WVU Hospital Employee Files Federal Charge after Union Ignores Her Rights
West Virginia’s workers desperately need Right to Work protections
Morgantown, WV (November 23, 2011) – With aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, a West Virginia University Hospital employee has filed a second federal charge against a local union for refusing to honor her resignation from formal union membership, forcing her to pay full union dues against her will, and failing to provide the legally-required disclosure of how her forced dues are being spent.
Kimberly Wright initially resigned formal union membership from the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 814 in December 2010. Wright exercised her rights under the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Communication Workers v. Beck, which allows workers to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.
For months following, LIUNA Local 814 union officials continued to extract full union dues from her paycheck, forcing her to file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with free legal assistance from Foundation attorneys. The Board then settled the case with union lawyers.
Despite the settlement, LIUNA Local 814 union officials continue to collect full union dues from her paycheck.
Comments
14 out of 15
14 out of 15 poorest counties in America are in RTW states, according to the most recent Census Bureau data. Just saying!
3rd world
Q. How is it that states with RTW laws have nearly 3rd world cities?
A. Because people make next to nothing.
Winner
3Rd cities
You sir are a union brian washed union flunky ,you have listened to so much of the union propaganda that your brain is fried . I suppose that Nashville is a thrd world city ,as well as Memphis or Chatanooga until the steel workers pricesed it out of business was a pretty good sized steel city Just like Burlington and Gary IN. ,the Unions have done nothing but cost us jobs because of their greedy leaders that just keep wanting more and higer wages and pensions. I remember when Gary was a large ,lively city now all it is a large slum ,full of nothing but dugs and addicts that soot kill and steal for their drugs a real good union example
What?
Nashville is not due to tourist. If your wonder outside downtown you run into the slums real fast. My brother lives down there and the only good thing is the roads and scenary. Average middle class jobs are far to none, unless working in the tourist district. There schools rank low.
Brother was working in Memphis and the locals told him he should not be working in the area after dark. Yea sounds like a real good place to work, if you a criminal.
Don't loose sight that you free workers still make more than your neighbors in Mexico. If companies located based on labor cost than your jobs are headed south too, duh.
And only RTW states have run-down cities?
What about Detroit, NYC, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, and many other major cities in non-RTW states, many of which USED to be MAJOR industrial giants? Are portions (and sometimes LARGE portions) of those cities not completely run-down as well? It has nothing to do with whether or not a city is in an RTW or non-RTW state at all. What the condition of this country and all the cities within it is truly based on is the work and wages available to this nation's citizens. And frankly, a service-oriented, consumerism-fed and based economy is simply NOT sustainable.
What we need is more manufacturing in this country, but it's not economically feasible for companies to begin or continue to do so here because labor costs are so much lower outside the US. Southeast Asia, South America, Central America, Africa, and even parts of Europe have lower labor costs than the US. And with our free-trade agreements, manufacturing goods overseas and exporting them to the US is STILL cheaper than making them in the US in the first place. That fact alone is this nations BIGGEST economic problem.
I agree
People's wages has a direct impact on the city's ability to function. Taxes are collect from our wages and when your wages are lower their is less revenue in which to conduct business. I live near a state line in which one side is RTW and the other is non-RTW. In my occupation the non-RTW state has higher wages which means more taxes paid.
I do agree free trade agreements are one of the biggest factors in lost jobs and job creation. Armoco Steel was here in KC, employed hundreds of good paying jobs. Bain Capital, who Mit Romney worked for, came in and sent the jobs away overseas.
People on this site only want to blame unions for the decline of good paying jobs, which is simply not true.
So true.
Your last statement is the truth. Having worked both union and non-union jobs, I don't consider myself pro-union or anti-union. Each has it's place, and that place typically depends on the field of work, as well as the location. I do have a slight bias toward unionizing as opposed to remaining non-union, though. Why? When I compare past union jobs and their non-union equivalent, the union ones offered FAR better earnings and benefits, as well as vastly more organized and detailed terms of employment.
The history of unions shows that they effectively changed employment standards, improving them greatly over the pre-union era. We, as workers, owe the vast majority of our so-called "workers' rights" to the emergence and existence of unions. And while some unions have suffered (and may currently suffer) from severe levels of corruption, most do not, and instead operate beneficially and effectively.
Some people simply don't realize that RTW law exists to give them the choice of whether or not to join a union when accepting a job from an employer which has one, rather than be forced to join the union. RTW law itself is not anti-union, but pro-choice. Unfortunately, the term "pro-choice" is one which far too many people object to outright due to the stigma it carries from the abortion debate.
Glad someone else is open minded.
I believe in Pro Choice in any fashion. RTW is anti-union and pro-choice. When you allow an individual to gain employment in a shop that is union a couple of things will follow.
The people who do pay dues to have representation will become discouraged by the fact they are paying for someone else to have representation and equal pay. Even if a person doesn't join, the union still has to represent this person and offer them the same benefits insurance, pensions, and wages at no cost. It's the law.
Over time this will only destroy the union. Pro choice but it is geared to destroy unions. A good example is a country club. If dues are not paid than the greens will not be properly taken care of due to no funding. Who wants to play on a course full of crab grass and divets. Can I go to a country club and play for free and still expect outstanding courses, No.
A union must employee people to oversea day to day operations. The pension plans, health care plans, training facilities will not operate themselves you need workers which comes at a cost. Union dues help fund and operate these positions, there are alot more employees' than some FAT CAT demanding dues.
Sounds like the RICO laws
Sounds like the RICO laws would apply to organized labor.
unions
UNIONISM/COMMUNISM !!!!
A dictionary or encyclopedia may serve you well.
It's broad and completely false misinformation comparisons and word-association views/claims like this that do far more harm than good, regardless of the reader's previous/present opinion of labor unions and/or right-to-work law(s). It's the most ridiculous association of two unlike things I've read in a VERY long time.
Aside from the dictionary and encyclopedia suggestion, consider opening a grade-school civics textbook and doing some reading about forms of government, as well as a history book that describes working conditions after the Industrial Revolution. I'm certain you'll find some very significant differences between a union and communism. (Aside from the already obvious difference - that communism is a form of federal government, while a union is a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and his employees.)