<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fair Share</title>
	<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:41:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: mythago</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10090</link>
		<dc:creator>mythago</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10090</guid>
		<description>Stentor, I would guess that the "union dues" were deducted were any portion of dues that don't directly cover the costs of representation. 
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stentor, I would guess that the &#8220;union dues&#8221; were deducted were any portion of dues that don&#8217;t directly cover the costs of representation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stentor</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10089</link>
		<dc:creator>Stentor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10089</guid>
		<description>My high school had an interesting half-way system. All teachers had union dues deducted from their salaries, but anyone who didn't want to join/support the union could have their share of the money directed to some other cause. For example, one teacher always donated his "union dues" to the public library.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My high school had an interesting half-way system. All teachers had union dues deducted from their salaries, but anyone who didn&#8217;t want to join/support the union could have their share of the money directed to some other cause. For example, one teacher always donated his &#8220;union dues&#8221; to the public library.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brandon</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10088</link>
		<dc:creator>Brandon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10088</guid>
		<description>Hugo - your union at PCC does you more harm than good.

From what I remember from pops, last time you guys had a negotiation, you were offered a hair less than 10, wanted 11, and held out...Budget crisis made a turn for the worse, and you were left with a COLA... YEA CTA!

Your union representation sucks Hugo. Like it in theory or not, you're represented by amatures!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hugo - your union at PCC does you more harm than good.</p>
<p>From what I remember from pops, last time you guys had a negotiation, you were offered a hair less than 10, wanted 11, and held out&#8230;Budget crisis made a turn for the worse, and you were left with a COLA&#8230; YEA CTA!</p>
<p>Your union representation sucks Hugo. Like it in theory or not, you&#8217;re represented by amatures!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: actus</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10087</link>
		<dc:creator>actus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10087</guid>
		<description>Looks like something more liberal than a closed shop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like something more liberal than a closed shop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10086</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10086</guid>
		<description>Yes, it &lt;a href="http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_1951-2000/sb_1960_bill_20000929_chaptered.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;does.&lt;/a&gt;  That statute amended Sections 3540.1, 3543 and 3583.5, and repealed and replaced Section 3546.  From the legislative summary:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Existing law,
subject to certain limitations, provides that organizational security
is within the scope of representation and defines "organizational
security" in accordance with those rights.  Existing law provides
that an organizational security arrangement, to be effective, must be
agreed upon by both parties to the agreement, and authorizes the
public employer, when the issue is being negotiated, to require that
the organizational security arrangement be severed from the remainder
of the proposed agreement and cause that arrangement to be voted
upon separately by all members in the appropriate negotiating unit.
   This bill would delete those provisions pertaining to the
effectiveness of the organizational security arrangement.  The bill
would instead require public school employees who are in a unit for
which an exclusive representative has been selected to be required,
as a condition of continued employment, either to join the recognized
employee organization or to pay the organization a fair share
service fee, and would make conforming changes in related provisions.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Translation: unions have even more rights than they did before, and both the public institutions and the individual employees the unions "represent" have even less.

Lovely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, it <a href="http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_1951-2000/sb_1960_bill_20000929_chaptered.html" rel="nofollow">does.</a>  That statute amended Sections 3540.1, 3543 and 3583.5, and repealed and replaced Section 3546.  From the legislative summary:</p>
<blockquote><p>Existing law,<br />
subject to certain limitations, provides that organizational security<br />
is within the scope of representation and defines &#8220;organizational<br />
security&#8221; in accordance with those rights.  Existing law provides<br />
that an organizational security arrangement, to be effective, must be<br />
agreed upon by both parties to the agreement, and authorizes the<br />
public employer, when the issue is being negotiated, to require that<br />
the organizational security arrangement be severed from the remainder<br />
of the proposed agreement and cause that arrangement to be voted<br />
upon separately by all members in the appropriate negotiating unit.<br />
   This bill would delete those provisions pertaining to the<br />
effectiveness of the organizational security arrangement.  The bill<br />
would instead require public school employees who are in a unit for<br />
which an exclusive representative has been selected to be required,<br />
as a condition of continued employment, either to join the recognized<br />
employee organization or to pay the organization a fair share<br />
service fee, and would make conforming changes in related provisions.</p></blockquote>
<p>Translation: unions have even more rights than they did before, and both the public institutions and the individual employees the unions &#8220;represent&#8221; have even less.</p>
<p>Lovely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hugo</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10085</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10085</guid>
		<description>Apparently, it was part of John Burton's bill SB 1960, if that helps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently, it was part of John Burton&#8217;s bill SB 1960, if that helps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10084</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10084</guid>
		<description>Neither do I.  According to the California Legislature's web site, Government Code Section 3254 &lt;a href="http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=gov&#38;codebody=&#38;hits=20" rel="nofollow"&gt;does not exist.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neither do I.  According to the California Legislature&#8217;s web site, Government Code Section 3254 <a href="http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=gov&amp;codebody=&amp;hits=20" rel="nofollow">does not exist.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hugo</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10083</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:42:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10083</guid>
		<description>XRLQ, my 2001 date comes from our local chapter document that references something called govt. code Section 3254 (enacted 2001).  I have no idea what that is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>XRLQ, my 2001 date comes from our local chapter document that references something called govt. code Section 3254 (enacted 2001).  I have no idea what that is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10082</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10082</guid>
		<description>I believe a share of the fees have been imposed on all full time teachers for years in my district.  We had to pay a fee regardless... but did not receive the benefits of "protection" against lawsuits, etc... unless we were a member.

I did eventually join... but I do dislike CTA always telling me who I should vote for in elections... and stuffing liberal political agendas down my throat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe a share of the fees have been imposed on all full time teachers for years in my district.  We had to pay a fee regardless&#8230; but did not receive the benefits of &#8220;protection&#8221; against lawsuits, etc&#8230; unless we were a member.</p>
<p>I did eventually join&#8230; but I do dislike CTA always telling me who I should vote for in elections&#8230; and stuffing liberal political agendas down my throat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10081</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/03/22/fair-share/#comment-10081</guid>
		<description>And, by the way, the answer is no, I didn't benefit from the collective bargaining agreement, either, as its primary effect was to maintain a merit-free, seniority-based spoils system that I was on the wrong end of.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And, by the way, the answer is no, I didn&#8217;t benefit from the collective bargaining agreement, either, as its primary effect was to maintain a merit-free, seniority-based spoils system that I was on the wrong end of.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
