In the scheme of the worst thing ever that will end the world, the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME owned it for maybe an hour. Having already explained why public sector unions shouldn’t exist at all, my antipathy toward them means I will cry no tears for the hardship Janus will cause.
The Janus ruling threatens to diminish them further. State and local public-sector workers in collective bargaining states are unionized at a rate of 53.7 percent, but the decision could end up reducing union membership by 8.2 percentage points.
Workers will have to reconstruct this countervailing power and find new ways to build solidarity. We’re going to have to get bold again.
Note Bryce Covert’s use of the word “we.” She’s not a public sector employee. She’s not part of any “we,” because if she was, she wouldn’t write such tripe. Once a union seizes control of a collective bargaining unit, it owns its members, who are forced to pay agency fees by employer deduction from paychecks. In Agency Shop states, the employees may not be members, but they pay nonetheless under the theory that they get the benefit of union representation and shouldn’t be permitted to freeride.
Unions didn’t arise out of nowhere, but out of the desires of employees for collective representation. If unions fail to serve their members, then there’s no reason for them to exist, and certainly no reason for them to enjoy forced payment of dues from unwilling employees. This is doubly so when the use of union dues went toward supporting candidates whom union members were against, supporting laws that employees found repugnant, supporting speech that employees had to pay for but rejected.
The Abood decision was supposed to fix some of that, but it was at best half a loaf, and at worst a sham. Unions could charge non-members for their collective bargaining services, but not for their ideological promotion. Except that the employees were charged for everything from the big building the union owned to the business agent’s Porsche, freeing up money to spend on condemning Israel and buying legislators votes to maintain union power.
If unions can no longer force unwilling employees to pay their dues, is this a travesty for workers? Shills and the terminally insipid use warm and fuzzy words like “solidarity” to cover the problem. If workers wanted unions, they would want to pay their dues. The reason union membership is feared to drop precipitously isn’t that workers are greedy freeriders.
After all, the workers are the very people for whom unions exist. Or at least did at the time the notion was born and the labor movement was popular. Unions and their fellow travelers seem to forget that part, that unions have no reason to exist beyond serving workers. If workers don’t want to support unions, then there’s your answer.
There will be all sorts of efforts to workaround Janus. Already, California has a law in the works to overcome the rule, at the expense of workers, naturally. Other ideas, like trying to redesignate public employees to private, or states reducing its employees’ wages and paying off unions with “contract administration fees.”
Politicians have a huge incentive to fund unions, as unions return the love in campaign contributions. Sometimes this inures to the benefit of workers, such as cop unions getting laws protecting cops, or prison guard unions getting more people put in prison to assure no loss of jobs. Sometimes it’s just about unions protecting their own existence.
But what would happen if these efforts to circumvent forced union payments fails? Imagine:
Without forced contributions, unions will have to work harder to serve their members and give them value for their voluntary dues.
Sounds kind of…American.
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) June 27, 2018
Serving their members? Providing value for the money they suck out of public employees’ paychecks? This could bring about a paradigm shift in how unions and workers relate, no longer unions having grown from a group of employees banding together to have the collective power to negotiate on equal terms with their governmental employers, but independent monsters existing apart from employer and employee alike. Yet extracting fees from the unwilling for purposes they find anathema and “services” that fail to serve.
If public sector unions want to continue to exist, let them earn the willingness of workers to pay dues. Let them return to caring more about their members than their power to control politicians, go on ideological spending-sprees and gas up their union-given cars.
And should public sector unions cease to exist, become impoverished to the point that my old classmate, Randi Weingarten*, has to get a real job, it won’t be because Janus killed them, but because they committed suicide when they failed to serve workers and earn their loyalty, dedication and, yes, voluntary payment of dues. If workers don’t love unions enough to pay dues, then unions have no reason to exist. That’s on them.
*Randi is president of the American Federation of Teachers, for which she earns a salary of $543,150. There are a lot of third-grade teachers who don’t do nearly as well.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Solidarity indeed.
I’ve been a member of a public sector union, the Laborers Union, headed then by our esteemed president Angelo Fosco. Fuggedaboutit.
I’ve been in the union hall when a strike vote was taken. I’ve been on strike. I walked a picket line.
The public sector unions exist for two reasons: to provide a most comfortable living for the union leadership, and to protect the job of the worst workers in the Local. To do this, they buy as many politicians who will allow them to do so.
After beginning work for the city street department, I was quickly chastised by the union steward for working too hard and too quickly. “You’re gonna wear out that shovel, son.”
Solidarity forever.
As a former fair-share member, I am happy to see this ruling. $372 of my $40,553 salary went to agency fees. What did I get in return? I got an incompetent union negotiation in which our exclusive representative was unaware of the basic facts of the budget and inflation. What else did I get? Well, other than paying for the union president’s Porsche, I got the privilege of not being permitted to vote for union officers. Yes, despite being forced to pay for my “fair-share,” I had no ability to vote for the people who were “representing” me in the negotiation. And, of course, when the union endorsed the very elected officials who were maintaining our horrendous salaries and working conditions, I had no avenue to express my displeasure. I’m still trying to comprehend how the names “agency” fees and “fair-share” fees came about. Good for Justice Kagan and her belief that the 1st. Amd. was “meant for better things.” I want my $1,116 back.
Just be patient.
That’s not a particularly high fee, though flushing $372 down the toilet still isn’t any fun.
I believe the full dues were 1% of salary. Regardless, based on their performance, they knew not to ask for more.
my old classmate, Randi Weingarten*
Which remedial subject was that?
Puppy Cloning 101.
In the linked NYT piece Bryce Covert claims that public sector unions are important because of “the enormous power corporations now hold.”
This is nonsense; public sector employees don’t work for corporations. Why is the NYT pushing such a stupid argument? It is because they have nothing else. There is no legitimate reason for public sector unions to exist. Government employees don’t need to be protected from enormously powerful corporations. They (in theory) provide services to the public and their wages come from our tax dollars. The only purpose of public sector unions is to take advantage of the fact that nobody is there to oppose them. They negotiate salary increases and juicy benefits with people who have no horse in the race. Nobody represents the taxpayers. This is why prison guards end up making $100K/year.
In the long run, public employees would be better off without unions. The existing system is not sustainable. Many of those juicy retirement promises will have to be broken; the money is just not there, unless the Fed prints it, in which case they will be buying 3 cans of dog food with that retirement check.
Yes, they have nothing else. As I’ve discussed before (see links), the concept is a complete failure in the public sector.
“Other ideas, like trying to redesignate public employees to private, or states reducing its employees’ wages and paying off unions with “contract administration fees.””
If the states start paying the union dues, then who will the unions be working for?
Themselves, as now.
Elementary school teachers make musch less than police and prison guards. They’ve been pretty public about their discontent in recent months.
And what the hell does that have to do with anything? Focus.
Dear Papa,
I know thinking on the basis of class is anathema to you, but the death of unions even in their current state isn’t something to be celebrated. Flawed as they are, unions are the only bulwark against employer abuse, regardless of whether the employer is the government. Allowing employers to divide and conquer will usher in something old and workers aren’t going to like it very much. The only hope workers had and have is to bargain as a unit.
Stupid, vulgar individualism ruins everything. Where’s my One Big Union to stand in opposition to all of this? Oh right, it died alone a long, long time ago.
Best,
PK
If true, then workers will support their union. If not, they won’t. Problem solved.
If a leaner, meaner union arises from this, then maybe. Otherwise, I’ll be getting my floats ready for the parade of horribles.
I get why people think a parade of horrible can happen (again) in private employment, sans unions. There’s a desire to keep the money and the management actually gets to do that if they don’t pay the
union membersemployees. But why will the parade of horrible happen in the public sector?Is the desire to offer tax relief so great that reps will sacrifice services people like? If the jobs can’t get filled, they will go to private sector jobs that pay less mostly due to lack of pensions & gold plated benefits (where unions would still exist). If the jobs are filled, they are going to be getting salaries necessary to keep people in the positions.
Take cops as an example — if gov’t lowers the pay of cops below average, they aren’t going to be getting people that could find jobs elsewhere. They will likely only find the one’s that have been bumped around from other departments. Is that what a pol would want? Is that what a community would stand for come reelection time? For a few bucks in savings on a ledger sheet?
So, I really want to ask the “parade of horribles” folks… where does the parade start?