When given a choice union members choose not to pay dues

This is only a portion of the WSJ report on Wisconsin union members finally thinking for themselves. They are choosing to leave the union.
WSJ Report-Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers—fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme's figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.

Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.

A provision of the Walker law that eliminated automatic dues collection hurt union membership. When a public-sector contract expires the state now stops collecting dues from the affected workers' paychecks unless they say they want the dues taken out, said Peter Davis, general counsel of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission.

In many cases, Afscme dropped members from its rolls after it failed to get them to affirm they want dues collected, said a labor official familiar with Afscme's figures. In a smaller number of cases, membership losses were due to worker layoffs.

Now they could continue to pay dues if they wished, and if they believed the union was worth it, they would. Apparently they are tired of being forced to pay and are now choosing not to.

No votes yet

If there's one thing a union hates, it's real liberty: The liberty to avoid them.

I hear the recall effort in Wisconsin isn't working out so well for the union forces. I wonder why? Aren't the unions for the Golden Class "for the people"? LOL!

I'm the 90%. I'm not in the 1% rich, and I'm not in the 10% Golden Class. And I want both the 1% and the 10% to keep their mitts off my fucking government before the shooting starts.

Liberals like the words compulsory, mandatory, required, etc. It's a power grab for them. The unions honchos like those same words. No wonder they're sleeping in the same bed together. The state workers in Wisconsin are thrilled they don't have to cough up their earnings to these louts any longer.

toledojim

I'm in one of those situations where--although I have chosen not to join the union--I still have to pay $600 per year in dues.

If Ohio becomes a right-to-work state, it will be an automatic $600 raise for me!

The survey by Public Policy Polling shows Walker leading Barrett, 50% to 47%. Those numbers are down from a poll taken last week by Marquette University Law School, which showed the embattled Republican leading by seven points.
Wisconsin voters go to the polls tomorrow in a recall election that has national implications. USA TODAY's Judy Keen has a preview in today's editions.

What will happen after the votes are counted- If Walker retains his seat it will be because the Koch brothers and other right wing groups flooded Wi. with ads that changed people's minds. If Barret wins it will be because the people don't want to see the union busting austerity measures Walker put in place. I'd love to talk to someone who actually changed their mind about who they were voting for based on a tv ad. I know I wouldn't, would any of you?

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I read this article this morning. It comes from a PPP press release where they do a big no no among pollsters.

They compare their poll to the marquette poll to show the race is tightening.

Statisticians will note that this is comparing two separate samples which is an indicator of nothing. Now had PPP compared it to the average of the other polls it would be much more scientific but right now it reaks of attempting to control the narrative to drive a certain result.

Instead one should compare to PPP's poll to their last poll which should have followed the same methodology and poll subject makeup. There Walker led 50-45. Thus a 50-47 result now could be statistical noise and isn't really a slam dunk indicator of a tightening race.

Plus when you look at the internals of the poll you see Walker breaking away in key demographics like Men, and Seniors while Barrett hasn't pulled away from Walker in groups like 18-30 yr olds.

But at this point the polls are meaningless. The story for the next 24 hours should be did the unions use their money wisely toward building a good ground game to influence turnout or is GOP enthusiasm as high as it was in 2010?

If I made a prediction on this race I'd say Walker by an identical margin he won on in 2010 since this recall is complete b.s. and partisan.

MikeyA

Hey, let's just cut to the chase and get rid of all the unions. Since tax cuts for the rich all these years haven't pleased enough "job creators", maybe we should get rid of the unions and see if that makes them happy. Hell, China doesn't need unions and look at how well they are doing. I'll bet if we acted like China, where a person can be jailed for starting a union, we could get those "job creators" to come and trickle down on us a little. Sure it would be oppressive, but think of how great it would be for business.

Cry me a river

Yes, let's. There's no need for a public union, since both sides of the "negotiation" table are self-serving. Government jobs already offer a host of advantages that unions claim they want. And we the people don't deserve to have unions running up government costs, which hits us in our taxes.

I don't care about private unions; they can do whatever they want, in free negotiation with employers. But public unions are such a farce that they should have long been illegal.

At any rate, union members themselves are fleeing their unions. Why not tell them they are being foolish? Oh wait, wasn't the Liberal Narrative on this that union members knew best? How confusing! LOL!

As of 11pm EST today, CBS is calling Gov. Walker the winner of the Wisconsin recall election. About a 60/40 split. Around here, that would be DECISIVE.

So how are you going to spin this loss of yours, Liberals? JSonline is reporting this that pointless contest of yours (my words) will require the expense of over $60 million from all candidates. Look at what you wasted, you union shits.

Money well spent.

It's very telling that with the high turnout, which pundits assumed would favor Democrats, that the GOP would pull out and even expand on the 2010 numbers.

With 97.7% reporting Walker increased his vote totals from 2010 by 155K. Barrett increased his 2010 vote total by 100K.

In heavily Democratic Dane County Barrett outpaced his 2010 total by about 1%. That means he got clobbered statewide. The one that shocks me is how badly Barrett did in the Eastern part of the state. From North to South he got beaten badly with only Kenosha County did he have any significant gains.

What this proves is the GOP ground game is effective in Wisconsin. Some suggested not only does this indicate WI is in play for Nov but Mich as well. I think it bodes more for Iowa and PA for Romney.

This caps off another bad week for the President and now he has to contend with more bad headlines. Not good when this fight could have been avoided. Walker will now inch up in VP talk.

The Dems are trying to spin this by saying it was only because of money. If that were true then some of the GOP State Senators would have lost their recall bids. Of those all surpassed Walker/Kleefisch's totals. Clearly the electorate didn't support recalling politicians who have done nothing but govern on the platform they ran on.

MikeyA

This article is a perfect example of right wing propaganda. It's purpose is to lead one to believe that "when given a choice, union members choose not to pay dues", as if all along union members didn't believe their unions were "worth it". A better title for this piece might be: "When Walker limited collective bargaining, union members could no longer get the value from their unions"
A union is not social club, Fred. People belong to unions because of their ability to negotiate. Take away a union's negotiating power and you are bound to see membership drop. Union dues are not getting paid for the simple reason that Walker killed a large part of their worth. It's not because "they(union members) are tired of being forced to pay and are now choosing not to". This article is pure propaganda. You should have recognized it as such.

The unionists in Wisconsin never lost the ability to negotiate. How many times does this have to be said?

All they "lost" was the legal force to get the employer to the table. That's it. But that should never have been a right anyway. They can still attempt to negotiate outside of that line of force. And we'd find out the truth: The government won't bother to show up. Why should it? Unionized employees are too expensive and the government should be cutting compensation instead of the standard wage, benefits and pension increases that the Golden Class has unmeritedly received in the past.

The truth is that unionists in government are spectacularly overcompensated and if their jobs were thrown open to the market they would be quickly replaced by more competent people working for less money. That's ARMAGEDDON as far as unionists are concerned.

In the nation today, pensions should be summarily canceled. They are impossibly expensive to support. Nobody in business or government can afford to offer them. This is one of the things that has to be fixed in union jobs.

There has been no truer statement on SB than this one:
"The truth is that unionists in government are spectacularly overcompensated and if their jobs were thrown open to the market they would be quickly replaced by more competent people working for less money."

MikeyA

Actually Zero, you are wrong. Many of Wisconsin's public- sector union members lost their ability to bargain for health benefits and pension. Plus, their ability to bargain over wages was limited, though not taken away completely. The police and firefighters were strategically exempt because Walker knew they would have more sympathy from the public.
Give me a link to your source. I would like to see what you read that makes you think the way you do.

No, you're the one who's wrong. The unionized workers can always band together and demand more benefits and pensions. Nobody can take that "right" away, since EVERYONE has that ABILITY.

The difference now is that there's no legal force to get the employer to the table over the issue.

That's it. And that's the ultimate point: Nobody has the right to force an employer to negotiate. He should always have the right/ability to simply REFUSE.

So, if you want a link to what I read or know, trying googling up "natural law". You'll get an eyeful, considering your current level of staggering ignorance.

The sun has finally been dawning over Wisconsin. If only we'd have the same sort of new day here in Ohio.

Well, I guess people have the right to talk to brick walls if they want to, but that doesn't constitute bargaining.
Don't you realize the very definition of bargaining requires at least two parties be involved? Your argument side steps this basic fact. You are twisting the truth and changing the language to make it seem as though no bargaining ability was lost in Wisconsin. Are you just trying to be obtuse, or did you get this idea from somewhere else? Beware of those who change the language to suit their agenda.

Of course it's bargaining. There is no basis in natural law to force people to both: (1) sit at a table and (2) accept demands from the other side*. Refusal to participate is part of the natural set of actions of participating, much like the null set is a natural element of all other sets.

Like I said, the unions in Wisconsin still have the ability to march down to their capitol together and demand to be heard about wanted increases in benefits and pensions. They always had that ability, and they still have it. So nothing therein changed... except the absurd ability to force the other side to do things that are against their rights under natural law. Really, nothing real was lost here. In fact, there was actually a real gain: The government employer regained the right to negotiate naturally... said natural negotiation process including the option to refuse to meet over the issues at hand.

You need to stop blathering here about things you CLEARLY don't understand, and hie thee thy arse down to the library to read up on what "natural law" is. You know, the rights of man.

* This is more than the force of meeting. This also involved the legal ability to force the employer to accept the results of arbitration. In effect, the union and the arbitrator could gang up on the employer. Stop pretending you don't know that critical part of the matter.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.