AFSCME sues University

Just remember that this is the union that less than 2 years ago went on strike rejecting a contract because co-pays were going to be $15 and insurance costs were going to go up to slightly below the private sector. They then came back to accept a worse deal than originally offered and claimed that they were victorious because they only wanted to make a point about societal issues like health care costs.

This is also the union that protested (while using union resources to organize rallies) the closing of the General College at the University of Minnesota...for no reason related to the union.

It turns out, according to the Minnesota Daily, that Local 3800 President Phyllis Walker used union leave pay to do her protesting for the General College. Eeks...that cannot be right.

So, the union claims that the University is retaliating by not allowing her continued heavy, generous abuse useage of union leave to sit in the meetings of other unions. The University's version?

Mark Rotenberg [University General Counsel] said Walker’s deal, which excused her from half of her University duties to work on union business with no reduction in pay, was an “unusual, generous agreement” and that the deal expired June 30.

Whoops. Guess Walker was out to lunch on that one (a recurring pattern with her).

Gladys McKenzie, chief negotiator for AFSCME Council 5, said the union took a clear position on General College and that Walker’s use of union leave to protest was appropriate union business.

WHAT BUSINESS WAS THAT?
Back to the lawsuit.

AFSCME union leaders said they wanted health-care workers and clerical workers to bargain at the same table, but Jennifer Lovaasen of AFSCME Council 5 said, “(The University) said point blank that that was something they found unacceptable.”
...
Law School professor Stephen Befort, a public-sector labor-law expert, said the union is “generally right that they can control who represents them,” but that bringing together separate bargaining units, such as locals 3800 and 3260, “is only appropriate with the consent of all parties.”

Yep, the Union is suing because they want different unions to be able to sit in on each other's meetings and get paid for it.

The truth is that the leadership of AFSCME has for a long time had a huge chip on their shoulder. They are finding any reason to act like they are the victims as a result of the "establishment". The reality is they are victims of their own ineptitude. They look for any reason to go on strike thinking that it is their God-given right. I forgot, most of them hate the acknowledgement of God. Let me rephrase. They look for any reason to go on strike thinking that it is their Solstice-bestowed right. That is all that they are trying to do now anyway.

Let us understand that just after the strike the leaders of AFSCME came up and promoted internally the strategy of grouping together with all of the other unions so that they may have a more successful strike that 'actually causes a shutdown'. That is all that this tactic is about.

Solutions: The Courts need to see that this suit has no merit and throw it out like milk from last Christmas. The union members need to get a brain and realize their leaderships sucks and is actually representing themselves and the far left wing of the Democrat party. The leaders do NOT represent the members at all. Elect those leaders out. Finally, the University needs to let AFSCME go on strike again and this time do not give them a face-saving out. Let AFSCME's leadership's poor leadership be the reason that union falls apart.