Posted April 08, 2020 05:03:58 A construction site in southern California can’t fire its workers for union organizing if they’re union members.
If they’re not union members they can, but only for “minor violations” or “violations that are incidental to the work” and not part of the contract.
The construction union, the Construction Workers Union (CTU), has a policy of not using union dues to pay for the union’s “non-members’ health care,” but they also don’t want their members to use union dues.
They say they’ve had problems with workers joining the union without paying dues.
The CTU says they’ve used dues to hire workers without union authorization and union dues are used to cover other costs.
However, some workers have had trouble paying the union dues, and they say they have been fired if they refused to pay them.
The union has been at odds with California’s Department of Industrial Relations over the years, and it’s been unable to negotiate on a collective bargaining agreement.
Now, the state has put a hold on the implementation of a law that would allow construction workers to unionize.
The legislation, AB 798, would have allowed construction workers in the state to form a union without dues.
It was initially passed in March 2018, and the law has since passed in both houses of the state legislature.
The bill would have required that unions “not be able to collect dues for any activity, including the collection of dues, except for the provision of health care and other services.”
However, that provision was struck down by the California Supreme Court, which held that unions have no right to collect any dues for services that are “essential to the protection of the community.”
That ruling led to a temporary restraining order that prevented the law from taking effect.
The new bill would provide that if a construction worker is not eligible for a union dues payment, that worker could still form a non-union labor union.
But it also would give construction workers the right to appeal a decision by the union, as long as the appeal was filed within 30 days of the ruling.
The decision to have construction workers unionize is a good thing for the construction industry, said Scott Fink, executive director of the Southern California Construction Trades Council, which represents construction workers.
“We’re working to make sure we’re not paying union dues and getting union representation to the detriment of the public,” he said.
Construction workers are unionized because they need a union to be able make the right decisions to build the structures and services they’re building, he said, and without union dues that’s a good investment for the industry.
However and in what ways union members are being used is something that needs to be investigated.
Fink said the union should be able sue over the law if they want to.
“Theoretically, they could sue for breach of contract,” he added.
But he said that could cause an unfair trial, as the union would not be able put up a sufficient defense to counter the charge of unfair labor practice.
“They’d probably be able for the case to be thrown out,” he explained.
In a statement, the Department of Industry Relations said it “does not comment on pending litigation.”
“However, it is important to note that this is the first case in which an organization has been ordered to pay dues,” it said.
The department added that it has also received numerous complaints from the construction and construction related industries that are working together to prevent the unionization of construction workers, and “has been able to resolve many of those disputes through settlement agreements.”
Fink agrees that the state shouldn’t force unions to pay union dues because of labor law.
“If the state’s goal is to protect the public, they should be protecting the public at the same time,” he told The Next Wires.
“It’s an unfortunate situation that’s happened.
It’s been frustrating and they need to make the union pay.”
But he says that construction workers should be allowed to form their own unions if they so choose.
“That’s one of the reasons why I’d rather see a union-free zone in construction, because the people who are working in that industry should have the right and the choice to unionized,” he noted.
“As far as I’m concerned, that should be up to the workers.”
He said he believes the law would help unionization efforts because it would “make it harder for unions to sue the construction unions for breaches of contract.”
“It makes it difficult for the state of California to have a court case where they could take the union and the workers and make them pay union fees, because they’re going to have to take their case to a court of law,” he continued.