« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

When States Stop From Being Union Bosses’ Dues Collection Agencies

One of the big unspoken fights in Wisconsin over these past few weeks has been Scott Walker’s proposal for the state to stop collecting union dues for the unions. The other has been to make paying union dues voluntary, as opposed to requiring payment as a condition of employment. To unions, that is like cutting their oxygen off. Unions cannot survive without the millions they pull in from workers and, if they had their druthers, union bosses would rather see workers fired than have them refuse to pay union dues.

Generally speaking, there are three ways for unions to collect union dues. The first is that union bosses can chase their members down on payday with their hands out; the second is that members can send the union its dues (or pay it in person); and, the third is that unions can convince employers to withhold the union dues from the members’ paychecks (employers then send the money to the unions). In this last case, which known as “dues check off,” employers becomes the unions’ dues collection agency. It is very common and, of course, union bosses love not having to spend the resources going to collect their own dues.

Well, earlier today, the Florida State House voted to stop the state from being unions’ dues collection agency.

Following the latest firefight between Democrats and Republicans, the GOP-dominated House OK’d legislation Friday that would bar state and local governments from collecting payroll deductions for union dues.

[snip]

“There are other ways for unions to collect their dues that don’t involve state resources,” Dorworth said. On the Senate side, a former Florida Republican Party, Sen. John Thrasher, is sponsoring the measure.

The House approved the measure in a mostly party-line, 73-40 vote. The Senate bill (CS/SB 830) has at least one more committee stop before facing a full vote.

Of course, union bought Democrats in Florida (though they haven’t fled the state…yet) are fuming.

“Do not put lipstick on this elephant,” said Rep. Janet Cruz, D-Tampa, adding the measure, “is about silencing the voices of working men and women.”

The measure also allows public employee union members to demand a refund of dollars spent on any union political activity with which they didn’t agree.

Unions don’t like that last provision either—demanding a refund for money spent on politics—since it well, you know, let’s them get more union-bought Democrats elected.

Unfortunately for unions and their de facto labor party, when they’ve become so dependent on politics that their very existence relies on government, people eventually wake up to the game.

America is awake now.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • AF Sarge (Ret)

    I would love to see my mandatory, confiscated dues put to better use than electing more democrats. But then where would they get their money to get elected?

    Sarge

    • carolina

      After Washington State voters passed a paycheck protection law in 1992, the Washington teachers union started sending members

    • carolina

      After Washington State voters passed a paycheck protection law in 1992, the Washington teachers union started sending members

  • donnybrooke

    Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

    “Sound the news from the din of battle booming,
    Tell the people far and wide that better times are coming!”

  • Darin_H

    Because we elected enough Republicans that it doesn’t matter. I’m not fully versed in how the legislature operates, but we have enough Republicans that we don’t even need the Governor’s signature on anything. Yes we turned FL bright red last Nov. We swept every statewide office and got a veto-proof majority in the legislature. Believe me, if the Democrats could stop this by any means (running away, filibuster, wetting their beds) they would have. More proof that elections have consequences.

  • Wes_W

    Great line! Thank you for the laugh.

    • Wes_W

      nt

    • manfred

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwzBuN7jfjw

  • victrola

    If this issue is explained to the public and polled, I’d bet 3/4 of the public supports it, and the other 1/4th is afraid there might be a union goon setting them up. There really is no reason to not move forward, it’s good public policy and has popular support.

    Republican legislatures need to take care of this cancer as quick as possible.

    A great example would be, imagine if a company like Exxon Mobil automatically took money out of employees’ paychecks and funneled it into conservative causes and candidates. People would understandably be raging mad, but it’s really no different from Unions do every day.

    • carolina

      In recent years Utah and Idaho, among other states, have passed

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    before they decided to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the democratic party. Payback is a bitch.

    • edwyrd

      This is what George Meany said, paraphrasing, when unions become identified with a single political party, it will mean their end. Inasfaras the American voter can catagorically vote anti- union at the polls.

  • uselogic

    ….

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport
    • blooch

      Triangle Shirtwaist Fire Anniversary! Robber Barons! Eugene H. Krabs–I mean, um…Eugene V. Debs!

  • earlgrey

    more about how much these union officials and fatcats make? Let’s keep in mind they do absolutely nothing but skim money off of the checks of public employees to the detrmient of taxpayers, but I have heard about the salaries of CEOs everytime I turn around. Why aren’t conservatives talking about how much these leeches make?

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport
  • GregInFla

    then the members will gladly pay their dues. What are the union leaders worried about?

    • Adjoran

      Heh.

      It’s the same principle as tax withholding – the majority of taxpayers still look at their tax refunds as new money, unable to wrap their brains around the fact that much more has been deducted from their checks.

      If you never see the money, you don’t really miss the money.

      If this idea can be spread and implemented, 90% of public service union members are going to be shocked at how much they are paying. Who in their right mind will write a check if they have a choice?

  • dajeeps

    But I don’t think there is any kind of cohesive leardership explaining principles behind it and it has turned into an impression that it is all about Republican union busting, when it isn’t really the case. It’s about curing inefficiencies and structural problems in the economy in which the taxpayers are at the end of the food chain. And of course these kinds of situations not only affect tax bills, they have an impact upon the economic landscape around them in just the fact that they contribute to consumption rather expansion of the economic base.

    I don’t think anyone argues that workers don’t have rights, or that they should be treated that way, but then those supposed rights infringe upon the right of the public to pursue happiness by negatively impacting the macroeconomic lanscape, it’s a problem. The last thing we need is to leave distortions in the labor market in place, and nothing does that more than unionized civil employees and undue labor regulations in general.

    One last general thought about this controversey is that it’s a real head-scratcher how Democrats claim to be the party of the little guy, and of the workers, why is it that they only really care about the 18% of the national workforce that IS unionized. One would think they would embrace neo-liberal reforms that benefit the other 82% of the working population by flushing the inefficiencies out of the labor market so we can get it functioning again. But of course it really isn’t about the little guy, or workers – is it?

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    I was trying to figure out how to capture that union guy with cigar wonderful animation.

  • gawken

    As a Florida resident, I’m very happy with this legislation. I would somewhat disagree with LUR’s statement that the “unspoken big fight in WI” has been about the dues check-off. Far more important in the Wisconsin battle is the elimination of the closed shop, AND the requirement that every year the union win a majority election to continue its representation. When these are passed, I predcit that within a few years, union membership, and cash flow into the union treasury, will drop by 50%

    The Florida bill doesn’t address any of these vital issues. Will they do so next year? Did they purposefully decide to take smaller bites at the apple? Can we begin to make am assessment as to which strategy might be best for the future in other states?