say “I’m pro-union, btw guys joing the friggin GIC because it’s a good idea” is an anti-public union sentiment. I’d at least like to see a ‘progressive’ rebuttal to your argument.
<
p>Maybe this needs a separate thread but I’d like to respond to your comment:
<
p>1) why do you assume that whatever “enhanced benefits” a public sector union might seek is “against the presumed common good”? Is the “common good” decided unilaterally by town/city/state managers?
<
p>2) the amount of resources a public entity has available to it is not the result of an idealistic group of people agreeing on the common good. It’s the result of negotiations between power groups (businesses threatening to leave, etc.), mixed with democratic politics. Why shouldn’t organized workers have a voice in this?
<
p>3) any employment situation, whether it’s public, private, or non-profit in which one person or group has control over another person or group’s livelihood is inherently unequal. Those at the bottom need a voice in their working conditions.
I was raised in a union household and my grandfather fought bloody battles for the right to unionize. Executive compensation as compared to (from the hide of) workers compensation in the past ten years has been nothing short of legalized pillage of the working/middle class.
<
p>However rational you may be in understanding shades of gray and acceptance that there may sometimes be disagreement or opposition to union positions as developed by the small inner circle of their leadership, this neanderthal approach is hardly endearing to those of us who make a living outside the walls of unionized protectionism. The casino bill was a crappy bill and the claims by the administration and unions for job creation were refuted in the Spectrum Gaming report. They were grossly negligent in their due diligence of the proposal and lost (any) credibility. Do you think the AFL-CIO leadership retracted their statements when proven wrong? Hell no.
<
p>The MTA endorsed casinos without a single cent dedicated to addressing the projected 12,000 new students (which means jobs would be going to new residents) that would enter the public school system. Is that stupid or what? No, no, no, wait…let me answer that! It was S-T-U-P-I-D.
Unions, like America, are arranged in a democratic manner. Unions, like America, can choose some incompetent, if not outright dangerous leaders. Yet somehow I don’t hear conservatives strategizing (openly) to destroy America.
There’s always Ann Coulter and everything that comes out of her mouth reeks of strategizing to destroy America.
I would guess that almost everyone on this site supports unions at a macro level. I.e., as vehicles for workers to increase their share of the national income through collective bargaining. In the process, that decreases inequality. There’s also the collateral benefits on workers’ political consciousness (and I mean that in the broadest sense… the empowerment that can come through collective action, not large-d Democratic evangelism). I don’t think there’s much, if any, dispute over that.
<
p>The disagreements, if any, largely center on the role and actions of public sector unions, which I think can and should be seen as a somewhat different issue. In the private context, there’s a genuine arms-length negotiation over who will enjoy the profits of an organization. You can’t say that in the public sector context.
The problem with the MTA is that of any corporate entity, too much power concentrated in the hands of too few. I never vote for union leadership because I never know any of them or what they think. And I have no real way of knowing.
<
p>On the other hand, my local is excellent. Our union president, a conservative Republican, I might add, isn’t afraid to fight the superintendent or let the school committee know their mistakes.
<
p>Anti-unionism is a pernicious leftover of the neo-liberalism of the 1990s, which tried to impose a business model on education. This neo-liberalism unites with anti-unionism when “reform” is the issue. Government-appointed groups, which are always loaded with managers from from the private and educational sector, decide what they want to do and see unions as an obstacle.
<
p>Posts that seem anti-union on here tend to take the neo-liberal view of education reform at face value.
<
p>Mark
because the fact is that MTA power is “concentrated” in the hands of two elected officers, and a Board of Directors of 60 and an executive committee of 10 (regionally elected). In my experience, this is the most de-centralized organization I have ever seen. We have voted on everything, including the cookies at our meetings. I would say not knowing any of the “leadership” is a choice on your part; certainly, the least indication of interest gets an invitation to involvement. In my own local, doors open if you breathe a HINT of interest. I have begged local members to attend MTA meetings, the annual meeting, the NEA representative assembly. We make it a no-cost event…all you need is interest.
<
p>I’m glad you like your local; it’s where the rubber hits the road.
Nilla wafers?
We get the fully panoply of cookie options, much to the chagrin of some of us.
Why do I feel uneasy knowing that entrusted with the running of a multi-million (billion?) dollar organization, you guys are debating cookie choice?
… in boardrooms all over the world.
You clearly don’t read enough Dilbert. 😉
Unions apportion cookies. Management apportions tax money and private jets. The problem isn’t that unions have so much money that they make conservatives uncomfortable…they don’t yet have enough.
(Your experience may also be greater than mine).
<
p>I could get more involved in union stuff and work hard to know those running better. I haven’t had and won’t have time for it in the near future. As priorities go, the MTA isn’t one of mine. As I do with my state rep and Congressman, I trust its judgement most of the time. Backing the casinos, though, was stupid, I think. I’m mostly echoing what I hear colleagues say.
<
p>Still, unlike politics. I don’t have an easy way to learn about people in the union. I read the MTA newsletter, but it’s limited. I would guess that, aside from dues, the participation of the average teacher in MTA elections and is lower than that of voters in a general election. Why is that? It may not be a matter of blame. How much effort is it reasonable expect?
<
p>I live in Western Mass by the way. I don’t know if that matters.
<
p>Mark
<
p>
was desperation w/in MTA for revenue to support public schools, pure and simple; and the discussion was deep, meaningful and painful (in principled terms)at the board and Executive Committee level. If you believe that it was just support for casinos themselves that determined support, you are wrong; and the motion itself made that clear. Schools, especially in surprisingly suburban places, have been cutting back and cutting back for the last ten years, and we have not, in “real dollars” reecovered back to 2002 levels; now, with Chapter 70 money and all local aid from all sources in the tank, just wait until Spring for the level of discourse regarding revenue sources and who should get the small amounts left. And, let’s be honest here, if you are in Western MA, you’ll be arguing long distance. Good luck with that. the two parts of the state that get the most screwed in local aid formulations are western MA and the Cape.
<
p>I’d ask you, just for kicks, to check with your town hall and find out to what extent you, in your job, are already dependent on lottery revenues. You may be surprised…
about MTA casino deliberations other than the outcome. I speculated that it might have something to do with supporting the Governor, but that’s about it.
<
p>I think I came across more negative on the MTA than I am. I’ll probably be selectman of my town, which is not my place of employment, in the spring and will have plenty of dope on our budget.
<
p>We’re pretty much accustomed to getting screwed out here. I don’t know how the Chapter 70 formula works, but we get the shaft on all kinds of services that are underfunded in spite of equal need out here.
<
p>Can I vote for you at MTA elections?
<
p>Mark
If the MTA Board and Executive Committee deliberated over the casino proposal as you have described above, then they failed to do what the teaching profession must do to achieve it’s primary goal to educate, which is to communicate.
<
p>There was no release to the public of the depth of the rationale for the decision to support casino gambling in Massachusetts that you posit above. Perhaps if they explained to citizens of the Commonwealth and really importantly to the Administration and the Legislature that public education is desperate for adequate, sustainable funding sources and mandated costs are crippling school districts across the Commonwealth, a meaningful dialog would have developed. It would have logically lead to the crossroads of the overdue debate about taxation in the Commonwealth.
<
p>Cowardice has been demonstrated on the part of all involved who have recoiled from the necessary deep debate to increase taxes in Massachusetts in order to support the needs of society.
<
p>I have high expectations for leadership. Those expectations include honesty, diligence (aka homework) and candor. Laying down with the casino gambling proposal was a whore-job.
<
p>There was no bloody revenue stream to educate the 12,000 new students let alone address the structural deficit in education funding. It was painful alright, painful to watch.
MTA communicates outwardly all the time, and it is routinely ignored by the “Liberal Press.” The union organ MTA Today carried a full discussion of the issue. The motion itself was to support additional revenue sources.
<
p>You are in a state where lottery revenues form an integral part of local operating budgets. The whoring started long ago; and at this point you sound like the old joke about the hooker in the elevator. We know what this state IS, we are just arguing about the price. So don’t get all “principled” on us at this point.
<
p>And be honest with yourself, who is THE principal funder of the forces that want to discuss taxes and societal needs? The MTA, that’s who. Who funded the Question 1 fight? Who funded and founded TEAM, which has now morphed into Noah Berger’s organization?
<
p>The casino vote cause a great deal of heartwrenching within MTA, and its internal politics took a hit over the issue. The very suggestion that we avoided a meaningful discussion over taxes is ludicrous.
<
p>An internal discussion occurred within MTA. Some people support casinos. Some people are desperate for additional revenues. Some people oppose casinos even if they add revenue. The first two groups outvoted the last one; the second group voted for the motion but felt soiled somehow; and the third group sometimes acts outraged while lottery funds pay part of their salaries.
<
p>So, let’s talk about revenues and progressive taxation.
not that there was an avoidance of a meaningful discussion. I wrote above that if that were the case, communication of the fact did not get relayed to the wider world.
<
p>Therefore, observers like myself were left with the indelible impression that due diligence on the issue of mitigation of the costs to educate additional students was not only ignored in the bill but by the MTA and supporters of the casino proposal.
would not support unions. You can see a direct link between our growing income disparity and the weakening of our unions. Indeed, as Paul Krugman has noted, the shrinking middle class in our society is almost completely due to a lack of unionization among the service sector and the weakening of our labor laws, and not, as many people believe, the outsourcing of our manufacturing. Unions lift all tides. Historically workers in non-union sectors, ie professionals, did better when the labor movement had enough clout to push up wages. Incidentally, unionization is exploding world wide. We are one of the only countries that has been on the decline in union participation. I mean, Wal-Mart is China is unionized for goodness sake. Further, unions have always been there for the Democrats. For the sake of wanting to retain political power why would any Democrat worth his salt not support unions? Also, if you care about issues like a living wage and universal health care than it’s hard not to support organized labor because without their backing I don’t see how any action on such issues will ever be taken. In services where one employee generally can’t largely outperform others, like flipping burger for example, it’s certainly in the best interest of the employee to bargain collectively with their employer.
.
There’s nothing wrong with debating the role and actions of public sector unions, but its a mistake to see them as fundamentally different than private sector unions.
<
p>In both cases you have workers collectively negotiating over how much they’ll get paid to do a job. In both cases you have a need for workers to have a voice on the job and a say in their working conditions. And the need for collective political consciousness is the same for all workers.
<
p>True, the economics and politics are different and the negotiations take different forms. But the social role and significance are the same.
<
p>
I’m new to this and still trying to figure out where to put comments.
<
p>
… to the blogosphere. 🙂
Without the organized workers in unions there is no Democratic Party. Our politics become conservatives v. whigs circa 19th century Britain.
“For the sake of wanting to retain political power why would any Democrat worth his salt not support unions?”
<
p>Yes, effectiveness, fairnesss, etc. all fall by the wayside when it’s a matter of supporting Democrats with extorted money.
<
p>Riddle me this – if unions do such a good job, and provide such beneficial services, then why do you need laws to compel people to join as a condition of employment? Why wouldn’t they want to join on their own?
Well, the answer to that seems obvious. If you didn’t have a requirement to join the union, it would encourage free-riding. Those not paying dues would reap the rewards of collective bargaining while not sharing in the costs.
A portion of dues, which represent collective bargaining efforts, without membership and political money being deducted. Why not allow that?
Can a worker no longer do that? Did Bush pass an Executive Order eliminating that provision?
us some kind of evidence to support your suggestion that Agency Fee laws for public employees have been replaced with a “closed shop” provision. I’ve been in this field for a very long time and I am unaware of anything like that.
fee is still in effect. I don’t think it’s cheaper than regular membership, however.
<
p>Mark
It is cheaper, marginally.
Certainly the average American understands the benefits of paved roads, public schools and regulations for clean water? Why would they be compelled to pay for those services under penalty of jail? Why wouldn’t they just want to pay on their own?
Give me a break.
<
p>Let’s say I’m a nurse and a damned good one. I am offered a job at the Acme Hospital. I don’t want to settle for the terms of employment negotiated by the union. I want to work my own deal with the employer. Can I do that?
<
p>MGL, C. 150E s.5 among them, make that very difficult. No worry, you say. You don’t have join the union, just pay us the agency fee.
<
p>Do these terms seem at all fair to you (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>Translation: You want to work here? You are going to pay us. You don’t like it? Tough.
for Democrats because they want to influence policy. That’s how a Republic works. Different constituencies align themselves behind the two Parties.
<
p>”Riddle me this – if unions do such a good job, and provide such beneficial services, then why do you need laws to compel people to join as a condition of employment? Why wouldn’t they want to join on their own?”
<
p>Uh, there are both federal and state laws that have greatly reduced the ability of workers to organize, and businesses often practice in union busting, so it’s not so simple as joining on their own. I’m not sure about “compelling people to join as a condition of employment”, though generally, I would say if most of the employees have agreed to unionize, if someone doesn’t want to be part of the collective bargaining process, there are other jobs. You are not going to penalize everyone else for the sake of the one who doesn’t. As it stands now, management largely controls the ability of workers to organize, which means people have to risk their jobs just to show interest in organizing, and I think that’s unfair.
<
p>There are no such laws. There are, however, laws that either A) allow companies to contract with a union, or 2) allow existing unions to negotiate contracts directly with companies: which contracts signed, thereafter, entails compulsory union membership for those particular jobs. The company doesn’t hire openly, but through the union. Some companies do this for expediency: preferring to carry a minimum of HR personnel and no training functionality, relying instead, upon the union to do such things. Sometimes unions will negotiate such a contract to preclude the ability of the employer to hire some dirt-cheap (and untrained) workers in order to cut corners. Nothing wrong with that. Building trades are particular in this regards.
<
p>Nor are people compelled to join a union if a shop, say like Wal-Mart, were to unionize. There’s careful language in the National Labor Relations Act that covers this and nobody is compelled to join a union except in the cases mentioned above, whereby existing contracts are agreed beforehand by both union and management.
<
p>
The middle class is becoming a thing of the past. Our jobs,our industry and our technology has been shipped overseas. The ideas and innovations of the American worker has been sold to the highest bidder. Our bank of intellectual property is almost gone. This country has
been the birthplace of aviation, Tv, electronics, computers,the auto industry, telephone, telegraph, the light bulb…almost every advance technologically in the free world. Who sold it and who benefited. Wall street facilitated by the government. Unions represent workers by giving them a voice against these larger forces. People who do not give a darn about wether you have food on the table or not. It was unions that brought many into the middle class. The workers who, toiled in steel mills (gone), electronic firms (gone) the list is endless when it comes to what is gone. What to do…rebuild unions. We also need engineers and scientists to develop new technologies, fresh ideas to launch new businesses, create new jobs and refill our bank of intellectual property.
Bring back the shipyards, the steel mills, the paper mills, and the factories. With that the middle class
will rebound. America can do it.
I’m not sure you can bring back the manual labor/production jobs that have been shipped overseas for cheaper labor. Not until and unless you raise the standard for those workers to a level that makes it feasible to produce here again.
<
p>But there are levels of work between Owner/CEO and janitor. Just because someone is wearing a white collar doesn’t mean they are “management” in a practical sense. Those workers, if they wanted to, could organize and collectively bargain for a 40-hour week, health care and freedom from arbitrary discipline/dismissal…just like the blue collars did 75-100 years ago.
Unions ceded their influence when they (de facto) failed to realize that “Those Who Wear Ties to Work” can be equally abused, manipulated, maltreated and weakened. At this point, the very legitimate grievances of those “professional” workerbees are merely fodder for comic strips. Ha-ha, you lost your job at the ridiculous whim of some pointy-maired manager? Alice is marginalized, diempowered and underpaid because she’s a woman? Ha ha!
<
p>What those folks need, ladies and gentlemen, is a union.
most of those jobs started as “management” jobs, if only in the minds of those holding them. they paid well, they offered good benefits and salaries. unfortunately, as the education level and skills of the average American started to go up, those jobs moved lower on the skill scale, relative to others. wages stagnated, benefits were watered down and workers pushed to work more hours because they were more easily replaceable than they had been in the past.
<
p>shame on unions? what about shame on those workers who failed to get together and organize themselves? I don’t remember many office workers walking picket lines. perhaps they feel the indignity of the work is less than the indignity and hardship of going through what’s necessary to form a union?
Basically, the same way unions have always been organized. Workers talk to each other, a few get together and contact a union, and people organize.
<
p>It’s not easy, and the employer will fight hard to stop it, but the simple fact that the employees “wear ties to work” doesn’t make the need for organizing or the possibility of organizing any different.
<
p>Of course the means of communications have to fit the situation.
I’m a non-union worker. I wait tables in the dining room at an assisted living home in Cambridge. We have no say in any decisions management makes regarding our jobs and benefits.
<
p>Until last year, we only recieved holiday pay on eight holidays. As of this month, we now recieve holiday pay for only six.
<
p>We cannot recieve overtime pay. When one of my co-workers works overtime, he or she finds that hour-long “breaks” have been inserted into their time sheets to bring them back below overtime levels.
<
p>We cannot get management to provide us with appropriate staffing levels in the dining room during meal times, resulting in rushed service, which subsequently results in a higher workplace accident rate. Additionally, understaffing prevents us from doing the clean-up work to keep the kitchen up to public health standards. The more we ask for more workers, the more management refuses.
<
p>We are required by state law to recieve an hour of in-service training on topics ranging from dementia to food-handling to hopsice practices, etc. each month. Management schedules these during our unpaid break periods, and refuses to pay us because we’re expected to be on our break, despite the fact that they’re forcing us to recueve training on our own time.
<
p>Special functions such as holiday parties, wine and cheese parties, etc, are often scheduled during our breaks and we are expected to work these parties instead of going on break. We are not paid for the hour we would otherwise be on break.
<
p>We have no union to ensure we recieve our wages when we are working, or to ensure that our benefites can’t suddenly be downsized or taken away at the whim of our management. Every day I go into work, I wish to God I had a Union to back me up.
<
p>I certainly understand why some people would be frustrated with the stupid things some union leaders get away with. Unions can just be corrupted just as easily as corporations. But I continue to support unions in general, because without one to represent me and my coworkers, we are at the mercy of our management.
<
p>Or lack of mercy, if you will.
Damn, you need a UNION!
Hie thee to SEIU 1199.
Contact the MA Department of Labor. You can anonymously report fraudulent activity by your employer.
Meant to include their link.