If past actions by government union leadership are any indication, it's fair to assume unions will spend hundreds of millions of dollars targeting the presidential election and conservative candidates across the nation.
Two big questions exist:
1. Will labor unions change their model back toward
the workplace issues the rank-and-file care about, or will they remain
hyper-partisan political players?
2. With public employees now having the option to cease all union dues payments, and organizations like the Freedom Foundation working 24/7 to make sure they're informed of their rights and able to exercise them, will government unions still be able to generate enough revenue by overcharging their members to make record donations?
Let's travel back to 2017 to assess these questions.
With the death of Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked
4-4 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Had Scalia cast a
tie-breaking vote, the ruling would have almost certainly led to right-to-work
(RTW) protections for all public employees, safeguarding their ability to work
in government without being forced to contribute financially to a private
organization.
Government unions got a reprieve, but it was only a matter
of time before a similar case made its way to the court after the appointment
of Neil Gorsuch in 2017.
When the justices agreed in late 2017 to hear Janus
v. AFSCME, unions correctly determined it was just a matter of time
before their dues-skimming scheme would be exposed as unconstitutional. But
anyone who thought the union dons would walk away from that pile of money doesn't
know unions very well.
Government unions soon launched a nationwide public
relations campaign. Their messaging showed up as everything from TV ads to
billboards to buses, costing untold millions of members' dues dollars.
Union leaders across America met to devise plans to preserve
their revenue stream and their membership even after workers were given a
choice in the matter. For the first time, unions were being forced to offer
something of value rather than confiscating dues for nothing.
At a labor conference hosted in 2017 by the Labor
Education and Research Center (LERC), a small, taxpayer-subsidized outfit
headquartered at South Seattle College in Washington state, the fate of
organized labor was laid out.
The event was called the "Emerging Leaders Conference
2017 – Social Justice Unionism in the Face of Right to
Work."
The first full day started with a radical left-wing panel
discussion about the history of racism in the labor movement. Featured speakers
included:
·
Bill Fletcher — an internationally known
labor activist and leading U.S. Marxist;
·
Jesse Hagopian — a history teacher at
Garfield High School and member of the International Socialist Organization;
·
Ligaya Domingo — education director, SEIU 1199NW
and daughter of Silme Domingo and Terri Mast, activists with
ties to the Communist Party; and,
·
Kent Wong — director of the UCLA Labor
Center and vice president of the California Federation of Teachers, previously
a member of the Communist Workers Party.
This topic was the first of what turned out to be a day of
contradictions.
There was a brief discussion about racism during the
beginning of the labor movement. In the early 1900s, more than 40 labor
organizations had no black members, and more than 25 had policies against
blacks becoming apprentices.
In an admirable feat of logical jiujitsu, a subtle
transition took place in the 'speaker's story, and suddenly the narrative
emerged equating RTW with racism.
Before long, it became clear the labor movement's goal was
to divide people into two classifications — those who support compulsory labor unions
and racists.
Some of the speakers talked about the "rising trend in
the labor movement" of bringing social justice issues front and center,
while others spoke about the "green movement," climate change,
immigration, and immigrants' rights.
When the question of Donald Trump's presidency and his
support among union workers came up, the speakers agreed there was a real
divide in the labor movement with their more conservative members.
It was widely acknowledged that the more conservative public
employees represented by government unions believed the labor movement would be
more unified by narrowing its focus, concentrating on workplace conditions,
wages, and benefits — the bread-and-butter issues important to rank-and-file
union members.
Meanwhile, the consensus at this event was that labor unions
would be stronger if they focused instead on social justice issues and
increasing wages for nonunion members, like the "$15 now" campaign.
The need for unity was continually expressed, as was the
assertion that the one percent and management are trying to "divide and
conquer us." There were no specifics offered, but it was clear the attendees
were dependent upon the strategy.
What was one of the solutions to overcome this alleged
strategy of division, you might ask?
"We need to take over the secretary of the state in
every state," Fletcher said. "Labor unions need to find candidates to
run in every state. We need to control the voting process in every state; we
need' democracy 'brigades' to go to the polls and defend democracy. That's
all I am going to say about that."
Fletcher came off as very sincere and honest when he said, "This
is not a moral issue; it's a question of do you want to win"?"
Another lecture was on "Demonstrating Value in a
Right-to-Work World."
One speaker talked about Janus and the importance
of employees working together to be strong and maintain the benefits of
unionism. The presenters acknowledged they represent a diverse membership and
would need to broaden their appeal to get more people engaged and supportive of
their union.
THE GREAT CONTRADICTION
The next speaker talked about the need to spend money on politics
and the importance of getting the right people elected.
The elephant in the room was never addressed: How can unions
broaden their appeal to people of different political and philosophical beliefs
while continuing to engage in hyper-partisan political campaigning and
emotionally charged issue campaigns?
It is clear the leaders of the labor movement are extreme
left-wing progressives who view the labor movement as the mechanism to attain
all manner of political and ideological ends.
These so-called leaders were devastated at the thought of
the Supreme Court ruling on behalf of Mark Janus, creating public-sector
right-to-work in all 50 states.
They can't use labor unions as their political tool if
they have to sell it to all of the workers.
Back to 2020
Instead of changing their model to focus on the core issues members
actually, care about, the consensus was that unions of the future need to be
more broadly appealing. Consequently, unions are doubling down on the "us-versus-them
rhetoric and have altered their membership forms to include irrevocability clauses
to prevent workers from exercising their rights to get out.
Even so, more than 70,000 public employees have left their
unions with Freedom Foundation assistance, costing government unions roughly
$56 million a year in lost dues revenue. That is $56 million less unions have
to dump into political and ideological campaigns, that is, of course, if they
choose to maintain representational expenditures.
With the loss of over a million dollars a week in revenue,
union leaders will have to make decisions about the levels of maintaining
representational expenses verse their political and ideological expenses. Will
unions continue to uphold their duty and purpose of representation, or will
they choose to neglect their members further to maintain their lucrative salaries
and full-time staff that is dedicated to ideological politics?
Comments
Post a Comment