Althouse: Mickey Kaus identifies the "dagger pointed at the heart of unions" in the Wisconsin's budget-repair bill.

March 8, 2011

Mickey Kaus identifies the "dagger pointed at the heart of unions" in the Wisconsin's budget-repair bill.

The mandatory collection of union dues.

61 comments:

MadisonMan said...: A good friend of mine suggests that Unions have the equivalent of WPR fund drives every year. WPR is able to raise funds from people who find their services worthwhile. I think Unions should do this too.

Is it inefficient? Maybe. I think it would be a good change though.

I certainly get no benefit from my union membership. I voted for decertification -- but because that decert vote was happening, suddenly AFT started paying attention because they didn't want to lose their $800K/year, or whatever it is they get from people like me.; 3/8/11, 11:39 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Why does Kaus always look like he went out for a quart of milk and came back three days later?; 3/8/11, 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: OT, but not quite. If you only watch one video today let it be this one....stunning in it's stupidity but dangerous too.

"Jesse Jackson Jr. Says Way Out of the Unemployment Crisis Is to Change the Constitution So Every Ghetto Kid Gets an iPod and a Laptop"

It's that pesky Constitution, it must be changed!; 3/8/11, 11:47 AM
chickelit said...: Bob Wright sings the hymn of the homonym at the 57m 37s mark: "Ah it's the Meadia"; 3/8/11, 11:48 AM
ricpic said...: A dagger = unions would have to prove their worth to the worker. Can't have that.; 3/8/11, 11:49 AM
G Joubert said...: Michael Baron has been writing about this since this festering boil was lanced:

"Taxpayers, present and future, . . . are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party."; 3/8/11, 11:53 AM
Emil Blatz said...: I have the same feeling about my State Bar of Wisconsin membership. If they go to a voluntary bar, plan on some vacant office space available on Eastpark Boulevard!; 3/8/11, 11:53 AM
Dustin said...: "Why does Kaus always look like he went out for a quart of milk and came back three days later?"

That's what guys look like if they don't wear makeup and other vain BS.

The camera is unforgiving to a normal man who has aged a bit.

Kaus is great no matter what he looks like. It's a shame people care what someone looks like in the realm of ideas, especially for women, but for men too.; 3/8/11, 12:10 PM
Henry said...: WPR is able to raise funds from people who find their services worthwhile.

I don't suppose they're on board with NPR being defunded? Just asking.

Kaus's point is dead obvious. One of the strange things about the Wisconsin debate is the extent to which the governor and his legislative opponents both find it inadvisable to bring this up.; 3/8/11, 12:14 PM
Lisa said...: I don't know how it works in WI but in MI, we can elect to join the union or not. If we don't, we don't. If we do, the dues are a line on a paycheck stub.

If the problem is that they want people to be able to refuse to a join a union, the solution is not to refuse collection of dues and require yearly votes to keep the union. The solution is to make joining a union optional.

We have over 90% participation in our union.; 3/8/11, 12:14 PM
Triangle Man said...: Kaus claims that it is all politics. Republicans want to defund public unions because they give money to Democratic candidates. Governor Walker has made it clear that Kaus is wrong and that all of the provisions in his Budget Repair Bill serve the common good by addressing a budget shortfall in the current fiscal period.; 3/8/11, 12:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Federal employee unions work in the exact same way Lisa describes for Michigan, and I agree with everything she says about it.

Interestingly, the thinking behind eliminating payroll deduction for dues is exactly the sort of "nudging" philosophy that's all the rage in the Obama administration. This doesn't mean that anyone's being inconsistent-- it's certainly possible to nudge people in the wrong direction-- but a lot of the sales talk we hear from people like Cass Sunstein is along the lines of "How could anyone possibly object? It's only a non-coercive nudge!"; 3/8/11, 12:26 PM
Sigivald said...: I clicked that link.

Then I saw it was a god-damn video.

So I closed it without looking at any of its contents.

Text, please.

It's stable, searchable, indexable, quiet, and random-access.

Video is the very devil for the rational exchange of information (other than that which is visual and especially in motion, naturally), though it's fine for propaganda.; 3/8/11, 12:43 PM
former law student said...: I can't watch TV, but if Kaus is talking about eliminating deduction at source, I don't see that as a problem. If the health club can sign you up for automatic withdrawal, so should your union be able to. We have our mortgage on autopay, so we know exactly when the withdrawal happens.; 3/8/11, 12:44 PM
test said...: "We have over 90% participation in our union."

I wonder what percentage only join because the union zealots will ostracize them if they don't.; 3/8/11, 1:00 PM
chickelit said...: If the health club can sign you up for automatic withdrawal, so should your union be able to. We have our mortgage on autopay, so we know exactly when the withdrawal happens.

My wife, a nurse formerly employed by the state, was able to opt out of her union but not her union dues.

Explain the fairness.; 3/8/11, 1:08 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I have the same feeling about my State Bar of Wisconsin membership. If they go to a voluntary bar, plan on some vacant office space available on Eastpark Boulevard!

That is very much what happens. I am admitted in Colorado and Arizona (and with the USPTO). Colorado has them separate - licensing and the bar association. They are combined in AZ. The CO monthly rag is better, and maybe half the lawyers belong. I am still trying to see what I get with my AZ bar membership, except for the right to practice law there.

And, yes, even in AZ, the liberals seem to run the state bar association, which means that my money (or, luckily my firm's money) go to fund causes I do not believe in.

There is no reason to combine bar association membership with licensing, except for the ability to skim those dues for pet causes and use the monthly rag as a propaganda arm of the liberal establishment.; 3/8/11, 1:11 PM
Shanna said...: Federal employee unions work in the exact same way Lisa describes for Michigan, and I agree with everything she says about it.

Indeed. It's the same in "right to work" states as well. This probably would have been a rational first move. The move to stop collecting out of paychecks could have happened later. It's not that big of a deal, really.; 3/8/11, 1:14 PM
Lisa said...: Michael,

I wasn't in the union my first year but over the course of the year, I saw what they did for us. I joined up when i had the next opportunity.

No one knows who is in the union or not. No one says anything. It's simply never discussed.; 3/8/11, 2:03 PM
wordsmith2 said...: Isn't it likely that some state staffers have to calculate the union dues and remit them to the unions? That sounds to me like a fiscal concern. Why should all the taxpayers of the state have to pay for accounting that benefits only the unions and a small percentage of taxpayers? If the union dues are to be automatically deducted, this can be done out of union members' bank accounts.; 3/8/11, 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/8/11, 2:07 PM
Lisa said...: In right to work states, it is NOT the same as giving people the choice to join unions or not.

There is ZERO collective bargaining with public unions. None. No choices in pay, benefits, working conditions, none.

You are allowed to join a union but the union can do nothing to help you in anyway.

Oh and the idiot above who claims that our union dues are paid by taxpayers is wrong. I earn my salary and chose to pay union dues, just like I chose to pay electricity, gas, milk for my kids, etc. I have the right to make choices with the money I earn.; 3/8/11, 2:07 PM
Lisa said...: Wordsmith,

Really? You think that adding another line to the peoplesoft paycheck system is that arduous? No one actually does this by hand, that's why we have computers!

For God's sake, there are deductions for FICA, Federal Tax, state and local taxes, mandatory deductions for retirement and retirement health care (which we are told not to expect!!!!), 403Bs, 529s, flexible spending accounts for health care and day care, optional health insurance coverage, optional life insurance... and donations to the district's foundation where we are asked to donate money from our paychecks back to the district to pay for things the state should be paying for. Adding a line for union dues is trivial.

This is a political issue. It is about destroying the ability of the middle class to have a voice like corporations, like the rich.; 3/8/11, 2:13 PM
MayBee said...: Lisa- what does the teachers union do for you, and how do you think it benefits your district?; 3/8/11, 2:17 PM
Unknown said...: What G Joubert and Michael Barone said.

This is a huge racket between the politicians and the unions and why there's such a fight being waged. Even the Wall Street banks don't give as much to the Demos as the public sector unions.

PS Since something like this is on its way to Kasich's desk in OH, the writing is on the wall, regardless of WI, which seems ready to pass it as son as the fleebaggers crack.; 3/8/11, 2:24 PM
former law student said...: My wife, a nurse formerly employed by the state, was able to opt out of her union but not her union dues.

Explain the fairness.

I'm surprised she had to pay the same amount as a union member; typically non-members have to pay a negotiation or agency fee. Did your wife negotiate her wages and benefits independently, or did she accept what the union got for their members?; 3/8/11, 2:34 PM
Fen said...: Lisa: It is about destroying the ability of the middle class to have a voice like corporations, like the rich.

No. Its about Unions FORCING the middle class to donate their dues to Democrats in a corrupt kickback scheme that Micheal Corleone would envy.

Please don't pretend Unions care about the democratic process, freedom of association or free speech. Workers should have the liberty to work without being forced to join the Union and give money over to it.; 3/8/11, 2:35 PM
Lisa said...: Fen: "Please don't pretend Unions care about the democratic process, freedom of association or free speech. Workers should have the liberty to work without being forced to join the Union and give money over to it"

In my state, workers have the liberty to work without being forced to join a union or pay dues yet those who want to join the union can have their dues deducted from their paycheck. Unions still have the ability to do collective bargaining and to provide benefits to their members; unions also act as a voice for their members. Individually, we are powerless. But it is still the individuals choice to join or not.

I think that's the way it should be.

If your issue is you think people should not be forced to join, then you should support the way it works in my state.

If you don't like how it is done in my state, then your issue ISN'T the freedom to abstain from the union but giving workers a voice in the democratic process and you are being disingenuous.

Why should the rich and the corporations be the only ones with a say? Why shouldn't workers have a voice as well.; 3/8/11, 2:42 PM
MayBee said...: Lisa- what voice do corporations have in how much teachers get paid?; 3/8/11, 2:44 PM
Anonymous said...: I guess I just stopped agreeing with Lisa. Where so many government employees get the idea that they're working for a corporation, I cannot imagine.; 3/8/11, 2:45 PM
MayBee said...: Also, Lisa, do you advocate single-payer healthcare in the US?

Did you get paid less as a non-union teacher?; 3/8/11, 2:45 PM
former law student said...: Workers should have the liberty to work without being forced to join the Union and give money over to it.

Anyone who feels that way has a rich choice of "right-to-work" states -- and Guam! -- to move to. From http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Alabama | Arizona | Arkansas | Florida | Georgia | Guam | Idaho | Iowa | Kansas | Louisiana | Mississippi | Nebraska | Nevada | North Carolina | North Dakota | Oklahoma |South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Virginia | Wyoming; 3/8/11, 2:51 PM
MayBee said...: fls- anyone who feels that way also has the right to try to change the laws of his state.; 3/8/11, 2:54 PM
Alex said...: FLS prefers slavery.; 3/8/11, 2:54 PM
test said...: "If you don't like how it is done in my state, then your issue ISN'T the freedom to abstain from the union but giving workers a voice in the democratic process and you are being disingenuous."

Voting is only Democratic process related to teachers or the union. So Lisa's admitting she supports the union because of its donations to Democratic politicians.

The question is why she thinks this is such a benefit. Wouldn't a teacher prefer donating directly to Democratic candidates? Without union costs there would be more money to go to candidates the teacher prefers. What value does the union contribute?; 3/8/11, 2:59 PM
former law student said...: anyone who feels that way also has the right to try to change the laws of his state.

So Walker's support comes from aggrieved public employees who resent having to pay union dues? And not the Kansas oilmen Koch Brothers?; 3/8/11, 3:00 PM
test said...: "Anyone who feels that way has a rich choice of "right-to-work" states -- and Guam! -- to move to. From http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm"

Like people who want government run healthcare have a rich choice of other countries to move to.; 3/8/11, 3:01 PM
former law student said...: Iowa, even Nevada, are still among the 50 states.; 3/8/11, 3:02 PM
Lisa said...: Maybe asked, "Lisa- what does the teachers union do for you, and how do you think it benefits your district?"

This is a great question.

Some background, in the mid 90's, the state pasted Proposal A which took school funding from the local communities and the state promised to maintain the funding at current levels but wanted to even out the funding. It was a popular proposition because it restricted tax increases on homes to no more than 5% a year even if the home's value tripled or quadrupled. In reality, school funding from the state has been cut every year since I have moved here... sometimes mid-year. In real terms, our budget has been cut by a sixth.

What does this have to do with our unions?

It gives us a voice and a choice.

We write new contracts every two to three years. We are asked when this process begins what our priorities are. Knowing how tight the budget was, we unanimously agreed no lost jobs and keeping excellent choices in health care were our priority over salaries (this has been pretty typical for us).

How is this done on a restricting budget?

Premiums had gone up but the district couldn't afford to pay more; we agreed to pay more for premiums for the best health care plans but they still had to be available. We increased our co-pays as well for those more expensive plans. Everyone touts our great health care plans (and mine is great and I am so grateful!) but they don't realize that we have, for years, traded salary for access to that.

As for no lost jobs, that's harder. We've cut teaching positions several times this year but since our district is fairly large, we have had enough retirees each time so that everyone had a job when school started. We've had to work hard over the last five or six years to find ways to keep our programs strong with fewer teachers; we've increased our class sizes and we've increased our teaching load. All negotiated.

The district asked to have a clause put in our last contract that said we can renegotiate salaries/benefits if the state cuts funding by X amount. We agreed. Of course, the state did. We renegotiated taking another pay cut for this year with the agreement that any state funding increase above a certain amount would go straight back to teachers. We would support the district in the time of need but when that time is over, our compensation should be returned to normal levels. The district agreed as well.

Our union provides us with a sick bank (vital for anyone with young children as maternity leave eats up any banked sick days and you have 0 days when you return) that we can drawn from upon medical need. Those days are paid for in part with our dues and in part through sick day donation of members.

Our union provides us with a means for negotiating some program changes, it provides us with a means of grieving the action of a district employee (not many use this.. but there have been some needs), it provides us with a way of resolving problems (like an unhealthy ventilation system) that we would be stuck with otherwise, it provides us with limits so that our administrators can't force us to do something we aren't require to do (though we are welcome to if we choose). It provides a means of lobbying the state for programs that help kids and against programs that hurt them.

How does it benefit our district? Well, we've offered a lot of solutions to the district's budget problems. It simplifies their negotiations for labor. I believe that it encourages teacher retention (which is still a major issue) and because we've been willing to adjust our duties, we've been able to avoid laying off people who the district has put a great deal of money into mentoring. We are a lot less angry about these cuts than we would be because we have had some choice in HOW we take them.; 3/8/11, 3:12 PM
MayBee said...: So Walker's support comes from aggrieved public employees who resent having to pay union dues? And not the Kansas oilmen Koch Brothers?

Koch brothers!!!!!111

Surely you don't think only people in unions are interested in how unions affect their state.

Are you in a union?; 3/8/11, 3:12 PM
MayBee said...: Lisa- why do you attribute those things to the union, and not to employer/employee negotiations.

People without unions are able to discuss the terms of their employment every day.; 3/8/11, 3:16 PM
MayBee said...: also, Lisa, why are you convinced not laying people off is the best thing for you?; 3/8/11, 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: MayBee said: "Lisa- why do you attribute those things to the union, and not to employer/employee negotiations."

Most everything that she listed is the sort of thing that could be accomplished through the HR department or manager at any corporation I've worked at. (But I'm glad that she's in a state where membership is at least voluntary. I do wonder how the non-union members do the things she listed, though. I'd bet they find a way.)

- Lyssa; 3/8/11, 3:26 PM
chickelit said...: FSH said...Did your wife negotiate her wages and benefits independently, or did she accept what the union got for their members?

She made case at yearly reviews and was named a "nurse of the year." Her union management fought implementation of cost-saving ideas the hardest and so she went into private sector. Their loss.; 3/8/11, 3:37 PM
Known Unknown said...: She made case at yearly reviews and was named a "nurse of the year." Her union management fought implementation of cost-saving ideas the hardest and so she went into private sector. Their loss.

BANG.; 3/8/11, 4:10 PM
former law student said...: Surely you don't think only people in unions are interested in how unions affect their state.

The effect of unions on the state is way down on my list of concerns: between bedbugs and MRSA.

Structural unemployment in the US caps my list of worries, though on the bright side, Chinese wages are rising fast enough and far enough so that US workers will be competitive in 2014.

Next comes the massive dollar amount of credit default swaps yet to be unwound.

Then the junk mortgages yet to go poof and the AAA-rated junk mortgage backed securities they support.

The continuing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cost of maintaining the fiction that we are the world's superpower and policeman.

The prospect of $5 a gallon gas.

The chance of my wife or my contracting a serious illness.

The chance that we go on vacation only to bring home bedbugs.

Public employee unions not taking wage and benefit cuts as tax revenues fall.

The chance of contracting MRSA.

Legionnaire's disease.

Radiation spewed from the microwave unknown to us.; 3/8/11, 4:50 PM
former law student said...: Her union management fought implementation of cost-saving ideas the hardest

Hmmm.... resisting change to health care. Now, who do I know like that?

So I know whether to make a frowny face or a smiley face, can you describe a couple of her cost-saving ideas, and the union's objections to them?; 3/8/11, 4:54 PM
former law student said...: Most everything that she listed is the sort of thing that could be accomplished through the HR department or manager at any corporation I've worked at.

I have never worked anywhere that HR had any power. They were just the means through which upper management carried out its wishes.; 3/8/11, 4:56 PM
David said...: A mandatory levy on the proceeds of one's work is a tax.

Unless it's collected by/for a union, in which case it's Good Social Policy.

Actually, removal of this tax would probably not hugely undermine the bargaining power of unions. It would, however, reduce their political power.; 3/8/11, 5:26 PM
David said...: FLS says: Chinese wages are rising fast enough and far enough so that US workers will be competitive in 2014.

That's one of the greatest bullshit statistics I've heard in a long time. My dog could poke holes in that statement. In her sleep (which is most of the time.); 3/8/11, 5:31 PM
chickelit said...: So I know whether to make a frowny face or a smiley face, can you describe a couple of her cost-saving ideas, and the union's objections to them?

I don't comment here to please you or not to please you. So no, I'll decline your invitation. It hardly matters what I say to you anyways. Buh Bye!; 3/8/11, 5:39 PM
deborah said...: "Why does Kaus always look like he went out for a quart of milk and came back three days later?"

And oddly enough, still looks great. (I <3 Mickey.); 3/8/11, 6:02 PM
Synova said...: If the state has to collect the dues, the state should charge at least a 20% fee.

Apparently debt collectors make a wide range as far as a "cut" of the action goes, as a quick google got estimates of 30-50% or as low as 15% for some sorts of fees.

So... if the state is required to collect the fees, I think that 20% is reasonable.; 3/8/11, 6:25 PM
former law student said...: If the state has to collect the dues, the state should charge at least a 20% fee.

That's the road to Wisconsin's fiscal security: unconscionable fees. Want to go to a state park? Pony up $100. Copy of your birth certificate? $500. In-state law school tuition? $100K a semester.; 3/8/11, 7:23 PM
former law student said...: chicklet: then I'll assume you were talking out your ass to make some bogus argument why unions are eeevul.; 3/8/11, 7:25 PM
Synova said...: fls, I think you were the one who pointed out that the union can have members set up auto-pay with the bank so that the state is not involved at all.

And really, I was being snarky. I don't see why having the state collect the dues is so very important, but if the state is collecting dues for a private party and then issues a check to that private party (this making it entirely unlike various taxes) why not charge what bill collectors charge?; 3/8/11, 7:34 PM
former law student said...: synova: bill collectors are a bit like bounty hunters: they're motivated to hound you for money by the prospect of getting a cash reward. I don't see how that applies to state and local governments' payroll operations.

Government fees should be rationally related to the cost of providing the service.; 3/8/11, 7:43 PM
Synova said...: Since the *ease* of government collection is directly related to the power of the state to take this non-tax money out without the individual consent of the employee in order to hand it over to a private entity, I don't think that a straight assessment of *ease* is appropriate.

OTOH, how about negotiations? The state collects a fee equal to what is the absolute limit that the union will condone without finding some other way to collect their dues. In other words... determine the *true* value of the service and then charge that value.; 3/8/11, 7:59 PM
chickelit said...: chicklet: then I'll assume you were talking out your ass to make some bogus argument why unions are eeevul.

That's fine with me. It's exactly what I expected from you anyways. Truth is, my wife's dealings with her former employer are her business. Plus there is nothing that could convince you that public employee unions are anything but peachy.; 3/8/11, 8:11 PM
Shanna said...: Want to go to a state park? Pony up $100.

At our state parks, I'm pretty sure they have little donation boxes. But really, if you don't pay it to the park you pay it to the government. So it's kind of a wash. (unless you're one of the luck few who makes a profit on your income taxes :); 3/8/11, 8:16 PM
former law student said...: chicklet: you got nothing. Assuming that, despite the millions of people nursing around the world, your wife actually created something unique to her, you could always generalize it or create a parallel example. But no. And unions hate progress, of course: that's why the Teamsters still drive horses and not semis.; 3/8/11, 11:32 PM