Hit to Unions Following Supreme Court Ruling Begins

Following a Supreme Court ruling, states are ordered to stop collecting millions of dollars in fees from public worker.

On June 27, In Janus vs. AFSCME, the Supreme Court correctly dealt a huge blow to forced membership in unions.

States stopped force collections starting July and Union Collections Schemes Take a Hit.

In New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, state governments have stopped collecting millions of dollars in agency fees following a high court ruling banning the practice. Before the ruling, public workers in 22 states who didn’t want to join a union were often required to pay agency fees, which cover collective bargaining costs and can equal as much as 90% of dues paid by members.

Pennsylvania stopped collecting agency fees from 24,000 state workers that totaled $6.6 million last year, a state official said. The figure is expected to grow because it doesn’t include workers at municipalities across the state. In New York, which has the highest rate of public sector union membership, the state stopped collecting agency fees in July from 31,000 state workers which totaled between $9 million and $10 million last year, a spokeswoman for the New York State Comptroller said. That tally is also expected to grow because it doesn’t include local agency fees.

By one estimate, unions in New York state overall will lose $112 million in agency fees from 200,000 state and local workers, based on what workers paid in 2016, according to the Empire Center, a conservative think tank in Albany.

Congrats to Mark Janus

I commented on the ruling on June 27 in Supreme Court Delivers Huge Blow to Unions!

One Word

The word is "perfect".

Abood was an abomination. The ruling was correct but it is just a start.

Time for National Right-to-Work Laws

The ruling is a fantastic first step.

It's now time for national right-to-work legislation and the end of all prevailing wage laws.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (11)
No. 1-8
stillCJ
stillCJ

Editor

Gee what a shame, those unions can no longer use the same tactics as mafia protection rackets, and democrat ruled states can no longer force non-democrats to donate to politicians they hate. What do they think this is, a free country or something? Full disclosure: I am a (not by choice) former union member who sends financial support to the National Right to Work Foundation, which won this case.

JonSellers
JonSellers

Florida is a right to work state and does not collect agency fees. But public sector union membership is growing strongly. I tend to think that is because private sector employment has become so horrible that once some folks get a chance to unionize they jump at it. But I don't have any evidence to back that up.

Realist
Realist

The trends in today’s workplace do not bode well for those without skills/education. It is up to the individual to acquire the necessary skills to survive in today’s competitive world. Unions are becoming irrelevant and can’t provide protections for workers today. Survival of the fittest is becoming the norm.

everything1
everything1

It's not really forced membership, they just collected through the paycheck, kind of like my employer does for a myriad of things, like Fed, MED, SS, State. They are always trying to talk us into a subscription based type of paycheck deduction for everything from parking fees, to the fundraiser of choice they pick for us. Unions are only 10% of the total campaign donors, the rest are big PACS which are funded by corporations. That means when you buy something from corporation you don't get to decide where how they spend their/your money politically. And union is not forced anything, it was just easier to get union members to pay dues, once that stops they can still mail a check to their union office. They don't have to pay dues to be in the union or to pull off union like activity. Earlier this year we did see some wildcat strikes down south among teachers (non union).

Archer1
Archer1

There will be a hiccup in the short term, but in the long term nothing will change. The 'Union Rep' and union member co-workers will make it their job to harass and bully the non-paying 'scabs' until they give in and join the union.

2banana
2banana

Public unions are the largest campaign donors in history. They give 99-1 to democrats. It is an abomination to force employees to join these unions as a condition of employment.

Deter_Naturalist
Deter_Naturalist

It's beyond childish to believe that under "democracy" the government will ever be more than whatever the highest bidder offers. As H.L. Mencken noted, Democracy is the system whereby the common man gets what he deserves, and he deserves to get it good and hard.

Leftism was the trend for the last 500 years. It was the politics of wish-fulfillment, promising "everyone" could have whatever they want, just elect the right clown who promised you your dreams. As the mask slips and we see just how parasitic is the entire charade, the Janus ruling is a fart in a windstorm. We've been getting robbed blind, deaf and dumb for at least 50 years, and probably forever. (Illinois is a wasteland of political criminality, the entire state government is nothing but organized crime. When the treasurer in Dixon IL amassed over $40 million in theft by herself(!), can we begin to imagine how many multi-millionaire thieves exist in state government, and Uncle Sam hasn't passed an audit since the Coolidge administration.)

Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear

First of all, I don't believe every dollar collected for union dues will stop going to unions, but a 10% reduction will cause unions to rethink how to best spend money. Secondly, the money NOT spend on union dues will be more efficiently spend, or even help someone avoid late fees on bills.