The WFSE 1900, Part 7
Posted by Sonya Jones - August 13, 2008
The plot thickens. The Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) filed THIS complaint in Lewis County against 12 state employees (and their spouses, whether they have one or not). This batch includes a well-meaning state employee and willing union member. That is, until now.
Sometime in 2005, the state recognized that this employee’s duties were above those of his classification and promoted him to a position that reflected his actual work. Much to WFSE’s dismay, the new classification was no longer in the bargaining unit so the state’s reclassification reduced WFSE’s membership by 5. After claims by WFSE that the state was skimming from its membership, and about 16 months of haggling, the employee (along with four others) were reclassified back into the bargaining unit even though their duties remained unchanged. That’s right: same job, less pay.
This employee actually paid dues for a time while classified outside of the bargaining unit and then stopped. Once back in the bargaining unit, WFSE failed to resume payroll deductions for several months. WFSE is now suing him for non-payment of dues during the time it failed to resume payroll deductions, without taking into account the amount overpaid while not even a part of the bargaining unit.
(WFSE’s lawyer has also joined as a defendant an active member of the armed services who is currently stationed in Afghanistan, in violation of the Soldiers & Sailors Civil Relief Act.)
Add Comment -
Christina said on Aug 13 2008 at 8:41am
I hope these people fight WFSE. Sent my response to Younglove Monday and filed it with the court yesterday. No summary judgement for this gal, I want my day in court.
Jones said on Aug 13 2008 at 9:28am
You go girl! Everyone should be fighting this and if they need referrals, they should contact me or Scott Dilley. We are here to help.
RCD said on Aug 13 2008 at 11:14am
I thought closed shops were illegal under the Taft Hartley Act and their close associates Union Shops were being impacted by more current legislation. Not so in WA?
Jones said on Aug 13 2008 at 7:02pm
That only applies to private-sector unions covered under federal law. States may do what they wish with laws governing public sector unions. Besides, Washington prides itself on being on the cutting edge. (That was sarcasm.)
