And state governments dominated by Democrats tend to enact laws that force public sector employees to pay dues to unions who in turn support the Democrats at election time and who then make the laws that finance and support the public sector unions. The circle is unbroken, and the employees and taxpayers pay.
Meanwhile, the politicians and the union leaders smile --- maybe even laugh. But not always and not all the time. To repeat, Democratic politicians depend on the support of unions and especially public sector unions, to support them at election time. In turn, those same candidates after election will support the unions. And the employees will pay, as will the taxpayers.
Here's how it works. For this game of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, otherwise free to choose employees in the public sector are often forced by state law to pay tribute, aka dues, to the public sector unions purporting to represent them in their battles against We the People, aka the government employer.
In public sector union elections, it's not the majority of employees affected that decides whether a union represents employees. To the contrary, it's the number of employees voting. Thus, if 21% of the 100% of all eligible voting members want a union and only 40% of eligible members vote, the union wins. That means the employees 'win the privilege' of paying the dues and the politicians supporting the care and feeding of public sector unions get elected and supported financially. Get the picture?
Let's look at a real world example of what happens when employees are free to choose whether to pay dues to public sector unions. Michigan and home health-care workers serve as a great example of politics in action and what good government and free choice can mean to previously coerced dues paying union members --- and taxpayers too.
Michigan Union Collapse is subtitled 'SEIU membership fell 80% in a year once it wasn't coerced:'
"The conceit of the modern union movement is that workers would be clamoring to join if the rules weren't rigged in favor of employers. The reality is closer to the opposite. Witness what happened in Michigan, where new data show that workers fled the Service Employees International Union Healthcare affiliate when their membership was no longer coerced.
Democrats gave the SEIU a huge membership gift in 2005 when then-Governor Jennifer Granholm allowed more than 40,000 home-care workers to be unionized. The majority of the workers were independent contractors or family members who care for disabled relatives at home. But because the workers received Medicaid subsidies, they were suddenly reclassified as "public" employees for the purposes of unionization.
In early 2005, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission set a vote-by-mail election for home-care workers. According to the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, of a total of some 41,000 workers who could join the new collective-bargaining unit, there were 6,949 votes to join the SEIU and 1,007 opposed to the unionization. The union did a victory dance and began collecting dues.
Then in 2012 Michigan state lawmakers passed legislation that excluded home-care workers from the state's definition of public employees. The bottom has since fallen out of SEIU Healthcare's membership. According to reports filed with the Department of Labor, in 2012 SEIU Healthcare Michigan reported 55,265 members. In 2013 the number fell to 10,918, a loss of 44,347 union members, or about 80%. . . .
A challenge to the Illinois version is currently being heard by the Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn, a case that could end the coercive arrangements nationwide.
The schemes were promoted by Democrats, who then benefitted when union chiefs spent their mandatory dues windfall on electing more . . . Democrats. The Wolverine state's collective-bargaining agreement allowed the SEIU to take home 2.75% of a home health-care provider's Medicaid compensation. From 2006 when the dues vacuuming began until 2012 when state lawmakers voted to end it, the union sucked up more than $34 million from Michigan health-care workers. But as membership has fallen, so has the cash. According to the Labor Department filings, the union took in $7,119,322 in dues and fees in 2013, down from $12,078,838 in 2012.
Michigan passed a right-to-work law in 2012, making union membership voluntary across the state for all public workers. Before the law passed, the state workforce was 17.5% unionized. It is going to be fascinating to see how much that number declines now that workers have a right to choose."
Summing Up
State right-to-work laws give employees the freedom to choose whether to belong to unions and whether to pay union dues or not.
Public sector unions are a cozy and dependable back scratching ally of the Democratic party.
As a result, public employees and taxpayers are often forced to pay, even if they would otherwise choose not to pay. Political back scratching is expensive, and the bill isn't paid by the politicians.
We the People are forced to pay for the government we don't want, and their public sector union cronies laugh all the way to the bank in far too any cases.
It's time the various governments started working for us, and it's time to stop coercing government employees to pay dues to the public sector unions, aka the politicians' partners in crime.
That's my take.
Thanks. Bob.
Well Bob, that was quite a rant. Assuming your numbers are correct, that worked out to $88.00 a year per member. People probably pay more every year for AAA or Starbuck coffee than that. In any case, since the union is not a volunteer organization, it does take money to do their job. Do you work for free Bob?
ReplyDeleteI am a union member and I pay hundreds to my union and am perfectly happy doing so.
What you fail to point out is that unions are advocates for the working person and help both the middle class and working poor to hope for better and to have a say in their futures. While I am sure there are socially conscious employers out there, most are in it for the money. Any money they pay you is money they would rather have in their own pocket. It is like a tug of war with you on one end and the corporation on the other end. You by yourself will always loose. If you have a union on your side though, you have better odds of either holding your ground or maybe even pulling some of the money your way. Wal-Mart is a great example. The majority of their workers make very little money even as the corporation is one of the wealthiest. Wal-Mart is non-union (some would say anti-union).
Giving money to candidates: Well what unions give is a small fraction compared to what large corporations give to candidates. Unfortunately, our political system is set up in such a way that if you don’t contribute, you don’t get anywhere fast. The unions are just doing their jobs in trying to defend the workers and their quality of life. If they simply took in your dues and let them sit in a bank and build up to an enormous amount of money then you would be crying that they didn’t spend the money.
I have no problem with employees voluntarily paying dues to unions if that's their choice to do so.
DeleteI do have huge problems with government and unions teaming up to force employees to pay dues to unions.
What I advocate for all employees is simply called freedom of choice.
Thanks. Bob.