"Closed Shop" in the Public Sector
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:35 pm
One of Governor Walker’s (R - Wis). initiatives that caused the recent kerfuffle was to make the state an “open-shop” employer, and stop collecting union dues from employee paychecks. Since that initiative was implemented, about half of the state employee union members have resigned from their unions and stopped paying dues. This begs the question of why they would do that.
(a) There are many cheap bastards among them. They want the benefits of union representation, but don’t want to pay for it. Or maybe they think the union dues are too high; the cost/benefit relationship is not satisfactory.
(b) Some government employees (and other humans) simply don’t want to be members of a union. They are comfortable with the structure of government employment – pay scales and benefits are fixed, and most promotions and perqs are distributed on the basis of seniority. But they really have no desire to be union members.
(c) They object to some of the activities and expenses (presumably political ones) that are paid for out of their union dues, and want to express their displeasure by withdrawing. I know several people who are unionized government employees (my daughter-in-law is a public school teacher), and they are, if not “conservative Republicans,” then at least moderate and some of them are very critical of the strident and extreme political positions taken by their unions, and resentful of the political donations that they are involuntarily funding.
If this initiative spreads to other states the effect on public-sector unions will be devastating. They have large staffs, huge budgets, and a way of doing things that is quite costly. It will change the political landscape considerably, as donations and in-kind work for Democrat candidates and causes will be significantly impacted.
Nice, huh?
(a) There are many cheap bastards among them. They want the benefits of union representation, but don’t want to pay for it. Or maybe they think the union dues are too high; the cost/benefit relationship is not satisfactory.
(b) Some government employees (and other humans) simply don’t want to be members of a union. They are comfortable with the structure of government employment – pay scales and benefits are fixed, and most promotions and perqs are distributed on the basis of seniority. But they really have no desire to be union members.
(c) They object to some of the activities and expenses (presumably political ones) that are paid for out of their union dues, and want to express their displeasure by withdrawing. I know several people who are unionized government employees (my daughter-in-law is a public school teacher), and they are, if not “conservative Republicans,” then at least moderate and some of them are very critical of the strident and extreme political positions taken by their unions, and resentful of the political donations that they are involuntarily funding.
If this initiative spreads to other states the effect on public-sector unions will be devastating. They have large staffs, huge budgets, and a way of doing things that is quite costly. It will change the political landscape considerably, as donations and in-kind work for Democrat candidates and causes will be significantly impacted.
Nice, huh?