By Charles R. Ferguson
State Employee
The sounds of the final vote had hardly died in the Legislature before Gov. Bill Richardson had signed the Public Employees Bargaining Act into law. After all, he was one of the most ardent advocates of the measure and did a good deal of lobbying to ensure its passage.
Why? You might have noticed there is a presidential campaign going on and you know who is a candidate. Can't say as he's been doing much in the way of being governor these days though. But I'm sure he's collecting his pay and benefits, including a steady flow of cash from the unions he helped to get entrenched throughout the public sector for providing just such a campaign cash cow.
He was the one most insistent that the "fair share" clause be included in every contract despite objections from some within the "bargaining units" who didn't want their co-workers terminated or forced into a union.
The unions certainly didn't object; after all, the fair share clause makes their extortion and intimidation somewhat legal. Just think about this: if you walked into a business and demanded money from them, and told them to pay up or go out of business, the district attorney would have a field day charging you with extortion and racketeering. But stick a union label on that scenario and it's called "fair share" or "agency fee." Ah, extortion by a different name.
If you're reluctant to put the extortion label on it, just stop and think of the implications posed by their most recent twist: "You have 20 working days from receipt of this letter to settle this matter before we will submit the outstanding balance to a collection agency."
If you've worked hard all of your life, treated others fairly, and paid your bills on time, just stop and think about "collection agency" and what that means. And then sum things up with: "we will notify the state to issue a notice of contemplated action for dismissal and commence termination process in accordance with the rules of the State Personnel Board."
When the unions were "organizing" they were allowed (by the N.M. Labor Relations Board— appointed by, you guessed it, Richardson) to utilize "card counts," promissory membership cards that had to be signed by prospective members. Nothing indicated that membership would somehow not follow if you signed a card. The threshold for recognition was 30 percent of the "bargaining unit."
At that time, neither the union nor the agency actually knew who or how many were in the "bargaining unit." The NMLRB fell all over itself to grant standing to the unions despite not having verifiable tallies of card counts or exact make up of the bargaining units. Those records were never made available and probably don't exist today.
Contract "negotiations" were promptly undertaken to produce the documents later signed by— again, you guessed it, Richardson. When presented to the "bargaining unit members for ratification, only those folks who had signed the promissory "card count" cards were allowed to vote on the contracts.
Obviously, the majority of the bargaining unit was never allowed to participate. Just look at the theoretical numbers that are involved here. Only 30 percent had to sign cards. Once a contract was available for ratification, only 16 percent (one half of the original 30 percent plus 1 percent for a majority) of the entire "bargaining unit" was needed for approval. I'm quite confident that if the ratification process were opened to 100 percent of the "bargaining unit" members, there wouldn't be single union representing any public agency.
I find it rather curious as to how the unions have been rattling around, obviously unsure as to who the bargaining unit members were. Obviously unsure— I point to Raam Wong's article in which Robin Gould of SEA-CWA Local 7076 extortion letter fame, mailed letters to 500 people not knowing if they were in the "bargaining unit" or not.
These extortion letters were not sent by regular, $0.41 mail. Rather, she spent $5.21 per letter for certified, return receipt service. That's $2,605 versus $205; but then, we're talking about state government, unions and political campaigns after all, aren't we? And what a coincidence that these extortion letters get mailed just as the presidential campaign needs a shot of cash to bolster a candidate's image.
It is truly unfortunate that Gov. Bruce King refused to sign a Right To Work Act years ago that would have prevented extortion by unions. I don't object to people joining or having a union if that's what they want to do. That's a right guaranteed by our Constitution.
But just as they have that right to freely associate, myself, and many other non-supporters of SEA-CWA Local 7076 should be allowed the same right to not associate with the union and its policies of deception and extortion.
opinion 
...go to bookmarks
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
