Posted on 04/04/2013 9:04:42 AM PDT by MichCapCon
Just days before the state's right-to-work law goes into effect, a union representing Kroger workers in Michigan pushed through a new contract that locks its members into paying dues or fees to the union for four years.
Grocery employees represented by the United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 876 ratified the agreement March 22, according to the union's website. The previous union contract was supposed to expire June 15, 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
The weeks leading up to the law's start date on March 28 have been filled with public sector unions rushing to approve clauses in contracts that extend the forced payment of dues or fees. With the exception of Kroger, large, private sector companies have largely avoided making any deals with unions.
"Overall, the packages serve important protections to members throughout the state," Roger Robinson, UFCW 876 president, said in a press release. "More importantly, these contracts provide the securities working families need, as they are up against the uncertainties of Michigan's legislative whims and the Affordable Care Act."
Kroger’s Michigan Spokesman Dale Hollandsworth said the typical contract length is between three to five years.
"The company and union worked collaboratively to reach a good agreement for our associates," Hollandsworth said. "It is a very good package with hourly wage increases and affordable health care as the cornerstone of the contract. … There were no changes to any union security article as we were not required to address that issue at this time."
I’ve long been out of Michigan, but I’m amazed here in Indiana that unionized Kroger can compete against non-union WM and other smaller independents.
It’s all about location and convenience to the shopper.
Doesn’t a right to work LAW nullify any union agreements that our counter to it’s content unless there is a grandfather clause.
our = are
The law takes affect on a certain date. Thus anything enacted before that date is binding. States cannot enact ex post facto laws.
There’s a grandfather clause - the new law doesn’t affect contracts that have been entered into before the law goes into effect. Those contracts are valid until they expire.
Kroger is the worst grocery
Here you go to Harris Teeter or Public instead and you can see who is union or not and the major difference in work ethic and friendliness
And which has more stone faced unhelpful Amish
but they can enact laws dealing with adhesion contracts and coercive contracts.
So it only impacts new hires?
I’m also imagining that Kroger’s got a sweet deal from the union.
I think most folks understand that. What folks wonder about is how parties can enter into a contract which during the currency of the contract will violate public policy in that jurisdiction.
Michigan has passed a "right to work" law which goes into effect on a certain date. Say I apply for a job at Krogers after that date, and Kroger's tells me that I must join a union or pay dues to the union in any case because their contract requires it.
That's not an ex-post-facto law, that's a contract that's illegal as a violation of public policy.
By the way, contracts are not "enacted"; they are simply agreed to by the parties involved - and to be valid, they must among other things, comply with public policy in the jurisdiction where the contract is to be enforced.
The law took effect on the 28th. There are lawsuits pending regarding the long extensions in schools and universities. These extensions will end up being a real disaster for the unions.
Weasels managed to get in at least some of their words it appears. So public policy won't seem to be violated by weasels consorting with weasels.
“That’s not an ex-post-facto law, that’s a contract that’s illegal as a violation of public policy.”
Then a court will have to decide if the contract is valid or legal.
And yeah, I meant “agreed to.” Enacted was the word that first came to mind.
Nice Store you have there.
It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Interesting how all of these school districts and private workplaces seem to be able to settle their contracts with their union workers ahead of time: no delays, no strikes, no work slow-downs now, no anguish and strife.
So right, and the "grandfather clause" makes it just a bit more problematic.
As for all these early re-negotiations, I would argue (if I had standing to do so) as follows:
For any early re-negotiated and extended contract that would have otherwise expired exposing a new contract to the operation of the law, that these "son-of-grandfather" clauses in the renegotiated contracts will only be effective to the date the original contract would have expired. In other words, I would argue that the early re-negotiation is an unmistakable attempt to frustrate the public will, violate public policy, and avoid the action of the laws of the State of Michigan.
I don't know how far I would get, but I think there would be ample evidence in the record to establish that this is exactly what has been happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.