Thanks to Gov. Scott Walker’s new labor law, Wisconsin may just be the next state where union rolls start shrinking. If history’s any indication, plenty of government workers will eventually take advantage of their new ability to opt out of unionization and stop paying expensive union dues.
Surprised? You might be, thanks to the broad-strokes style of most media coverage of the political battle over the legislation. The teachers and other government workers protesting at the capitol were taken to be representative of state union workers as a whole.
Advertisement
But Walker’s hoping that they’re not — and that many government workers will be glad to stop paying dues. On an appearance on Fox News Sunday in February, he said, “If we’re going to ask our state and local workers who are doing a great job to pay a little bit more, to sacrifice, to help to balance this budget, we should also give them the flexibility [to chose whether they pay dues].”
Walker saw that as a significant cost-savings benefit for Wisconsin’s government workers, arguing that “for those members . . . who don’t want to be a part of the union . . . [and] don’t want that deduction each month out of the paycheck, they should be able to get that $500, $600, or in some cases $1,000 [per year] back that they can apply for their health care and their pension contribution.” Politifact, which skews liberal, rated Walker’s calculations of how much workers could save “mostly true” after contacting unions and finding out how much they charged members annually.
Making union membership or portions of union dues voluntary has a track record of resulting in fewer employees’ paying. Consider Indiana, where Gov. Mitch Daniels signed an executive order limiting collective bargaining for state workers. In 2005, when Daniels signed the order, 16,408 state employees belonged to the union. Now 1,490 do.
Looking at states where “paycheck protection” has passed shows a similar pattern. Paycheck protection prohibits state and local governments from automatically deducting a portion of their employees’ wages to finance a union’s political contributions. While Supreme Court rulings, including the 1988 decision Communication Workers v. Beck, have established that union workers cannot be forced to pay the portion of their dues that would finance political activity and lobbying by the unions, it can be very difficult in practice to get that exemption unless the state has paycheck protection in place.
In 2006, a Heritage Foundation analysis found that after paycheck protection was passed, public-sector union donations to candidates declined by about 40 to 50 percent. Take Utah, which passed paycheck protection in 2001. In the following year, donations from the Utah Education Association declined by 75 percent, while the Utah Public Employees Association donated nothing that year, according to the Utah Taxpayers Association. In 2005, the UEA reported that only 6.8 percent of teachers were donating to the political arm of the union, down from 68 percent before the law.
Or look at Idaho, where paycheck protection went into effect in 2009. In 2008, public-sector unions spent around $184,000, according to the data provided by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. In 2010, they spent $157,000, a decrease of about 15 percent. Overall, public-sector unions accounted for just under 2 percent of the state’s campaign contributions that year, a drop from their 3.3 percent share in 2008.
Another sign that many union members likely aren’t happy with their forced unionization is the difference between union-membership rates in states with right-to-work laws, under which employees can refuse to join their companies’ unions or pay dues (though they’re still covered by the union contract), and in states without such laws. In right-to-work states, 6.5 percent of workers belong to a union, according to 2010 data from the Bureau of Labor. In the remaining states, the unionization rate is over twice that: 13.8 percent.
Polls also show that many union members disagree with Big Labor on politics. A March Rasmussen poll showed that 27 percent of public-sector union members consider themselves conservative and 17 percent Republican. The same month, a Gallup poll showed that between 24 and 27 percent of unionized government workers identified as Republican. Yet public-sector union PACS gave 92 percent of their federal donations last year to Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
And without any choice available to union members, it’s not even clear whether liberal members would spend their money the way the union does. They may prefer to donate to other causes or candidates, or to keep the money for themselves.
If Wisconsin public-sector employees want union representation, and if they agree with the unions’ political stances, they’ll continue to pay dues, and the unions will thrive. But if not, they will finally be able to opt out of subsidizing the electoral preferences of their union bosses.
Paycheck protection all sounds well and good but the unions realize their backs are to the wall. When that happens, violence of some kind usually occurs. Trumka and the other union thugs are certainly not above strong-arming (or worse) a few people in order to keep the status quo. Couple that with main stream media silence and the Holder Justice Department's demonstrated refusal to prosecute such actions and things may not change the way Trinko thinks they will.
Keeping ballots secret is essential. But I doubt there is any way to keep secret that a union worker did not pay his dues. The union will have the record of who paid.
But while people normally are cowed by threats of violence, they have to live with whatever their relationship with the union is. So far, the unions don't seem to be committing acts of violence toward those who opt out. When they do, then there may be enough cases for the DOJ to stop hiding its head in the sand. If not, the members also have the option of violence. When society does not protect its members, vigilantism often results.
You correctly state that around a fourth (probably more like a third) of union teachers are conservatives. Many of them voted for Walker and vote Republican, regardless that their union money goes to elect people they don't want.
On the other hand, many of those conservative teachers are now pretty upset with Walker. Some feel he overreached in trying to punish the union members, others don't like his anti-conservative crony capitalism plan to give away powerplants on no-bid contracts. Either way, many 'former' republicans will start to vote for their pocketbook rather than their principles.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, because many of these numbers aren't the slam dunk against unions that they seem at first.
For example, in a right-to-work state, you can reap all the union benefits without having to pay for them. In this situation, only die-hard union lovers will sacrifice their own money while the rest get a free ride. This doesn't mean that only extreme ideologues want unions, just that self-interested individuals won't pay for something they can get for free.
Unions, in their current form, must be destroyed, and I support all measures that work to that end. I just want to provide a dose of reality as well.
Can you provide some substance to your assertion that "many of those conservative teachers are now pretty upset with Walker"? I'd be interested to see it.
I know recent polls show that his popularity has dropped, but that's not the same thing as saying that CONSERVATIVES are upset with Walker. In reality, I think his support is battered by weeks of ugly protests and a torrent of misinformation and exaggeration. However, I doubt that the independents and conservatives that put Walker into office are ready to jump ship considering the fact that he promised to do exactly what he's done. Maybe it wasn't done in a way his supporters expected, which could cause some friction; but he campaigned on increasing the share that union members pay towards benefits and that's what he did. My personal belief is that your assertion is either projection or wishful thinking.
DKW:
If that's true, I have to admit that unions are getting screwed on that deal. If you don't pay your dues, you shouldn't enjoy the benefits of membership.
So, tax dollars flow to public sector unions via paycheck withholding. And...even though 20% of so of pub sector workers are conservative or republican,unions spend 92% of political support on Dems.
Sounds like public campaign financing.... for Democrats only!
For those of us who recall the union movement before the 70's, Labor Union members had traditionally been staunchly Democrat. But in the 70's the party's Leftist/socialist wing combined with the black liberation civil rights wing of the party to manifest a victim-class struggle mantra. That has driven what are now called blue-dog Democrats to the center-right of the Republican party. Public employee union members are just the most recent victim class of the Leftist Democrat party. Freedom loving patriots eventually figure out they're being used as victims and leave the union en mass.
RE DKW: not sure about right to work states specifically, but when I was in NJ gov't I invoked the Beck decision to opt out of paying for union activities unrelated to bargaining, about a 40% savings(thereabouts, it was long ago). That seems a fair result.
The problem is the default position; should covered employees have to opt in or opt out of funding union political activity? Non right-to-work states would tend to require opt-out, else they'd be right-to-work.
Thanks to sites like NRO, we're able to get info about Unionism that the mainstream media, such as AP, would not disclose. And for good reason. For example, look to see if there is an "Associated Press" credit at the start or end of an article. Because when it comes to issues affecting Union or Democrat party political power, know that the "news" that is from AP is written by a Union member of the News Media Guild, which is within the Newspaper Guild, which is within the Communication Workers of America. Google the CWA or the News Media Guild or the Newspaper Guild, and you'll see that they are all Unions actively pushing a very strong political agenda. If you just Google the Associated Press, you'll see a long sales pitch about how truthful they are in every respect--but no mention that AP is a Union. So their own website hides what they are.
I am a conservative member of a Postal union here in the heart of ground zero Wisconsin. The Post Office is an open shop, meaning you can choose to belong or not. Well over 90% choose to join nationally.The negotiated wage and benefits package is very good and Management can be pretty brutal trying to enforce "numbers" (Yes, Boss,it DOES take longer to deliver a route when the sidewalks, steps and porches are covered with ice and snow)
Hatch act protection means that the Union is unable to use my dues $ to contribute to socialists. The union, both national (radicals) and local (brain dead single issue types) constantly badger us to give to our Political Action Committee.A small percentage of the membership are active in union meetings, fewer still rallied in Madison.The office is evenly split between left and right, with the vast majority being completely apolitical. If dues withholding by the P.O were stopped, most of us would probably "forget" to send in our $50 a month.
As a non-teacher covered by the teachers contract in MN, I have to pay my 'fair share' of union dues even if I opt out of the union. My 'fair share' is 86% of the almost $700 a year. When I joined the union I had the option, presented in teeny-tiny type on the application to opt out of the political donations. I had to call an 800 number within 10 days of completing the application. I received a check for $10, but the option was not continued from year to year. The union has done nothing for me or my professional colleagues, but if I'm going to pay 86% of the dues anyway, I should at least get the insurance that is provided. What I have received from the union are credit card and insurance offers in my home mail almost daily - apparently my dues goes to paying for junk mail. I would opt out in a heartbeat if I had the chance.
@zapbrannigan1,
I am a teacher who voted for Walker, along with many of my cohorts who also lean Republican/conservative. In my school, out of the dozen or so teachers who voted for him, half won't do it again. I don't know if I will. I voted for Prosser though, because I vote on principle and not my pocketbook, and I have no time for liberal judges. However, on principle it is impossible to defend Walker's power play of letting government pick winners and losers when it comes to no-bid contracts. If Walker's not going to be a conservative, and just be a typical politician giving favors to people, then he'll lose me as well. All the so-called 'conservatives' seem to want to sweep his other actions under the rug.
Nobody is sweeping his other actions under the rug. It's just that it makes no sense to determine whether or not these union proposals are good or bad, based on his positions regarding no-bid contracts.
Two seperate issues. If the contracts are as bad as you say they are, see if you convince one of the editors here to start a thread on that subject, give us a chance to learn a little more about the subject, and we'll debate it.
Part of the reason unions were formed in the first place is because of conditions in so-called right to work states. For the working people of those states, the wages and benefits are lower, the working conditions are more dangerous, they have less legal protections and the standard of living is diminished.
In my opinion Unions at this point in time are still essential to ensure a fair treatment of workers and employees and always will be. A speculative side to unionization is the potential for the union to use its funding to essentially attain more power, via legislation promotion, or campaign endorsements, etc. When a union cares more about the union as an entity than the workers it was established to protect and serve ... its just wrong and it happens.
pdevlin: Any more union myths you feel like peddling today?
Working conditions have improved since the dawn of unions.
Working conditions have been improving since the dawn of time.
The idea that the unions are responsible for anything other than making the people who run them rich, and sending millions of jobs overseas, is laughable.
You know, as an advocate of unions, this is completely fine with me - as long as those who opt out of the union also agree to immediately renegotiate their contracts with the state, with the following as the starting points of the negotiation and the employee having to negotiate his/her salary, benefits, and protections up from there:
1. The employee shall be paid 20% below the state's base salary for a first-year employee, with no benefits and no pension plan.
2. The state has the ability to cut the pay of, suspend, or fire the newly-"free" employee without cause and without any due process, for no other reason than that his/her supervisor doesn't like her or a single constituent complains, whether or not those complaints have any merit.
3. The employee shall have absolutely no redress of grievances about working conditions, workplace safety, or any ill-treatment by his or her supervisor, and can in fact be fired (see item 2) for complaining about any of these.
If the employee can, by him- or herself, single-handedly and independently demonstrate his or her value to the state that he or she can negotiate his or her way up from these starting conditions, that's wonderful. But if they're not going to pay for the union, then they shouldn't receive the pay, benefits, due process rights, or protections that are afforded to them by the union. Fair is fair.
Follow
