08-14-2009, 12:50 AM
It is time for a union meeting so that you can get the real answers. Have a couple of meetings so that you can be sure that all of your answers get answered.
Here are some facts.
Some guy from South put out an email that was expressing his opinion about the union. Though his numbers were likely truthful, and to some scary, it is not the whole picture. Ask yourself a couple of questions.
First, how much was he making? If he paid out about 6000 dollars a year for pensions, benefits, etc., what was his annual salary? What was his per anum retirement factor? It is likely that members of his agency with tenure were making somewhere around 70k (probably a little less, he's a young guy so he was likely not making that much). So subtract the 6k from the 70 k and that brings your net pay down to 64 K per year. However your pension is based on the full 70 k. Long term and short term you make out even though you pay for benefits.
MS said the union will cost about "guess who", to use his term 15 thousand per month. This is absolutely incorrect. Union dues are about 22.00 per month. If all of the represented by the proposal, about 300, that comes out to 6200 a month. However, this is a right to work state. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY UNION DUES TO ENJOY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. So if 50 percent of those represented pay their fair share, that comes out to a little better than 3000 per month. Pretty cheap/
The guy from south does not know what he is talking about when he refers to Florida as a right to work state. Right to work has little to do with employers and has much to do about employees. What this means is that if a shop is unionized, an employee cannot be denied employment based on his or her choice not to pay union dues. That is it in a nut shell. He is ill informed or educated.
Florida is an at will employment state. That is what impacts an employer to let you go as he or she sees fits. A union takes the at will employment aspect away from employers. Case and point can be found in our region with the recent request by FMPD to lay off employees. Management had to ask the PBA if this is something that they would consider. They said no and it was a dead issue. Broward County wanted to save money by laying people off. Who did they look at? Non-unionized employees of the County. Look it up yourself. (By the way, the furloughs were asked of the unionized members who volunteered to take the time off and the Sheriff later found the money and cancelled the request)
They guy in south talked about pensions. He paid into a privately funded retirement system. We pay into a government funded retirement system. Although they are both governed by statute, they are completely different animals. Again, it is likely that there was a long term gain. Again he is ill informed or poorly educated on the topic.
Losing health insurance? Show me one instance where as a result of unionizing health insurance premiums increased. If you can, give the complete picture and show the net gain (increase in pay, vacation, vehicle incentives,) that was realized. Who the hell started the nonsense about health insurance anyhow? The fact is that health insurance has to be negotiated. Period. It is a federal law.
As long as we are on that topic, show me one instance where a union caused a loss in benefits. Don’t even bring up the UAW. They are a mess that got out of control.
Take home vehicles. Okay. Vehicles are an asset of the agency. They can take them away or limit use whenever they wish. As it stands right now, they are a condition of employment and as such cannot be changed until this union matter is worked out. However, they are the property of the citizens of this county and controlled by the county commissioners and the Sheriff. In the absence of a contract or PERC protection, vehicles can be taken away or have their use limited. With a contract, the use of the vehicles is spelled out. If it is an important point, the negotiators will not back down until an impasse is declared. It is that simple.
The fact is there is a lot of bad data being put out there about unions. I have demonstrated here that there are, in fact, pros and cons. This is true with almost anything. However, the job protection and benefit stability are of tremendous value that generally offset any losses.
Now, the next thing is to consider more than one union. It may complicate things initially but is the smartest tack to take.
A meeting can clear a lot of tings up. The union is obligated under PERC to answer honestly. Ask all of the questions. Demand the meeting. Demand to have reps from Tallahassee. The sheriff is saying that the union is trying to make money. Of course they are. Who the hell doesn’t know that? It’s a private business engaged in negotiation of contracts and protection of rights of employees. It takes money to do that. Not the kind of money that MS is stating, but money nonetheless. Go union and you will not be hogs to the slaughter.
Everyone who talks about unionizing and losing benefits, back it up.
Here are some facts.
Some guy from South put out an email that was expressing his opinion about the union. Though his numbers were likely truthful, and to some scary, it is not the whole picture. Ask yourself a couple of questions.
First, how much was he making? If he paid out about 6000 dollars a year for pensions, benefits, etc., what was his annual salary? What was his per anum retirement factor? It is likely that members of his agency with tenure were making somewhere around 70k (probably a little less, he's a young guy so he was likely not making that much). So subtract the 6k from the 70 k and that brings your net pay down to 64 K per year. However your pension is based on the full 70 k. Long term and short term you make out even though you pay for benefits.
MS said the union will cost about "guess who", to use his term 15 thousand per month. This is absolutely incorrect. Union dues are about 22.00 per month. If all of the represented by the proposal, about 300, that comes out to 6200 a month. However, this is a right to work state. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY UNION DUES TO ENJOY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. So if 50 percent of those represented pay their fair share, that comes out to a little better than 3000 per month. Pretty cheap/
The guy from south does not know what he is talking about when he refers to Florida as a right to work state. Right to work has little to do with employers and has much to do about employees. What this means is that if a shop is unionized, an employee cannot be denied employment based on his or her choice not to pay union dues. That is it in a nut shell. He is ill informed or educated.
Florida is an at will employment state. That is what impacts an employer to let you go as he or she sees fits. A union takes the at will employment aspect away from employers. Case and point can be found in our region with the recent request by FMPD to lay off employees. Management had to ask the PBA if this is something that they would consider. They said no and it was a dead issue. Broward County wanted to save money by laying people off. Who did they look at? Non-unionized employees of the County. Look it up yourself. (By the way, the furloughs were asked of the unionized members who volunteered to take the time off and the Sheriff later found the money and cancelled the request)
They guy in south talked about pensions. He paid into a privately funded retirement system. We pay into a government funded retirement system. Although they are both governed by statute, they are completely different animals. Again, it is likely that there was a long term gain. Again he is ill informed or poorly educated on the topic.
Losing health insurance? Show me one instance where as a result of unionizing health insurance premiums increased. If you can, give the complete picture and show the net gain (increase in pay, vacation, vehicle incentives,) that was realized. Who the hell started the nonsense about health insurance anyhow? The fact is that health insurance has to be negotiated. Period. It is a federal law.
As long as we are on that topic, show me one instance where a union caused a loss in benefits. Don’t even bring up the UAW. They are a mess that got out of control.
Take home vehicles. Okay. Vehicles are an asset of the agency. They can take them away or limit use whenever they wish. As it stands right now, they are a condition of employment and as such cannot be changed until this union matter is worked out. However, they are the property of the citizens of this county and controlled by the county commissioners and the Sheriff. In the absence of a contract or PERC protection, vehicles can be taken away or have their use limited. With a contract, the use of the vehicles is spelled out. If it is an important point, the negotiators will not back down until an impasse is declared. It is that simple.
The fact is there is a lot of bad data being put out there about unions. I have demonstrated here that there are, in fact, pros and cons. This is true with almost anything. However, the job protection and benefit stability are of tremendous value that generally offset any losses.
Now, the next thing is to consider more than one union. It may complicate things initially but is the smartest tack to take.
A meeting can clear a lot of tings up. The union is obligated under PERC to answer honestly. Ask all of the questions. Demand the meeting. Demand to have reps from Tallahassee. The sheriff is saying that the union is trying to make money. Of course they are. Who the hell doesn’t know that? It’s a private business engaged in negotiation of contracts and protection of rights of employees. It takes money to do that. Not the kind of money that MS is stating, but money nonetheless. Go union and you will not be hogs to the slaughter.
Everyone who talks about unionizing and losing benefits, back it up.