Labor Union Supports Sabbath Observance

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20180725/respect-workers-rights-freedom-worship-adventists

In brief, a Seventh-day Adventist in Jamaca, employed for 26 years, has been suspended from work for a refusal towork on Saturday, the Sabbath.

The employee is supported in his refusal to work on Sabbath by the National Workers Union--a labor union.  It is unlikely that this support would have been given if that man had not been a member of that labor union.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

So, we assume that such was true in the time that EGW wrote.

But, is it possible that today some labor unions might exist for which what EGW stated would not be true?

As an example, I can show you quotations that suggest that labor unions hindered a SDA from being free from working on Sabbath.  Yet, this labor union clearly seems to support the idea that this person should be freed from working on Sabbath.

Context is important.  Is it possible that there may be labor unions today that do not represent the problems that EGW mentioned  in' her comments?

We can look back through history and see where labor unions have been involved in violence, to include murder.  We can see where labor unions called upon their members to strike.

What if we  found a labor union that in its entire history had never called for its members to strike and had never been involved in violence?

By the way such labor unions do exist.

 

[JoeMo]

53 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

In a very literal sense, one can become a "marked man" for refusing to join a union.

That may be true in some areas. In other areas, it's not that big of a problem.  I have rarely if ever heard of a non-unuin employee at a union shop here in Denver being the subject of union violence.  There are still cases of union grievances.  I had a grievance written up on me when I was helping a union electrician work on a critical piece of equipment at a power plant (I was an engineer)  My hand slipped and my tool dropped into the equipment, shorting out a control unit and tripping a 350 MW electric generator.  I advised him to write me up since it was my fault (not his) that the unit tripped.  I immediately went to the plant manager and reported the incident to him.  He chewed me out good; but then thanked me for letting him know why the generator tripped; otherwise they may have taken days or weeks to find the problem and restart the unit.

Otherwise, I have never been at odds with the union.  I sometimes even got invited to their happy hours.

[Gregory Matthews]

The followings should be noted as to labor unions:

*  The official position of the SDA Church is that it is an individual positon and one can be a SDA and also a member of a labor union.

*  As I understand it, in some countries, I may just about be impossible for a perosn to get good employment without joining a labor union.

[Gregory Matthews]

Again: This is an individual decision.  There are labor unions today that are unlike what EGW experienced.

The context of her advice is found in the statements where she states why she said what she said.  To quote a single sentence of hers with no relation to the total body of what she said on the subject, is to elevate her writings to a rigidity that is not appropriate.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The letter 201 that The Wanderer cited is a letter to which it is not easy to determine the context in which EGW made the statement.  The following quote provides some additional context as to EGWs thinking on labor unions.  I will suggest that there are labor unions today to which the following sstatement woudl not apply:

These unions are one of the signs of the last days. Men are binding up in bundles ready to be burned. They may be church members, but while they belong to these unions, they cannot possibly keep the commandments of God; for to belong to these unions means to disregard the entire Decalogue. { CL 11.4}

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” These words sum up the whole duty of man. They mean the consecration of the whole being, body, soul, and spirit, to God’s service. How can men obey these words, and at the same time pledge themselves to support that which deprives their neighbors of freedom of action? And how can men obey these words, and form combinations that rob the poorer classes of the advantages
12
which justly belong to them, preventing them from buying or selling, except under certain conditions?—Letter 26, 1903. { CL 11.5}

Do all labor unions today rob the poorer class and prevent them from purchasing and selling?  To what extent do labor unions cause people to disregard the entire decalogue?

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Let me commend you for the excellent work that you have  done in collecting a number of statements that EGW has made in regard to labor unions.  I am impressed.

In regard to confederacies:  What did EGW mean by that term?  It would seem to me that the manner in which you seem  to want to apply it to labor unions could also be applied to a person who was employed by a large corporate or governmental system.  I do not think that such would be totally unreasonable even if I might challenge that application.  After all, in those developmental days of this denomination,  workers were needed for the Church, to include the establishment clinical health centers.  While it is true that today, our clinical health centers  could not exist if they only employed SDAs, in a more general sense, we as a denomination can not possibly employ every one who is a SDA member.  Our members are essentially forced to seek employment outside of this denomination.

As I look at the various statements that EGW has made on this subject,, to include others that you have not listed, I will suggest that her opposition to membership in labor unions included the following:

*  Restrictions of what we as a church wanted to do in our ministry:   Perhaps (?) one might say that this might be true today as far as  it might be related to an attempt to unionize a denominational business?  However, the union membership of an individual SDA will have essentially no effect on how a local congregation accomplishes it mission today.

*  Keeping of the 10 commandments:  Well, as in our example, there is an involved labor union which is clearly supporting the right of a SDA worker to keep the Sabbath.  I am aware that this has not always been true.  But, I will suggest that it can also be said that today membership in a labor union today, does not always mandate the breaking  of God's laws.  The bottom line is that no matter the position that one may have in society, one must always be careful to stand for what is right.

* Robbing to poor of their just wages and employment rights:  I find   such to be interesting in view of the fact that this is the denomination that once argued in court that it had the right to pay women less than men for doing the same work.  In actual fact, labor unions today often defend the employment rights of the poor and support their right to receive just wages.

I will not argue that labor unions today are perfect.  But, I do not believe that all labor unions of today are ipso  facto wrong for SDAs to join.  In addition, at all times, Christians should be aware and careful to take stands for the right, even if employed in a SDA institution.  SDA employment is not always perfect.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Let me give you an example of a situation  that is probably different from that of the time in which EGW wrote.

The labor union of which I am thinking about has a very large contract with a major organization, that has been agreed to by both the organization and the labor union, which provides for the following:

*  In cases of discipline, employees shall have the right to be represented.  They may chose to be represented by the labor union.

*  in the majority of issues (not all) that affect an employee's working condition the labor union may represent the interests of the employees in negotiations with management.

*  Both the labor union and management commit to working together to resolve issues in a fair and just way.

*  The labor union will not strike and in return labor union representatives may represent employees as part of their official duties.  What this means is that the labor union representative continues to receive their normal pay for the time spent in representing the employee.  In addition, the labor union will be provided with free office space  in which to meet with employees--this was a contract with a very large organization.

*  Specific details were spelled out as to the conditions under which a issue that could not be resolved could be settled by: mediation, arbitration and by an administrative law judge to include how management and the labor union would be required to finance those.

In actual fact the details of all of the above and more were spelled out in the contract which I will suggest was a very large contract.  But, I will suggest that the tole of the above labor union differed considerably from that in the time of EGW and that the problems that she mentioned did not apply.

NOTE:  The actual contract I reference above is more than 300 pages in length.  For anyone who wants to read it, it has been posted on the Internet and may be accessed at the URL I will list below.  In addition, that contract provides for local contracts between management and the union.

https://www.va.gov/LMR/docs/Master_Agreement_between_DVA_and_AFGE-fin_52311.pdf

 

 

[Narcah]

Seems there is enough inspired writings against joining a union to make it an easy decision, but then again, it’s really easy to justify donig what one wants to do. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Narcah:  I trust that you have never owned a bicycle and have never eaten an egg.  For, by your own standard, if you have done so, you have clearly gone against inspired advice, but, as you said, you probably found it easy to do so.

 

[Kevin H]

It's interesting that one of Mrs. White's criticisms of Labor Union is that they will eventually join with the evil that they were designed to fight. So I find it interesting that we Seventh-day Adventists, in being cautious  about Labor Unions , we end up seeing the solution to be for us to simply side with the evils that they were designed to fight.

[Gregory Matthews]

As to the issue of robbing the poor, let me give you an example that come form the context that I have been discussing and that was governed by the contract that I listed on the Internet.

As I implied, any employee, had the right to hire an attorney to represent them, in which case, the union could not represent them.

An attorney could easily charge from $70,000 to $80,000 to take a case to an administrative law judge, perhaps more.  But the employee was free to choose to enter into such an agreement.

If the labor union chose to take the case before  an administrative law judge, it charged the employee nothing.  Yes, that employee had paid regular dues to the union  But, I will tell you that if that employee had paid dues to the union for 20 years, the total dues paid by the employee were a mere fraction on the lowest amount that I have listed.

Further, if you actually read that's 300 + page contract and understood it, you  would  have realized that the union, if requested, was required on certain levels, to fairly represent an employee who was not a union member and therefore had not paid any dues.  No, it was not required to take such a case before an administrative law judge.  But, it was required to fairly represent the employee on lower levels.

 

[Narcah]

Even though the average UPS driver earns $72k a year, they’re threatening to strike like they did in 97. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

So, do you know what the issues are that are the focus of the strike?  If you do, why did you not tell us?  If you do not, why did you tell us they plan to strike.

By the way, if it has been 27 years since they went on strike, that shows that they do not strike over minor issues.

On another point:

Do you think that they should earn a living wage?   In the Bay Area of California, an annual wage of $72,000 is not enough for a family to purchase a home in the area in which to live.  Perhaps a UPS driver, living in that area, might be justified in attempting to earn a higher wage. 

[phkrause]

Excellent points Gregory!

[Narcah]

If I hire you to feed my animals while I am on vacation, is it morally ethical to decide halfway through that you agreed to work for too little pay, call me up, and say you are going to let my animals starve if I don’t agree with your demands?  Exactly what unions do. 

[Narcah]

On 8/4/2018 at 9:02 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

So, do you know what the issues are that are the focus of the strike?  If you do, why did you not tell us?  If you do not, why did you tell us they plan to strike.

By the way, if it has been 27 years since they went on strike, that shows that they do not strike over minor issues.

On another point:

Do you think that they should earn a living wage?   In the Bay Area of California, an annual wage of $72,000 is not enough for a family to purchase a home in the area in which to live.  Perhaps a UPS driver, living in that area, might be justified in attempting to earn a higher wage. 

The issues are greed and being unwilling to work for what someone else is willing to pay, but instead of either A: making yourself invaluable and getting a riase or B: finding a job that does pay what you want, you just throw a temper tantrum until the company is forced, by rule of law, to agree with you or go out of business.  

No I don’t think UPS should be forced to pay a “living wage.”  If they don’t pay enough to live, don’t work for them!  If they have no workers, they will increase their pay to attract workers, or go out of business. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Narcah:  You clearly have some emotional involvement in this issue.  You present as someone who has suffered an injury related to tis question.

What you say about salary could also be applied to all other issues of working conditions.  You seem to suggest that employees should have not say in their working conditions.  E.G.  If the working conditions are not safe, look elsewhere for employment.

Well, we live in a society in which we have said that employees do/should have a say in their working conditions.  If employers do not want to comply she should do elsewhere to locate their business.

[Gregory Matthews]

Perhaps.  But that is how I saw it.

[phkrause]

I'm in agreement Gregory. I've seen non union shops treat employees far worse!! Not saying that I am for unions, but both unions and non union shops have there good and bad points!! My father worked for the union and they treated him very well, he got his raises without having to beg as must non union shops make you do. My wife also worked at a few hospitals that were non union shops and one that was a union shop, that allowed her to pay the unions dues to a charity of her choice!! The non union shops barely ever gave her a raise and when she did get them, they were a few pennies at a time!! At the union shop she got a raise every 6 months or twice a year and pretty much one of the raises was a cost of living raise and the other an evaluation raise. Both raises were pretty substantial, reflecting the cost of living and the evaluation raise, which must companies do, was really a union raise and was based on your position, length of service, how many years of nursing, shift, etc. So my point being that for some there are good things and for others not so good!!

[Narcah]

No personal injury from a union, my strong dislike for them is, at minimum, 4 fold. 

1: the multiple x-union workers I have worked with in the construction business were some of the laziest guys I’ve seen. Small anadotal experience, but still influences me. 

2: Ellen White says they were, are, and will be bad  I choose to believe her.  Her advice about bicycles was the fact they cost a huge percentage of a year’s wages.  I accept this advise and limit how much I spend on bicycles.  I’m ok with a $300-$500 Trek.

3: My sense of fairness.  If workers can strike at will, why can’t employers strike at will?  IE, if  the workers aren’t getting the job done, send them home (without pay) until they agree to the employers demands?

4: As someone who does hire people, why can I not choose who I hire and for how much with my money?  I move Right to Work.

Note: Very libertarian in this issue. But then again I have been self employed, with a 4 month stint as a ski resort, since I was 14 years old, which was a long, long time ago.  Currently employed by an organization my wife and I started in 2004 as an employee, but still set my hours etc.

[Gregory Matthews]

In responding to you, I will post from what you wrote and then I will place my comments in brackets  [  ]s.

1: the multiple x-union workers I have worked with in the construction business were some of the laziest guys I’ve seen. Small anadotal experience, but still influences me. 

[And you are telling us that such does not exist outside of Union membership?  All employees should be expected to do a reasonalble amount of word.  But, not slave labor--GM.]

2: Ellen White says they were, are, and will be bad  I choose to believe her.  Her advice about bicycles was the fact they cost a huge percentage of a year’s wages.  I accept this advise and limit how much I spend on bicycles.  I’m ok with a $300-$500 Trek.

[How recently have you read what EGW actually wrote?  Ellen White   gives specific reasons as to her objections to labor union membership.  If you were to find a Union today in which none of those objections existed, would you still say that she would object to membership in such.  By the way, such labor unions do exist.  To be specific, the thread mentioned a labor union that was supporting the right of a SDA to have Sabbath free from work.  Do you think that Ellen White would object to membership in that Union--GM?]

3: My sense of fairness.  If workers can strike at will, why can’t employers strike at will?  IE, if  the workers aren’t getting the job done, send them home (without pay) until they agree to the employers demands?

[O.K.  Are you not aware of a so-called "lock-out?"  That is when employers send the employees home without pay.  Are you aware of the labor unions who do not strike, have never called for a strike and have it in their Constitutions that they will never strike--GM?]

4: As someone who does hire people, why can I not choose who I hire and for how much with my money?  I move Right to Work.

[You can hire whomever you wish, but only if you can find a person willing to work for you.  If a person does not want to work for you, you can not force them to do so.  I am uncertain as to how you can "move" Right to Work.  Do you want to lock it up in a garage?   In any case, Right to work does not relate to your ability to hire whomever you wish.  Right to Work is the right of that person whom you hired to decide not to join a labor union.  By the way, I support Right to Work--GM.]

Narcah, I (GM) will now propose a situation to you and ask you how you think that Ellen White would respond:

Let us say that you are a SDA member in good standing and that you have been a SDA pastor.  You have a friend who is the current president of a labor union.  That friend comes to you and says to you:  I believe that our labor union members need pastoral care.  I am impressed with you.  Would you be willing to provide pastoral care to our members.  You will have to join the labor union.  But, we will pay you X amount of money as a salary and we will expect you to be available full time to provide pastoral care to our members.  This will include you developing a pastoral  care program that will actively seek out members who need your pastoral care.

What do you think that Ellen White would say?

 

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

On 8/18/2018 at 6:28 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Let us say that you are a SDA member in good standing and that you have been a SDA pastor.  You have a friend who is the current president of a labor union.  That friend comes to you and says to you:  I believe that our labor union members need pastoral care.  I am impressed with you.  Would you be willing to provide pastoral care to our members.  You will have to join the labor union.  But, we will pay you X amount of money as a salary and we will expect you to be available full time to provide pastoral care to our members.  This will include you developing a pastoral  care program that will actively seek out members who need your pastoral care.

What do you think that Ellen White would say?

I'm not Narcah, but I think Ellen White would be looking at you like a deer caught in the headlights.

If it was me as a pastor, I'd say "no".... it's not the responsibility of a union president to provide/hire "pastoral care" to its union members.

Just my opinion.

(btw, GM's post to Narcah strikes me as being somewhat condescending...)

[Gregory Matthews]

if I were that SDA member/pastor, it would not be my responsibility to tell the Union President that it was not his/her responsibility to provide pastoral care to members of the Union.

In any case, there are labor unions who have provided pastoral care to their members, regardless of what one might think.  In an attempt to generalize the question and for privacy reasons I wrote the question in a manner that was not likely to be specifically identified.  But, the central focus of the question was real.   I will ask Narcah again:   In the context of what Ellen White has written about labor unions, what do you think that she (EGW) would say about a SDA being given the opportunity to provide pastoral care to union members, and to be paid for doing so,  but, who would be required to join the labor union as a member?  

[Gregory Matthews]

An informational note to all reading in this thread:

A person who declines to identify who they are (Which is their right.)  has  filed a formal objection to content that I have posted in this thread, under conditions in which that person does not state the specifics of their objections. 

In compliance with the organization of this forum, those objections (There were several.) have been routed to me and to several others.  I have exercised due diligence in considering the objections of that person.  Due to the fact that the person has not stated their specific objections, and that I can not contact them for further information due to the fact that they have not identified who they are:  My finding is that their objections are unfounded.  

I will leave it to the others who have  received the same to respond as they chose.