« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Dues checkoff: the true issue at stake in Wisconsin.

I understand why Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin is couching the Left’s tantrum (H/T: Instapundit) over the Wisconsin budget bill in terms of having public sector employees contribute more of their fair share to health care and restricting harmful collective bargaining practices; both sides of the issue are publicly and politely pretending that this were the central issues. Only, they were not. Oh, sure, limiting collective bargaining via statute (which makes it harder to reverse) is a clear and present danger to the ability of organized labor to keep its leadership fat and happy; nobody’s debating that, although some (dumb) people would dispute my depiction of said leadership. But the real problem with the bill for the Democrats is much simpler:

The ending of automatic dues checkoff for public sector unions in Wisconsin.

Mickey Kaus – a Democrat who hates organized labor in a way that I, the son and grandson of good union men, simply cannot – called this provision “arguably the change unions fear the most” – and he’s right, except for the “arguably” part. Simply put, what automatic checkoff does is make it trivially easy for unions to collect dues: the employer (in this case, the state government) simply deducts the money from an union member’s pay and sends it along. No fuss, no muss, no debate… it’s just one more thing that the government takes from your paycheck. This turns the collection of union dues into a guaranteed revenue stream (instead of the colossal pain in the neck that such things usually are); most people don’t even notice, frankly. And it’s from union dues that unions get the money that they use for political advocacy*.

And it’s something that public sector unions will not voluntarily give up. If you look at the way that the situation in Wisconsin resolved, the triggering mechanism was when the Democrats announced that there would be no further negotiations, and the Republicans shrugged and passed the bill in response. Given the concessions actually being offered, this might seem surprising on the Democrats’ part – after all, at this point any concession by Wisconsin Republicans would have met at least moderate hostility from the Right – until you realize that the concessions did not address structural changes on the level of making the unions collect their own [mild expletive deleted] dues, and it’s not the government’s problem if they can’t. The Republicans refused to make any concessions there at all – and when it comes right down to it, they obviously didn’t have to. Which is something that Wisconsin Democrats abruptly learned last night.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Which is, by the way, mostly being used on the behalf of Democrats, at a ratio far out of sync with how their members vote.

COMMENTS

  • brooklyncon

    Right on about the dues checkoff, but it goes beyond that…

    Since the 1980′s Wisconsin (not the “50 years of precedent the left claims) union officials could require government workers pay them dues or fees or be fired. Walkers bill ends that (except for police and firefighters).

    Losing the combination of forced dues (and automatic collection at tax payer expense) is what unions are so scared of. Without forced dues, they’ll have to consider “what would my members think of me spending their money on this” instead of knowing they’ll continue to pay because they want to keep their job. .

  • acat

    This forces union shop stewards, at least some of the time, into the role of debt collectors… and if the union doesn’t have a reason for people to join, that’s going to be a tough sell.

    Mew

  • http://twitter.com/biggator5 BigGator5

    I grew up with my mother who worked for Walt Disney World and she belonged to the union. Back then, I don?t think Florida was a Right-To-Work state. I remember my mom getting upset when the union threaten to strike, because she had kids to feed and would take any pay-raise. She would come home and trash the union and curse them.

    So my view towards unions is, to say the least, extremely biased. I have never liked them and I will never like them.

  • Darin_H

    Automatic dues withholding needed to go.

    When we go after tax reform, no matter what it is, we need to end tax withholding.

  • Deskpilot

    Now unions will be responsible for accounts receivable from EACH member, rather than the state being the collector. Union operations can hire people for accounts receiveable, weekly check processing from each member, collection agents for delinquent member.
    The problem the unions have with this, is of course, that this will increase their operating overhead and leave less slush money for campaign contributions, unless they of course raise dues to cover costs, like most businesses. That would mean less net pay for members. But since the state is not withholding it, it of course won’t be called a tax, but rather an new bill to be paid by members.
    -More employees to pay benefits to or contract out the work. Probably the latter to avoid having to increase their own payrolls.
    Rest assured, there are unemployed accountants out there ready, willing and able to work, but they would do so holding theire noses.

  • Gmac

    bills passed in the Alabama House and Senate was a bill to stop the automatic deduction of union membership dues from state paychecks.

    The AEA is now suing to have it re-instated. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving group and because they were using the state finance department to do it the odds of the law being overturned are non-existent.

    Funny that you don’t see the teachers on strike or marching on the capitol, then again, its probably because AL is a right to work state and the education budget is facing a funding shortfall.

  • techsan

    (h/t Jerry Bader show out of Milwaukee…I’m listening)

    Recall “Back to the Future”:

    Biff (D) has been pushing around Marty (R) for a long time. Marty finally delivered a right hook. And I’m saying to myself….”finally”!

    Yet I still mourn for our republic that it’s come to analogies like this.

  • msctex

    . . .that if numbers equate to brawn, it is more like Biff (R) finally decked a bullying Marty (D).

  • jeffreywturner

    I am a bit confused – does the bill simply tell the unions that they are responsible for administering the collection of dues, or does it actually give employees the right to refuse membership in the unions (and payment of dues) altogether?

  • nvrepub

    nt

  • LeaveMeAlone

    Requiring the unions to collect their own dues is the best part of this bill. Each month, every union member will need to write a check, thinking “I could use this money myself. What has the union done for ME lately?” Likely to have a severely restrictive effect on the money going to the unions. (Besides taking the administrative load off of the state and transferring it to the unions, where it should be.)

    On a similar subject, revamping the income tax to do away with withholding would have the same effect for taxpayers who are now blissfully unaware of just how much the government is taking out before they see it, in order to fund so many Constitutionally questionable activities. If every American had to write a check monthly, semi-annually, or whatever, you can bet your life there’d be some changes in spending by the federal government.

  • techsan

    Thank you for the correction.

  • steve010

    in a closed shop without checkoff. The only time I saw the union rep was when he came by to collect dues which was quite often. If the employee couldn’t come up with the cash, we had to suspend them from work (kind of like debtor’s prison) until they paid the dues.

    Closed shop, you have to join. With these changes that the members don’t have to join the union and no checkoff, this will destroy the public service unions in WI. Nobody will pay. The teachers will find out that the union does less than nothing for them anyway.

  • steve010

    it gives the applicable public employee the choice to join the union and ends automatic withholding of dues. If the employee had to join the union as a condition of employment with the checkoff, the union could have the employee suspended w/o pay until he/she paid up. Now they can just not pay and there is nothing the union can do.

  • Adjoran

    will be too busy threatening their own members in order to make them write a check.

    This is absolutely the key provision, combined with ending the required paying of “bargaining fees” by non-members. If they must collect their own revenue – like virtually every other business and organization in the country – they will have far less time and resources to spend on other mischief.