View Single Post
Old 10-11-2022, 01:59 PM   #38
longislander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 501
Thanks: 43
Thanked 93 Times in 70 Posts
Default

If a union member ... why wouldn't benefits be required?
If a non-union member, but still required to pay, then benefits are required. That is the legal premise for being required to pay dues, even if not a member. Actually, Right To Work is code for not being required to pay union dues.

The option is to be a union member or not ... not the option to be excluded from the contract.

Firing a union employee will have to go through union representation. Firing a non-union member may also require union representation.

Firing an employee (for cause especially) is still a facet of management and law, depending on which laws are applicable.

Another quirk:
"Extra benefits" can be extended to non-union members while witholding from union members.

May 7, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board

"Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. decision confirms the legality of an important flexibility for employers—the ability to provide certain, extra benefits to nonunionized employees while not offering the same benefits to union employees when doing so is not based on union animus. Under this decision, an employer can now feel more comfortable providing nonrepresented employees with better wages or benefits than the employer’s represented employees when such is done for legitimate reasons. This flexibility to take quick action when there is no duty to bargain or restrictive collective bargaining agreement in place may also be cited to nonunion employees as one benefit of not having union representation."

We can all Google and read:

https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com...May-7-2019.pdf

https://ogletree.com/insights/nlrb-e...can-be-lawful/
longislander is offline   Reply With Quote