Marine Says He Faces Termination for Refusing to Pay Teacher's Union Fee

Marine Says He Faces Termination for Refusing to Pay Teacher's Union Fee
foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/marine-refuses-pay-teacher-union-dues-faces-termination/

A retired U.S. Marine who runs a Massachusetts high [FONT=arial]school's[/FONT] ROTC program says he faces termination if he doesn't pay a $500 union fee by next week, a levy he refuses to pay because he already receives medical and dental benefits from the military.

Maj. Stephen Godin, senior naval science instructor at the Naval Junior ROTC Unit at North High School in Worcester, Mass., told FoxNews.com he has been teaching for the Educational Association for Worcester for 15 years -- including 14 at North High School -- without having to join the union or pay an "agency fee" toward the cost of collective bargaining.

"I just want to save my job here," the 58-year-old [FONT=arial]father[/FONT] of two said. "I've been doing this for 15 years. Nobody has ever told me to join the union or be terminated."
Godin, who earns roughly $75,000 a year, said he has asked for arbitration no fewer than five times, but has not received a response from the teacher's union. He said he received a letter last month from Worcester Public School officials indicating he will be fired on June 15 if he fails to pay the agency fee...

Well if unions can't extort thousands of dollars from private citizens, how will they be able to promote Marxism and sabotage Christian moral values?

If it is a condition of law and/or employment that he must either join the union and pay regular dues, or not join but pay an “agency fee” for benefits, salary, and working conditions (and possible representation or counsel) received by virtue of the union’s presence, then he needs to man up and do so. What makes him think that he is above the law? So what if he already gets medical and dental insurance through the military. Probably lots of teachers get the same through their spouse. We don’t see them whining. What about the countless other benefits he taking without paying for, like sick leave…personal development time…caps on teaching loads and student supervision…planning periods? If he’s really getting a $75,000 salary for being a public school teacher, then he should be glad to only contribute 0.67 cents on the dollar toward his salary. I’m pretty sure it didn’t come as a result of his amazing personal bargaining skills. :rolleyes:

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:3, topic:201355"]
If it is a condition of law and/or employment that he must either join the union and pay regular dues, or not join but pay an "agency fee" for benefits, salary, and working conditions (and possible representation or counsel) received by virtue of the union's presence, then he needs to man up and do so. What makes him think that he is above the law? So what if he already gets medical and dental insurance through the military. Probably lots of teachers get the same through their spouse. We don't see them whining. What about the countless other benefits he taking without paying for, like sick leave...personal development time...caps on teaching loads and student supervision...planning periods? If he's really getting a $75,000 salary for being a public school teacher, then he should be glad to only contribute 0.67 cents on the dollar toward his salary. I'm pretty sure it didn't come as a result of his amazing personal bargaining skills. :rolleyes:

[/quote]

So you are saying that people can be denied employment based on their participation to a union or not? Does that mean that a company can fire people just because they are members of a union?

The other point about the amount his salary is a red herring and has nothing to do with the cost and obligation of participation in a union. However, I think that you are probably correct about the reason why he got the general benefit package.

I prefer a lower salary and freedom from the "machine".

Teachers are professionals. They should not need a union. Most of them, (and most union workers, for that matter), make more than they are worth. Sorry, but true. A person should make what he or she is worth. No more, no less.

Nurses rarely unionize because they would have to abandon their patients on the union bosses' say so. Forget about it.

We earn our own retirements, pay our own health care. We are poorer, but, we earn our keep.

[quote="Ceil-1, post:5, topic:201355"]
I prefer a lower salary and freedom from the "machine".

Teachers are professionals. They should not need a union. Most of them, (and most union workers, for that matter), make more than they are worth. Sorry, but true. A person should make what he or she is worth. No more, no less.

Nurses rarely unionize because they would have to abandon their patients on the union bosses' say so. Forget about it.

We earn our own retirements, pay our own health care. We are poorer, but, we earn our keep.

[/quote]

What does the being a professional has anything to do with not needing to be member of a union or a guild?

A guild is different from a union.

A professional can negotiate a salary based on credentials and marketability.

[quote="Ceil-1, post:7, topic:201355"]
A guild is different from a union.........

[/quote]

The Actors Guild and the Newspaper Guild are really unions.

[quote="Ceil-1, post:7, topic:201355"]
...........A professional can negotiate a salary based on credentials and marketability.

[/quote]

So can anyone! Professionals are also exposed to forms of termination that might be unjust and an union could protect them. In other countries professionals have unions too.

Also unions pilfer the dues and give it to liberal politicians. One of my nephews in Michigan while in high school had part of his pay stolen by the baggers union—a high school kid these unions have no shame.

California and Michigan is going down the toilet because of unions.

Heck, just look at Europe its going broke because of socialists unions.

I'm glad I live in a right to work State.

[quote="Cristiano, post:4, topic:201355"]
So you are saying that people can be denied employment based on their participation to a union or not?

The.

[/quote]

Yes they can if they don't live in a right-to-work state. No the same labor laws prevent a company from firing someone who belongs to a union. Labor law is a complex topic.

[quote="puzzleannie, post:10, topic:201355"]
Yes they can if they don't live in a right-to-work state. No the same labor laws prevent a company from firing someone who belongs to a union. Labor law is a complex topic.

[/quote]

I was not really arguing about the details of the existing labor laws. I was trying to make a point that if an employer has the right fire someone for not belonging to a union, then another employer should have the right to do just the opposite.

What!, He's not given the right to arbitration?

[quote="Cristiano, post:4, topic:201355"]
So you are saying that people can be denied employment based on their participation to a union or not? Does that mean that a company can fire people just because they are members of a union?

[/quote]

Depends upon the state. Here in Illinois (just about the crookedest state in the Union) if the union says you'll join, you will, or not get hired. I'm very anti-union, but I was once forced to join as part of my employment contract.

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:9, topic:201355"]
Also unions pilfer the dues and give it to liberal politicians. One of my nephews in Michigan while in high school had part of his pay stolen by the baggers union—a high school kid these unions have no shame.

[/quote]

Same here; while they were in High School and perhaps for a while in College, both of our sons bagged groceries (and shagged shopping carts) at the local supermarkets. They were paid the minimum wage allowed in the state, but were required to join the UFCW union and pay an initiation fee and union dues. For what? A minimum-wage job? The stinking Union was simply using the kids to subsidize the rest of the workers, since they knew that the kids didn't work at the store very long before moving on to college or a "real" job.

[quote="Ceil-1, post:5, topic:201355"]
Teachers are professionals. They should not need a union. Most of them, (and most union workers, for that matter), make more than they are worth. Sorry, but true. A person should make what he or she is worth. No more, no less.

[/quote]

I have to disagree. I know a lot of teachers and have several teachers in my family, and they are drastically underpaid. They only got extra medical insurance (like vision and dental) like 10 years ago. Where I am, they have gone through many years of 0% increases, and most years the increase is less than inflation and the increase in cost of living.

[quote="Ceil-1, post:5, topic:201355"]
Nurses rarely unionize because they would have to abandon their patients on the union bosses' say so. Forget about it.

[/quote]

Your kidding me. Here, the nurses are probably the most powerful union there is. Every couple years the threaten to go and strike and people panic and the government has to give them like a 30% increase (over 3 years or something).

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:9, topic:201355"]
Also unions pilfer the dues and give it to liberal politicians. One of my nephews in Michigan while in high school had part of his pay stolen by the baggers union—a high school kid these unions have no shame.

California and Michigan is going down the toilet because of unions.

Heck, just look at Europe its going broke because of socialists unions.

I'm glad I live in a right to work State.

[/quote]

You just have to ignore Saskatchewan in the equation then. Probably the most socialist province behind Quebec (they invented the medicare system!), and yet will lead Canada in economic growth this year (yes even ahead of Alberta, and probably beat a number of States I would bet too).

[quote="curlycool89, post:14, topic:201355"]
I have to disagree. I know a lot of teachers and have several teachers in my family, and they are drastically underpaid. They only got extra medical insurance (like vision and dental) like 10 years ago. Where I am, they have gone through many years of 0% increases, and most years the increase is less than inflation and the increase in cost of living.

[/quote]

Teachers are very well paid in Canada!!! A teacher with 8 years experience in Ontario can expect to make $75,688, B.C. $72,000, Alberta $74,000.

Source- nucleuslearning.com/content/teacher-pay-scale-across-canada

The Ontario teachers pension plan is the largest in the Country, with assets of over 96.4 billion dollars. The teachers union rules with an iron fist and is very powerful.

Your kidding me. Here, the nurses are probably the most powerful union there is. Every couple years the threaten to go and strike and people panic and the government has to give them like a 30% increase (over 3 years or something).

The Ontario Nurses Union is very powerful.

You just have to ignore Saskatchewan in the equation then. Probably the most socialist province behind Quebec (they invented the medicare system!), and yet will lead Canada in economic growth this year (yes even ahead of Alberta, and probably beat a number of States I would bet too).

Truth. Except Saskatchewan is booming. They have the worlds largest supply of Potash and loads of oil.

calgarybeacon.com/2009/05/saskatchewan-booming-saskatchewanians-still-modest/

'TD Bank and Statistics Canada are showing a strong 2008 performance, continued strength in 2009, and there are predictions of a “soft landing” as the recession line moves back upward in 2010 (we all hope).
We’re beating Alberta in production of conventional oil, digging up potash and uranium like it’ll never end, and still hiring more than we’re firing. '

I'm just going to chime in and say that there are a lot of teachers who aren't paid nearly enough for what they do, and then there are* a lot *of teachers who are overpaid for what they do.

Also, unions by themselves are not Marxist. Many are, many aren't, but unions, guilds, and worker's associations existed long before Marx, Engels, and other social theorists.

[quote="Zatzat, post:15, topic:201355"]
The Ontario teachers pension plan is the largest in the Country, with assets of over 96.4 billion dollars. The teachers union rules with an iron fist and is very powerful.

[/quote]

That is very true. But I think you'd call that being capitalistic by buying assets and making money off of them. It's quite smart of them.

[quote="Zatzat, post:15, topic:201355"]
Truth. Except Saskatchewan is booming. They have the worlds largest supply of Potash and loads of oil.

calgarybeacon.com/2009/05/saskatchewan-booming-saskatchewanians-still-modest/

'TD Bank and Statistics Canada are showing a strong 2008 performance, continued strength in 2009, and there are predictions of a “soft landing” as the recession line moves back upward in 2010 (we all hope).
We’re beating Alberta in production of conventional oil, digging up potash and uranium like it’ll never end, and still hiring more than we’re firing. '

[/quote]

It's just so weird. For some reason Saskatchewan ended up with vast quantities of potash, oil, natural gas, coal, diamonds (there's a new mine that's going to go up north of Melfort) and uranium (something like the highest grade deposits of uranium in the world). :thumbsup:

WRT the OP, he's been doing this for 15 years without paying the fee. Why does he all of a sudden have to pay it?

State Senator Files Bill to Save Job of ROTC Instructor Who Refuses to Pay Union Fee

A Massachusetts state senator has introduced a bill to save the job of a retired U.S. Marine, a public high school junior ROTC instructor who says he’ll get the ax if he doesn’t chalk up a $500 teacher’s union fee.

Maj. Stephen Godin, who says he receives medical and dental benefits and half his salary from the military, has refused to join the union and says he will not pay its "agency fee," which is assessed to offset the union's collective bargaining costs...

foxnews.com/us/2010/06/10/senator-files-bill-to-save-job-rotc-instructor/

GOOD FOR THE MAJOR! HOOAH! :thumbsup:

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:3, topic:201355"]
If it is a condition of law and/or employment that he must either join the union and pay regular dues, or not join but pay an "agency fee" for benefits, salary, and working conditions (and possible representation or counsel) received by virtue of the union's presence, then he needs to man up and do so. What makes him think that he is above the law? So what if he already gets medical and dental insurance through the military. Probably lots of teachers get the same through their spouse. We don't see them whining. What about the countless other benefits he taking without paying for, like sick leave...personal development time...caps on teaching loads and student supervision...planning periods? If he's really getting a $75,000 salary for being a public school teacher, then he should be glad to only contribute 0.67 cents on the dollar toward his salary. I'm pretty sure it didn't come as a result of his amazing personal bargaining skills. :rolleyes:

[/quote]

I'm frankly astonished at your admonition to a Marine Major to "man up". It is an incomprehensible choice of words. He is indeed doing a manly service to the young people in his program. I'm sure puts a lot more into his teaching service than whatever is negotiated by a teachers union contract. His salary is determined (and largely paid) by the Department of Defense. The union has done nothing for him except reveal why they are despised by millions of Americans and not really taken seriously. It seems like they're charging for "protection" much the same way as the mob.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.