The
New York Times is admirably upbeat about how unions will emerge from the destruction of their extortion-and-bribery circular financing system stronger than ever before. "The more you tighten your grip, Lord Vader . . . ." According to the Grey Lady,
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.”
That's the spirit. It was never about the money! Now that we can't force you to give us money, can we
engage?
7 comments:
Heh.
On the upside for members, there's just a chance the union will really turn out to be a powerful advocate for their interests now that it needs to convince them to pay up.
It could happen. Some monopolies crash and burn, others reform themselves. It's a hard transition, though, from being able to demand someone's money to having to convince a free man to give you some of value in a voluntary exchange. There are a lot of people who never quite get the trick: they just start looking for a new source of force.
Vice is a lot less sanguine about the ruling.
Vice has all kinds of problems.
Yes, Vice is not doing quite as much whistling past the graveyard--or even what the NYT itself calls "desperate bravado." As Justice Kagan said, "Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support." She might have added that the DNC faces the same problem.
Weingarten has been reading Ryan Holiday's The Obstacle is the Way. She's welcome to further such muddled thinking. It'll do her "teachers" much...good.
Eric Hines
Vice is very sanguine about the ruling--they're saying the ruling might destroy public unions. That's very upside. Oh--I suppose sanguinosity depends on your point of view.
In the past, when workers decided to be represented by a union, they paid union dues if they joined the union, or “fair share” or “agency” fees if they decided not to join, to support their union’s collective bargaining activities.
Therein lies a demonstration of the distorted pseudo-thinking of Coombs. When workers decline to join a union, it's not their union they're supporting, it's someone else's union that they're being forced to support.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment