Is this legal? Whenever anyone asks to see the new union contract, we're told to contact our union representative. The union refuses to let us see the contract.
The contract in question is regarding Michigan, which rushed its master contract through to avoid people opting out of paying union dues due to the the right-to-work law.
Therefore, employees at Kroger are still forced to be part of the union, but at the same time, the union refuses to provide employees with a contract booklet. They claim they're still negotiating some terms so they cannot release the contract which has not been finalized. But, like I just mentioned, the new contract is being enforced.
Is it legal to force people to become and/or stay members of a union as part of a new contract that is in place before the right-to-work law came in to effect but at the same time not provide the contract to employees that are effected by said contract?
In other words, is Michigan UFCW's breaking section 104 of the LMRDA? If so, should I contact the Department of Labor?
The contract in question is regarding Michigan, which rushed its master contract through to avoid people opting out of paying union dues due to the the right-to-work law.
Therefore, employees at Kroger are still forced to be part of the union, but at the same time, the union refuses to provide employees with a contract booklet. They claim they're still negotiating some terms so they cannot release the contract which has not been finalized. But, like I just mentioned, the new contract is being enforced.
Is it legal to force people to become and/or stay members of a union as part of a new contract that is in place before the right-to-work law came in to effect but at the same time not provide the contract to employees that are effected by said contract?
In other words, is Michigan UFCW's breaking section 104 of the LMRDA? If so, should I contact the Department of Labor?
I'd call the DoL anyway and ask them to look into it.
__________________
Would you like fries with th... I mean, your milk in a bag?
The contract in question is regarding Michigan, which rushed its master contract through to avoid people opting out of paying union dues due to the the right-to-work law.
Therefore, employees at Kroger are still forced to be part of the union, but at the same time, the union refuses to provide employees with a contract booklet. They claim they're still negotiating some terms so they cannot release the contract which has not been finalized. But, like I just mentioned, the new contract is being enforced.
Is it legal to force people to become and/or stay members of a union as part of a new contract that is in place before the right-to-work law came in to effect but at the same time not provide the contract to employees that are effected by said contract?
In other words, is Michigan UFCW's breaking section 104 of the LMRDA? If so, should I contact the Department of Labor?
I'd call the DoL anyway and ask them to look into it.
Thanks for the advice. I'll have to do just that. I was just told to expect to see the contract for another few months.
I'm surprised no one else in Michigan is concerned about this. This could be a loophole for not having to pay union dues if the union doesn't handle it properly.
Its typical for a contract to be posted later in the year. When you do get a copy can you post it on here?
I can try.
I'm still left wondering if it's against the law for the union to play the part of the old Catholic priests and be the only ones able to tell their members what's in the "scriptures." It is seemingly blasphemy for one to want to see the "scriptures" for herself.
Taking this into account, members must trust that all representatives know every aspect of the contract and each one of them know the correct interpretations of points in the contract. As we all know, this is not the case. We should be able to see our rights for ourselves. Why should we have to take the word of someone else? Is it wrong for one to want to be able to read up on her rights for herself?
It was real crappy what the union did regarding that contract. They didn't give us an overview of the contract until a day before the vote on it was scheduled. Then they only had the union hall open for voting for 8 hours the next day. I really think they rigged the voting to ensure it passed since right to work was supposed to go in effect. They sold the workers out again on this contract. In 4 years when this contract expires many people Will leave the union and they will be screwed
I called the Department of Labor today. Apparently, section 104 of the LMRDA (a local labor organization must provide, upon request, a copy of any collective bargaining agreement that it has negotiated to any member and to any employee whose rights as an employee are directly affected by the agreement) does not apply if the contract is not in writing.
In other words, as long as the union says it has not yet printed a copy of the contract, they can refuse to disclose all of a member's rights. Personally, I believe this is against public policy.
We're forced to join the union and pay dues to uphold the contract, but we're not allowed to see the contract.
It always takes months before we actually get a union book when a new contract is enacted.
The problem is, it's already been months. And, because the contract was rushed through (which in and of itself could be considered against public policy), it is expected to take more months.
Another point I would like to bring up: just because something has always been a certain way, does not make it right.
How can a contract be enforced that we have no way of seeing for ourselves? I still am asking myself and others this question, and have not yet received a satisfactory answer.
The union keeps on going through legal loopholes. Something to keep in mind for this particular case: people are FORCED to join the union, and FORCED to pay union dues. Why should we be forced to pay dues if the union refuses to show us the document that states we must be forced to pay dues?We're paying the union to uphold something we can't even see for ourselves.
There are many of us concerned about what the union and kroger did.(renegotiating 3 months early to beat the rtw law on March 28. I've made the same calls to the same departments as others here, but to no avail. My next step is our state rep. This is the kind of union our republicans hold up as proof that the unions have become about nothing but taking union dues and providing nothing but low wages and no benefits in return. We'll see how this goes.
There are many of us concerned about what the union and kroger did.(renegotiating 3 months early to beat the rtw law on March 28. I've made the same calls to the same departments as others here, but to no avail. My next step is our state rep. This is the kind of union our republicans hold up as proof that the unions have become about nothing but taking union dues and providing nothing but low wages and no benefits in return. We'll see how this goes.
Well, to be completely fair, it depends on the union. UFCW unions, however, seem to be the low of the low.
I have heard there are lawsuits concerning public policy right now over contracts that were passed simply to bypass the RTW law. These lawsuits are over school union contracts though. I'm not sure if anyone in Kroger has filed suit yet.
Just remember, some of our rights were given away, and we're not even allowed to see that in writing. All we get to see is the summary of the agreement (which was voted on). They're still negotiating with Kroger even after the contract was ratified. In other words, they rushed the contract through without even negotiating all the terms of the contract.
Just remember, some of our rights were given away, and we're not even allowed to see that in writing. All we get to see is the summary of the agreement (which was voted on). They're still negotiating with Kroger even after the contract was ratified. In other words, they rushed the contract through without even negotiating all the terms of the contract.
that doesn't surprise me a bit. our contract is up towards the end of October (Union #75 of Cincinnati / Dayton / Surrounding Areas). I'm sure it will be the same ol' bullcrap that is going on with your'se. rushed, incomplete and secretive. its a shame in a lot of ways. but personally I try to remove myself from all of it and just work on an employee / employer basis. without the middle man. the union.
go and play hardball with them demanding a copy right now. would be interesting to see what happens.
__________________
I am no longer part of the oppressed, evil workforce of Kroger! Can you say "Hallelujah"
go and play hardball with them demanding a copy right now. would be interesting to see what happens.
I tried. They just sent me the old contract...
Then I called the Department of Labor. They told me there wasn't a law of how long they could take to print the new contract...
What I do know, however, is that the law states that when you ask for a contract, you will be given one. I didn't read anything about a union not having to do such if they haven't printed it.
Then, I e-mailed the Defense Foundation for legal advice. I'm waiting for an e-mail back from them.
I completely agree. I've been a member of several unions and was happy to pay the dues because our contracts were fair and transparent. Negotiating contracts that pay minimum wage with no benefits for most really makes you wonder how they get any other places to unionize.
A lawyer told me refusing to show a contract is illegal. The problem is, you have to go to your local labor relations office and file a complaint in person. Then, it takes 7-12 weeks to even get it investigated.
So, there you go. It's illegal but they're getting away with it.
Also, as for RTW, I was also told rushing through a contract before the time it would normally be negotiated for the sake of avoiding the law is illegal, especially in the case of concessions.
I agree with everyone that the lack of transparency is inexcusable.
But there is another aspect that few people understand - this was also done because of the affordable care act.
The "Medical Loss Ratio" provision of the Affordable Care Act states that insurers must spend 80% of their funds on claims, leaving only 20% for administration. the taft-hartley fund used by UFCW 876 was grossly overfunded, and because the member contribution has been so low (a benefit negotiated in your CBA), Kroger was negotiating for as much of that money back as possible. That pot of money was the leverage for the negotiation, with the added benefit that completing a vote before RTW went into effect would insure several more years of dues paying members.
I understand how frustrating this is. And I don't believe in making excuses for it. But I will say that some good came of it, because a lot of employers are finding that paying the penalties of the employer mandate would be cheaper than contributing to their taft hartley funds. ACA has made unions across the country nervous because of this.
Passing that early contract means we're all compelled to pay dues for a few more years, which we were already doing. It also protected our low insurance premiums, and our insurance for a lot of part timers that would have lost it under the terms of Obamacare. Just pointing out the silver lining.
