Union Ratification Sunday

[JM]

For whatever reason the union I belong to has decided to have it's ratification meeting this Sunday. It would take place between morning and evening services, would you go?

jm

 

[ooguyx]

Nope.

 

[Tim]

No.

 

[Notthemama1984]

nope

 

[Berean]

No.

 

[Kevin]

depends.

Is this a pro forma matter, or a crisis type of situation?

In In other words, are you moving cattle or has an ox fallen into a ditch?

 

[E Nomine]

No. And I would never be a union member.

 

[smhbbag]

No. And I would never be a union member.

Ditto.

 

[Edward]

In In other words, are you moving cattle or has an ox fallen into a ditch?

Agree.

And is the vote even going to be close enough that your vote would matter? Most ratification votes are usually fairly one sided, making the ditch even less likely.

 

[Michael]

not if I could help it

 

[Curt]

No. And I would never be a union member.

In the current era, I agree that union membership is not a good thing. In the past such membership has been meaningful. It might be again some day. I can't imagine joining a union (we don't have them for pastors yet, anyway). But, I can't close the door permanently.

 

[Damon Rambo]

No. And I would never be a union member.

In non Right to Work states, there is no choice in certain professions. You HAVE to be in the Union, or you don't work.

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

If this was the 1890s-1930s, I would call you crazy for not attending, especially if the company involved the child labor used in those days.

Now...pft. Unions have run their course if you ask me. They're not worth even blinking an eye at.

 

[JM]

I'm not going. Thanks Folks.

 

[E Nomine]

No. And I would never be a union member.

In non Right to Work states, there is no choice in certain professions. You HAVE to be in the Union, or you don't work.

Not exactly. In a non RTW state, one may be a "Beck fee payer" (named after the famous Supreme Court Beck decision). An employee in a represented classification may be required to pay the equivalent of dues to the union, but he is not required to become a member of said union.

 

[Berean]

An employee in a represented classification may be required to pay the equivalent of dues to the union, but he is not required to become a member of said union.

In Minnesota, it's referred to as "fair share". It's typically a slightly lower percentage of your bi-weekly gross. Example: Local 3800 Member & Fairshare Dues

 

[Pilgrim]

I find this thread to be somewhat ironic in light of a discussion I had several years ago with a Canadian gentleman. This man had been in retail management for many years and had lived in the USA for much of that time, if I recall correctly. He made a statement to me about American businesses being greedy and being open 7 days a week, and If I recall correctly may have made some statement about man not being a machine, etc. He was in favor of Sunday closing as a day of rest. He said it wasn't a religious thing with him and he had no evident interest in the things of Christ.

Perhaps Jason and some of our other Canadian friends can give us an idea of whether or not more businesses tend to be closed on the Lord's Day in Canada vs. the USA.

 

[Kevin]

Chris, here most stores are still closed on the Lords day. The (small but important) local jewish lobby got the "Lords Day Act" repealled a few years ago. However the stores that do open are for shortened hours in the early afternoon. The culture that maintained that practice is dying however.

 

[JM]

I would say the hours are shortened, but stores are not closed...in general. The mall in my town doesn't open until 12 noon on Sunday.

 

[Jesus is my friend]

If you are required to go,see if you can cast an absentee ballot,this should be able to keep your Lord's day free for worship

As far as unions are concerned,I hope you folks vote in the union and your family enjoys the benefits that unions offer.

 

[JM]

We (me and a christian lady I work with) asked if we could vote the date before and were not allowed.

 

[bill]

In the current era, I agree that union membership is not a good thing. In the past such membership has been meaningful. It might be again some day. I can't imagine joining a union (we don't have them for pastors yet, anyway). But, I can't close the door permanently.

On this note I am a union member of the Plumbers and Pipefitters. I was a non-union fitter for a few years and I had no choice, but to join in order for my wife to be able to be at home and our family to have good health coverage. I think unions have there problems, however, I could take up pages telling stories I no about in my right to work state that could prove that unions are still needed. Also one must remember not all unions are the same. The union I am a member of has a no strike clause and if a contract is not agreed upon it goes to arbitration and if the contractor still does not agree he can go non-union or fold up and leave. The contractors in my local and many of the same locals in the USA are union because they want to be union. After all union craftmen are better trained then most of the non union. This from experience on both sides of the fence.

 

[Jesus is my friend]

Brother Jason,I dont know if this helps as you dont seem to be in a union yet,as the ratification vote is Sunday,but perhaps it's also possible that the union you may be joining will have a swearing in to join you as an individual to the union and sometime within the language of that oath you may take might contain language that you would restate and swear that your membership in your local union will never interfere with your "religious convictions", as a Teamster this was part of my oath and is still part of the oath today

 

[smhbbag]

There is nothing in the Teamster oath about religious convictions.

I, (GIVE NAME) , PLEDGE MY HONOR TO FAITHFULLY OBSERVE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND THE BY-LAWS AND LAWS OF THIS LOCAL UNION.

I PLEDGE THAT I WILL COMPLY WITH ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION AND THIS LOCAL UNION.

I WILL FAITHFULLY PERFORM ALL THE DUTIES ASSIGNED TO ME TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND SKILL.

I WILL CONDUCT MYSELF AT ALL TIMES IN A MANNER AS NOT TO BRING REPROACH UPON MY UNION.

I SHALL TAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE PART IN THE BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE UNION AND ACCEPT AND DISCHARGE MY RESPONSIBILITIES DURING ANY AUTHORIZED STRIKE OR LOCKOUT.

I PLEDGE NOT TO DIVULGE TO NON-MEMBERS THE PRIVATE BUSINESS OF THIS LOCAL UNION, UNLESS AUTHORIZED TO REVEAL SAME.

I WILL NEVER KNOWINGLY HARM A FELLOW MEMBER.

I WILL NEVER DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A FELLOW WORKER ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, AGE, PHYSICAL DISABILITY, OR NATURAL ORIGIN.

I WILL REFRAIN FROM ANY CONDUCT THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE UNION’S PERFORMANCE OF ITS LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.

I WILL AT ALL TIMES BEAR TRUE AND FAITHFUL ALLEGIANCE TO THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND THIS LOCAL UNION.

Sorry for the obnoxious capitalization - everywhere I see it online has it that way.

The one administering the oath, however, does get to inform the prospective teamster about his religious convictions, telling them before the oath:

FELLOW WORKER, YOU WILL NOW TAKE AN OBLIGATION THAT WILL BIND YOU TO THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND THIS LOCAL UNION, AND THAT WILL IN NO WAY CONFLICT WITH YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR YOUR DUTIES AS A CITIZEN:

The union never makes any sort of promise about respecting your religious conviction. They simply inform the oath-taker that they aren't violating it which is, well, hooey. Teamsters have negotiated to get benefits for the same-sex partners, to pay for their adoption fees, etc. That's just the most obscene one off the top of my head.

Full Disclosure: Despite my own wishes, I am represented by the Teamsters (UPS). But, by the grace of God, I don't have to be a member or give them money. If that ever changes, so will my place of work.

My problems with unions are based in principle, and would not change even if the union had a nicer face and better policies. I object to their existence in principle.

But this does bear mentioning: I can never envision any possible scenario in which management would physically attack me. However, I can only think of a few Teamsters that I have such confidence about.

 

[Scott1]

I would politely communicate that you rest on Sunday, that it is a church and rest day as matter of conviction, etc. and has been for a long time in your life (if that is the case), and decline. Explain more, e.g. being sabbath observant if more explanation is appropriate.

 

[JM]

Forgot to mention...I am in the union, no oath at all and it's a ratification vote for a new contract. We haven't seen it yet but these kind of meetings tend to be filled with swearing, arguing, etc.

I'm not going.

 

[Rich Koster]

I am a shop steward. My company employs many single moms and almost retired seniors who need medical benefits. I would consider it a work of necessity to protect them from being swamped with healthcare cost shifts if we didn't get people out to vote. Some people would sell them out for other short term benefits. I would consider this indirectly looking out for widows in distress and some fatherless children.

 

[smhbbag]

On this note I am a union member of the Plumbers and Pipefitters. I was a non-union fitter for a few years and I had no choice, but to join in order for my wife to be able to be at home and our family to have good health coverage. I think unions have there problems, however, I could take up pages telling stories I no about in my right to work state that could prove that unions are still needed. Also one must remember not all unions are the same. The union I am a member of has a no strike clause and if a contract is not agreed upon it goes to arbitration and if the contractor still does not agree he can go non-union or fold up and leave. The contractors in my local and many of the same locals in the USA are union because they want to be union. After all union craftmen are better trained then most of the non union. This from experience on both sides of the fence.

This doesn't even sound like a union to me. Unions get their teeth from two things: strikes (or the threat of strikes), and laws that help prevent the employer from replacing them if they do strike.

With your 'union,' you don't strike and you don't prevent the business from finding somebody else if you can't come to terms? Is a shark without teeth still a shark?

I would have no problem joining such a 'union.' This sounds a whole lot more like an association of like-minded laborers, without the assaults on private property or freedom of association. Rest assured, though, there is a mountain of difference between the setup you describe and an actual union - Teamsters, SEIU, any AFL-CIO member union, etc.

If they fail to come to terms with an employer, they don't just say "well, they'll have to find someone else."

 

[Edward]

Unions get their teeth from two things: strikes (or the threat of strikes), and laws that help prevent the employer from replacing them if they do strike.

My union is prohibited by law from striking - or even threatening to strike.

 

[smhbbag]

My union is prohibited by law from striking - or even threatening to strike.

Is the employer free to push away from the negotiation table and say, "Nah, we don't feel like doing business with your union. We'll get somebody else"?