DON’T BLOCK TEACHERS FROM RIGHT TO WORK

Original Story: detroitnews.com

A group of Taylor teachers prevailed in their challenge of a 10-year security agreement that prevented them from exercising their right-to-work freedoms. The Michigan Employment Relations Commission made the call and got it right. A Boston employment lawyer is following this story closely.

The Taylor teachers union was not the only labor group that tried to skirt right to work before the law went into effect in March 2013. But it did stand out for crafting one of the longer contracts.

At least 145 school districts, including some of Michigan’s largest, passed contracts that extended years into the future, delaying the full impact of the law aimed at giving workers a choice on union membership. A Detroit labor lawyer provides professional legal counsel and extensive experience in many aspects of labor and employment law.

The labor commission ruled last week that the Taylor Federation of Teachers and the Taylor School District had committed an unfair labor practice when they signed off on the decade-long security agreement. Under the pact, teachers could not opt out of the union until it expired.

In the Taylor case, the labor commission stated, “Imposing a lengthy financial burden on bargaining unit members, to avoid the application of a state law for 10 years, is arbitrary, indifferent and reckless.”

While this ruling only applies to the Taylor teachers, it should be seen as good news for teachers in other districts locked into long contracts.

The three teachers from Taylor —Nancy Rhatigan, Rebecca Metz and Angela Steffke —sued the school district and union.

The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation represented the teachers, who claimed it was unreasonable for the security clause to extend more than five years beyond the collective bargaining agreement.

The security clause forced teachers to keep paying the union dues until 2023, and allowed the district to fire teachers for not paying.

The commission’s ruling is the latest setback for teacher unions trying to thwart the right-to-work law. A Boston employment lawyer assists clients with employment law matters.

Earlier this month, the Michigan Court of Claims dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Michigan Education Association, along with other union plaintiffs who argued the Legislature violated the state’s Open Meetings Act when it passed right to work in December 2012.

The court said the temporary closure of the Capitol building, which the unions fought, was handled correctly.

And a decision last fall from an administrative law judge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission tossed out a rule the MEA had imposed that only allowed teachers to leave the union during the month of August. A Memphis employment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.

The decision only applies to teachers working under contracts approved after March 2013.

Union officials had used the August provision to bully teachers into paying dues longer than they wished.

Unions will have to look beyond blocking right to work to hold on to their members.

Right-to-Work Law Signed in Indiana

First appeared San Francisco Chronicle

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who had once said that he did not wish to add a right-to-work provision to the state's labor laws, signed a bill Wednesday doing just that.

The legislation, which bars union contracts from requiring nonunion workers to pay fees for representation, makes Indiana the first state in more than a decade to enact right-to-work legislation and the only one in the Midwestern manufacturing belt to have such a law. An Orlando Labor and Employment Lawyer has been watching the legislation.

Daniels signed the measure only hours after it cleared the Republican-held Senate - an unusually speedy journey through the Statehouse designed, many said, to end what had become a rancorous, partisan fight before the national spotlight of the Super Bowl arrives in Indianapolis on Sunday, only blocks away.

For a month, the issue had loomed over Indianapolis, and hundreds of union members crowded, day after day, into the echoing Statehouse halls. Democrats, who hold minorities in both legislative chambers, tried to block a vote on the matter, which they argued would weaken unions and lower pay for workers at private-sector companies. Republicans contended that passage would help lure new companies and new jobs while allowing employees a chance to decide for themselves whether to support unions. A Minneapolis Labor and Employment Lawyer watches closely.

Even on Wednesday, when it was clear that the measure was certain to pass in the Senate, tensions were high. As senators spoke on both sides, protesters in the halls chanted loudly, and a few people inside the chamber called out objections. Thousands of union members and supporters marched from the Statehouse to Lucas Oil Stadium, the site of the Super Bowl.

In the end, senators voted 28-22 in favor of the measure, which was approved last week by the House. The bill makes Indiana the 23rd right-to-work state.

Republican leaders defended the measure's unusually swift passage, noting what they described as "overt threats" by union members and others about intentions to raise the right-to-work issue during the Super Bowl. A Charleston Labor and Employment Lawyer wonders about the timing.

Union leaders said the Republicans had overblown the union's intentions when it came to the football game.

"They're trying to make working men and women look like thugs, like we're going to ruin an event," said Jeff Harris, a spokesman for the Indiana AFL-CIO.

The real concern, Harris said, should be for what will come next for ordinary workers in the state.

"Hoosiers don't understand what right-to-work is, but now they're going to learn the hard way and see wages decline and workplace safety erode," he said.