The news today reported that the Rhode Island governor wants to have state employees go on 12 days of unpaid furlough in order to save the state some $17 million. But the union representing the state workers says no, because that effectively would be a 4.6% or more pay cut. The union has joined in a lawsuit to stop the furloughs. So the governor may have to lay off 1000 workers, starting with the most recently employed. Seems to me the union is not serving those 1000 workers very well, is it. Now I know unions usually take care of their members when they lose their jobs, but does it cover more than 96% of their salary?
Were I one of the chosen 1000, I would be on the phone with the union representative: "Excuse me? Would you mind asking us workers what we want? I think I would rather take the pay cut than lose my job."
1 comment:
I did hear about this. Unfortunately the unions will probably have their way. The city of Hartford was in the same bind with some of their union workers, and the workers opted for a few furlough days. That's a much better way to go IMHO. Especially with the economy in the tank and unemployment rising overall.
I'm not a big fan of the unionization of government employees, because I think it gives some people (gov't employees) an undue influence in government. But apparently the SCOTUS doesn't have a problem with it.
Post a Comment