Re: [Marxism] Labor Unions Will Be Smaller After Supreme Court Decision, but Maybe Not Weaker
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * The same just happened here in Brazil this year. The government stroke down a law that required workers from any sector (public or private) to pay union fees. My union, for example, had to fire a lot of employees because our budget is much smaller now. Am Do., 28. Juni 2018 um 10:09 Uhr schrieb Louis Proyect via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu>: > POSTING RULES & NOTES > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > * > > NY Times, June 28, 2018 > Labor Unions Will Be Smaller After Supreme Court Decision, but Maybe Not > Weaker > By Noam Scheiber > > With the Supreme Court striking down laws that require government > workers to pay union fees, one thing is clear: Most public-sector unions > in more than 20 states with such laws are going to get smaller and > poorer in the coming years. > > Though it is difficult to predict with precision, experts and union > officials say they could lose 10 percent to one-third of their members, > or more, in the states affected, as conservative groups seek to persuade > workers to drop out. > > The court’s decision is the latest evidence that moves to weaken unions > are exacting a major toll. Beyond the dropout campaigns aimed at > members, conservatives are bringing lawsuits to retroactively recover > fees collected by unions from nonmembers. > > Dropping out of a union is a more attractive proposition now that > workers no longer have to pay a so-called agency fee, typically about 80 > percent of union dues, if they choose not to belong to a union. (Those > doing so generally account for a small fraction of the workers whom > public-sector unions represent.) > > In the five years after Michigan passed a law ending mandatory union > fees in 2012, the number of active members of the Michigan Education > Association dropped by about 25 percent, according to government > filings, a much faster attrition rate than before. Its annual receipts > fell by more than 10 percent, adjusting for inflation. > > Still, the more interesting question is whether the unions, whatever the > blow to their ranks and finances, will be substantially weaker. > > Union leaders insist that they won’t — that the crisis posed by the > case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal > Employees, has brought more cohesion and energy to their ranks. > > “No one wanted this case,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the > American Federation of Teachers. “But the gestalt around the country has > been to turn an existential threat into an opportunity to engage with > our members like never before.” > > There are reasons to believe that the claim is not merely desperate > bravado. > > One parallel to the current development is a 2014 Supreme Court ruling > known as Harris v. Quinn, which struck down mandatory union fees for > home-based workers who serve private individuals but are paid through > government programs like Medicaid. > > As of late 2013, the Service Employees International Union represented > about 60,000 public-sector home care and child-care workers in Illinois, > about 40 percent of whom were union members. (The rest paid agency fees.) > > Receipts for the service employees union local representing home-based > workers in Illinois dropped significantly in the four years after the > decision. But an aggressive membership campaign largely offset the loss > of members. > > It also built and reinforced personal relationships with members, who > could be summoned to make demands of politicians in nearly every > legislative district. > > “Our members go and meet Sam McCann,” said Keith Kelleher, who until > last year was president of the local representing these home-based > workers, referring to a Republican state senator. “He says yes most of > time because he’s got hundreds of members in his district.” > > Public home-based workers in Illinois, a state with a notably anti-union > Republican governor, continue to notch victories as a result. Last > summer, home care workers won a 48-cent-an-hour wage increase from the > state, up from an average wage of $13, in a budget that the legislature > passed by overriding the governor’s veto. This spring, home child-care > workers won more than a 4 percent raise. > > In anticipation of the Janus ruling, major public-sector unions have > invested heavily in recent years in reaching out to current members — an > effort known as internal organizing — and to
[Marxism] Labor Unions Will Be Smaller After Supreme Court Decision, but Maybe Not Weaker
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * NY Times, June 28, 2018 Labor Unions Will Be Smaller After Supreme Court Decision, but Maybe Not Weaker By Noam Scheiber With the Supreme Court striking down laws that require government workers to pay union fees, one thing is clear: Most public-sector unions in more than 20 states with such laws are going to get smaller and poorer in the coming years. Though it is difficult to predict with precision, experts and union officials say they could lose 10 percent to one-third of their members, or more, in the states affected, as conservative groups seek to persuade workers to drop out. The court’s decision is the latest evidence that moves to weaken unions are exacting a major toll. Beyond the dropout campaigns aimed at members, conservatives are bringing lawsuits to retroactively recover fees collected by unions from nonmembers. Dropping out of a union is a more attractive proposition now that workers no longer have to pay a so-called agency fee, typically about 80 percent of union dues, if they choose not to belong to a union. (Those doing so generally account for a small fraction of the workers whom public-sector unions represent.) In the five years after Michigan passed a law ending mandatory union fees in 2012, the number of active members of the Michigan Education Association dropped by about 25 percent, according to government filings, a much faster attrition rate than before. Its annual receipts fell by more than 10 percent, adjusting for inflation. Still, the more interesting question is whether the unions, whatever the blow to their ranks and finances, will be substantially weaker. Union leaders insist that they won’t — that the crisis posed by the case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, has brought more cohesion and energy to their ranks. “No one wanted this case,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “But the gestalt around the country has been to turn an existential threat into an opportunity to engage with our members like never before.” There are reasons to believe that the claim is not merely desperate bravado. One parallel to the current development is a 2014 Supreme Court ruling known as Harris v. Quinn, which struck down mandatory union fees for home-based workers who serve private individuals but are paid through government programs like Medicaid. As of late 2013, the Service Employees International Union represented about 60,000 public-sector home care and child-care workers in Illinois, about 40 percent of whom were union members. (The rest paid agency fees.) Receipts for the service employees union local representing home-based workers in Illinois dropped significantly in the four years after the decision. But an aggressive membership campaign largely offset the loss of members. It also built and reinforced personal relationships with members, who could be summoned to make demands of politicians in nearly every legislative district. “Our members go and meet Sam McCann,” said Keith Kelleher, who until last year was president of the local representing these home-based workers, referring to a Republican state senator. “He says yes most of time because he’s got hundreds of members in his district.” Public home-based workers in Illinois, a state with a notably anti-union Republican governor, continue to notch victories as a result. Last summer, home care workers won a 48-cent-an-hour wage increase from the state, up from an average wage of $13, in a budget that the legislature passed by overriding the governor’s veto. This spring, home child-care workers won more than a 4 percent raise. In anticipation of the Janus ruling, major public-sector unions have invested heavily in recent years in reaching out to current members — an effort known as internal organizing — and to prospective members to keep their numbers from dropping precipitously and to create a more activist culture. They plan to continue funding these initiatives even if it requires cutting spending elsewhere. Mary Kay Henry, the international president of the service employees union, said the union used projections derived from its experience after the Harris decision to cut its budget by 30 percent shortly after Mr. Trump was elected. She said the union, which represents about two million workers, roughly half of them in the public sector, was focusing its spending on recruiting members and mobilizing workers to face down employers and elect pro-labor politicians. “We intend to prioritize the political and organizing work,” she said. Government filings
