How Democrats will try to block workers from leaving government unions

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus decision is a pretty “big _______ deal,” as Joe Biden might put it (if he liked it). The court decided government employees cannot be forced to support a union as a condition of employment.

It will likely mean somewhat reduced membership for government employee unions and less money for them to spend on Democratic and Lefty politics.

How much of a membership decline government unions will see is the big question. When Gov. Scott Walker led Wisconsin to become a “right-to-work” state (which applied to government employees as well), unions (public and private) saw an average membership drop of 40 percent and dues collections fell almost 50 percent.

The Wisconsin law led to perhaps the most intense political fight of the last twenty years as labor tried to recall Walker from office (they failed), and then defeat him for re-election (they failed). Voters in neighboring Michigan, seen as one of the most union-friendly states, rejected a proposal to ban right-to-work laws, and Michigan legislators soon thereafter approved reforms.

Now with Janus, every state is essentially a right-to-work state as far as government employees are concerned. Though public unions have suffered some setbacks, their leaders won’t give up the money, power, and influence they have accrued without a fight. Thankfully for them, obsequious Democratic politicians are ready to help. Here are a few ways they’re trying to get around workers’ rights to opt out.

1. 1. 1. A new-found concern for worker privacy. Around the country, Democrats are moving to block information about public employees from the public. In doing so, they’re undercutting access to the most basic facts necessary to hold government accountable.

         Knowing who is working in a taxpayer-funded job – and whether it’s this Bill Jones or that Bill Jones – is information voters and the press need.

         New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order, right after the Janus decision came down, to shield information about government employees there. Branded as a “privacy” issue (just like the SEIU-funded I-1501 here in 2016), the real purpose is to prevent union opponents from identifying and informing government employees of their new right to opt out of union dues.

         Not every governor has the legal authority or inclination to issue such an order. But for Democratic politicians looking to keep the dues money flowing from workers to unions, similar executive orders or law changes are an obvious way to go.

      2. Union foot-dragging on opt-outs. If you’ve ever tried to cancel your cable service, you know this play already. You have to “speak to a representative,” who then tries to talk you out of cancelling.

         This isn’t some hypothetical, it’s already happening here in Washington. Sen. Mark Schoesler (R-Ritzville) was forwarded a response the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) sent to a member who tried to cancel his membership. The union lays out its case for why the member should stay – which is its right – but says that to cancel for real, the worker must call the union “to discuss your request.”

         Can offering to lower their rate, like the cable company would do, be far behind?

         The Supreme Court has already ruled that it’s the member’s right to leave. Cancelling should be as easy as telling the union “I’m out.” In fact, the court said unions must have affirmative authorization from a worker to continue deducting dues. Calling WFSE “blatantly defiant,” Schoesler noted, “It is not the worker’s responsibility to track down a union representative in order to drop membership and stop fee deductions.”

      3. Direct government funding of unions. With membership declining and the coffers that fund Democratic politicians taking a hit, what’s a union-subservient politician to do? Why, just have taxpayers pay the unions directly to exist!

         That’s one New York Democrat’s idea for protecting union coffers from the consequences of no longer being able to force workers to pay dues or fees. Assemblyman Richard Gottfried introduced a bill to have state taxpayers pay unions to collectively bargain on behalf of public employees.

         It would be government paying its putative opponent at the bargaining table to bargain against it, which raises a whole host of legal and ethical questions.

         And where would some of that government funding for unions end up? Right in Democratic campaign accounts. Call it the Taxpayer Funds for Democratic but Not Republican Campaigns Act of 2018.