Although the case of Janus vs. AFCSME before the U.S. Supreme Court has nationwide implications, the local effects could be devastating to city employees. If the local unions that run under the AFSCME banner, including DC37, are required to adhere to the ruling to provide free union benefits to all non-union members, this would financially cripple the union and damage or eliminate all of the benefits that have been collectively bargained for over time by the unionized employees.
As a city employee, it’s easy to beat up on the union. I’ve called them for guidance on particular situations and got half-assed answers and no alternatives. Other times they were able to help and provide support. My particular local is under AFSCME Administratorship due to funny business by the local’s previous “elected” officers. It’s easy to find reasons to not like the union.
But, when you get to the fundamentals, the services provided to the members by the union overall, you have to appreciate what is being provided.
My dues are around 33 bucks per check – a little over $850 a year. For that I get prescription drug coverage, dental coverage, eye examinations and glasses, hearing exams – just to name a few. Other services available include training and education services including tuition reimbursement for some college courses as well as legal services. I know I’m missing much more stuff.
That’s not including what they do for the workplace. They provide Health & Safety inspections, support for grievances, and help with any EEO concerns. When I was assigned to open and run a new facility the union had an Industrial Hygienist come in, inspect the facility, and make recommendations on behalf of the employees – for the safety of the employees.
And in my early days as a union employee they did step up and provide support on an issue that was clearly a violation of the contract – much to the ire of my manager at that time. Even a couple of years ago there was a misunderstanding with my payroll department where my shop steward was ready to step up and provide union support. Payroll acknowledged the concern and resolved it before I needed union intervention, but they were willing and ready if needed.
Even city managers benefit by the union, although they don’t have the same protections as their unionized employees. Usually manager raises only come AFTER the union has completed negotiations and an economic contract is set. Then the city provides manager raises that MAY follow the union “pattern”. If the city didn’t provide the minimum they would be hard-pressed to find union members willing to take management positions. Even now I know of several management positions that had to be filled by outsiders because the salary offer was less than what the unionized employees were making.
Good Kick in the Butt
I think there is some benefit with this challenge. Henry Garrido, the Executive Director of DC37, writes in the union paper, the Public Employee Press (PEP) that “Thousands of members have reaffirmed their commitment… by signing union membership cards.” He also says the union “…decreased the number of ‘agency fee’ payers – city workers who pay dues but never signed up with the union – by thousands.”
Although that may be true, I think it was laziness, maybe sloppiness, or just carelessness about the signing of cards and decrease of agency fee payers prior to this attack on unions. When I went from a management title back to a union title a few years ago, I had a tough time finding out who my shop steward is and what chapter of my local I was in. I wouldn’t have known what local I was in if my HR people didn’t tell me. The union dues didn’t skip a beat though; they came out right away. I guess that made me an “agency fee payer” until I was able to straighten things out. I wasn’t contacted by the union and e-mails to the local went unanswered. I still don’t know if or when they hold regular membership meetings. Finally a member of my local who worked nearby came over and gave me some contact information. I then had to travel to the shop steward’s work location, going from Brooklyn to Manhattan and back during lunchtime, to fill out the “membership card”. I don’t know if everyone has the resources or time to do what I had to do. I was already familiar with the process – but how about the new hire?
I suspect this renewed and overdue interest in getting everyone signed up will help the members actually feel that the union does want participation and maybe light a bit of interest in participating rather than feeling like a dues-paying what-do-they-do-for-me pseudo-member.
It’s unfortunate that the media and some politicians look at unions as an entity unto its own without regards to the fact that their constituents make up that entity. I am happy to see that our NYS and NYC elected officials support the union workforce. It looks like the Governor and Mayor are looking to provide legal support to maintain the union structure, rights, as well as the collection of union dues by restricting union services only to dues-paying members. This is substantial because if you are a non-manager and have a grievance or disciplinary issue you’ll have to provide your own representation or hire your own attorney. According to an article from The Chief, they quote State Senator Diane Savino) as saying “Nobody thinks they need the union until they do. Then they become an activist.” I couldn’t agree more.
Now, I don’t totally disagree with a fundamental tenet of Janus – I have concerns with some of the political positions and candidates the union supports and would like to not provide funding for that (sometimes). There was an attempt to separate the political funding from the funding that provided support for collective bargaining, known as “Beck Rights”, however there seems to be stipulations in some cases where by choosing to opt out you lose certain rights, like the New York State Nurses Association explains, that include the inability to vote for union officers, participate in the development of the contract proposal, and the right to vote on such proposal. Not sure why if you are financially funding the collective bargaining portion…
City union employees really need to step up and provide support for and to the union if they want to continue enjoying the benefits they are receiving. You don’t really know what you’re losing until it’s gone. The union dues are a small price to pay for the value you receive. To twist up the old saying to “Think Globally, Act Locally”, by hurting unions and the collectively bargained rights nationwide “globally”, you will feel it “locally” when DC37 can’t provide benefits that you might be taking for granted.
And if you don’t like the political direction the union is taking perhaps you might consider becoming more active in the system and possibly “steer the ship” a bit differently. Change happens by taking action. Not by being an “armchair quarterback”.
Comments and questions are welcomed below.
