As has been noted in this space over the last few days, the most important of Scott Walker’s proposals is to stop the automatic collection of public-sector union dues by state government. With this proposal, Walker wants to do public workers a favor — they can decide whether they want to hand over a portion of their paycheck to the unions or not. What’s not to like? Walker is offering freedom of choice and potentially a substantial savings — roughly $1,000 a year for teachers — to public workers. I write about this today:
When the Wisconsin General Assembly voted to pass Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill, the Democratic legislators made themselves indistinguishable from the protestors surrounding the assembly floor.
They wore the same pro-union orange T-shirts. They behaved in the same sophomoric way, breaking out in a noisy, finger-pointing demonstration. They chanted the same ubiquitous word: “Shame!” They might as well have brought guitars onto the floor for a Woody Guthrie sing-along and touted “Walker = Hitler” signs.
In Wisconsin, it’s less that Democrats act to protect a special interest than that they belong to a special interest. A complete identification has long existed among state government, the public-sector unions, and the Democratic party. By seeking to break up this powerful, self-dealing nexus, Walker is “assaulting,” in President Barack Obama’s formulation, a partisan political machine dependent on the state for its functioning.
The dues issue is THE issue.
The union's power revolves around their ability to reliably garner a flow of money to assure their political protectors of union campaign financing clout.
Once this power source is unplugged from a reliable source into the more fickle hands of individual members the unions ability to corruptly influence politics becomes questionable, at best. Union leaders will now have to persuade members that their efforts DESERVE support.
Power in the hands of the people? Geez, that sounds awfully "liberal", doesn't it? Isn't this more "fair"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow isn't this a winning issue for conservatives with union members?
Rich,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for clarifying this. Many commentators leave out the pieces that you included in your article.
As stated by Rich, Walker's proposal doesn't do away with forcing those who don't want to join a union to not to, it does away with the state automatically collecting the dues. Something entirely different.
WHY SHOULD TAXPAYERS PAY FOR UNION DUES COLLECTION? This is a cost that should be born by the union itself. Now if the union wants the state, county, municipality, or school district to collect dues, then the union should pay us a collection fee. I would think 50% of the dues collected would be fair. If the unions think that excessive, I might go down to 25%.
Now if the outcome of the state or whoever not automatically collecting and the union directly collecting causes a drop in membershi, well, I'm not going to cry over that result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhats missing in all of this tripe is that we (taxpayers/bosses) are supposed to be recipients of the services provided by government employees. We decided in the election that the Management needed to rein in cost and thus elected a new management team to do that. I don't give a rats ass about collective bargaining or who pays or doesn't pay dues. I'm the boss and I want cost cutting from all departments. If you don't like it find another job. We, I repeat we should decide conditions of employment for those being payed with our tax dollars.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow's does dues collection help balance the budget? These are the fine print items that take away from his argument. Another point that erodes Walkers credibility is that all of these rules would not apply to the only two unions that endorsed him. It’s a shrewd political move but the purpose is not to help anyone except himself and his political party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse