What does the decline in Union rolls speak to?

[PhilFish]

Much talk about Scott Walker and Wisconsin these days, and the cast of attempting to bust unions and take away the benefits that union membership brings.

But, in the end analysis, the union member, the employee, was left with the choice to maintain enrollment and pay dues... or not.

We see, given that choice, a stark decline in enrollment and payment of previously mandated dues.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/...wfully-lonely-places-in-wisconsin-these-days/

Does this speak to the politician... or does this actually speak to the freedom of choice of the employee?

 

[marvin martian]

Much talk about Scott Walker and Wisconsin these days, and the cast of attempting to bust unions and take away the benefits that union membership brings.

But, in the end analysis, the union member, the employee, was left with the choice to maintain enrollment and pay dues... or not.

We see, given that choice, a stark decline in enrollment and payment of previously mandated dues.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/...wfully-lonely-places-in-wisconsin-these-days/

Does this speak to the politician... or does this actually speak to the freedom of choice of the employee?

I think most workers long ago realized the unions did not have their best interests in mind, especially the public unions, which are essentially arms of the government that force employees to vote a certain way, while extorting money from them for the privilege. But, many were silenced through the unions' traditional tactics of intimidation, assault, vandalism and libel. That seems to be reversing, as people realize some politicians are on their side and are willing to stand up to the unions and the Democrats who control them.

 

[connieb]

Much talk about Scott Walker and Wisconsin these days, and the cast of attempting to bust unions and take away the benefits that union membership brings.

But, in the end analysis, the union member, the employee, was left with the choice to maintain enrollment and pay dues... or not.

We see, given that choice, a stark decline in enrollment and payment of previously mandated dues.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/...wfully-lonely-places-in-wisconsin-these-days/

Does this speak to the politician... or does this actually speak to the freedom of choice of the employee?

I think many have figured out that far from being on their side, the union actually holds them back. They take money not only from the employee but ALSO the employer. And, with the rise of things like 401K's which employers contributed to for their non-union employees, they also generally provided health insurance for their non-union employees. So, in the end, what was the union employee getting that he would not have otherwise been entitled to get from the employer anyway.

Not to mention things like unions are arbitrarily changing eligibility dates for retirement because many of their pension plans are hopelessly underwater. (watch for a gigantic Gov't bail out of these plans and or massive lawsuits to try to collect additional contributions from employers to even this out which will result in many big structural bankruptcies in the next decade).

If there is a young person in the union who is trying to decide do I stick with this and watch my retirment years get stretched out and possibly unfunded when I need it or do I take matters into my own hands and put money into a 401K which is mine when I want to retire and which the employer is contributing to anyway... if they are smart they are going to decide to go it alone.

Besides which, if you are not an idiot or ina very dangerous specialized field, you know that the union ends up supporting the lowest common denominator. And, suppose that you were a kick ass employee who was union and layoffs come around and you go first because you are low man on the totem pole? Would you want that? I wouldn't want that. I would want to be judged as valuable or invaluable to the company based on my own performance. Not abitrary rules and stats.

 

[Caroljo]

We have a union for the workers that work out in the factory. Since Michigan because a Right to Work state, I haven't heard how many new employees (and we've hired quite a few lately) have joined the union and how many hasn't. I've wanted to ask someone out there, but it's kinda frowned upon to talk about union stuff with a non-union person! If someone is a good worker & dependable, I don't see how they would need the Union. I've seen that it mainly supports people that don't want to work, miss too much time, or screw up in some other way. The company I work for has ALWAYS been very fair with their employees. I work in the office, no union, and we get the same and MORE benefits than the factory does. I've been here 22 yrs and have never heard or seen them be unfair to anyone.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Much talk about Scott Walker and Wisconsin these days, and the cast of attempting to bust unions and take away the benefits that union membership brings.

But, in the end analysis, the union member, the employee, was left with the choice to maintain enrollment and pay dues... or not.

We see, given that choice, a stark decline in enrollment and payment of previously mandated dues.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/...wfully-lonely-places-in-wisconsin-these-days/

Does this speak to the politician... or does this actually speak to the freedom of choice of the employee?

Unions had their place in time. During the Gilded Age, most labor was unskilled and workers had little to no leverage. Today, in the information age, a worker can make him or herself a valuable commodity by acquiring a skill set that is in demand. That makes much more sense than unionizing for millions or workers, and so they don't. Those who haven't upgraded their skill-set to make themselves make attractive to potential employers are still at the mercy of the job market, but many of those folks are young and still have time to improve themselves. Those who don't get left behind.

Once upon a time in America, laborers had few options. Now many of them do. That has had an effect on union membership, and it's not likely to go back to the way it was. Time marches on.

 

[Caroljo]

There was a time when Unions were really needed. That isn't so anymore. Most good companies want good employees and are willing to pay for that. They don't need a union to make sure they're treating their employees right, or paying them enough. People aren't going to stay at a job that they can't support their families on. If a company wants to keep good workers, they are making sure the employees are happy.

 

[as seen on tv]

there are 2 gross problems with "public sector unions"

1 - the first is that public employees must be protected from a predatory/evil government which employs them. If the government cannot be trusted to employ its own workers fairly, then how can we allow the same government to administer unions through the department of labor and DOJ?

2 - the second problem is that employees "must" join and pay, even if they are in disagreement with some or all of the unions positions. this is a tenet - mandatory membership, mandatory fees" which is found nowhere else in the universe. if i want to join a church (or not) its my decision; if i want to join a political party, it's my decision; if I want to move from a high tax city or state, to a lower tax one, it's my decision.

what's next? exit fees for people who want to leave new york and move to florida?

if something truly has value, you don't have to force people to join and pay dues.

 

[connieb]

there are 2 gross problems with "public sector unions"

1 - the first is that public employees must be protected from a predatory/evil government which employs them. If the government cannot be trusted to employ its own workers fairly, then how can we allow the same government to administer unions through the department of labor and DOJ?

2 - the second problem is that employees "must" join and pay, even if they are in disagreement with some or all of the unions positions. this is a tenet - mandatory membership, mandatory fees" which is found nowhere else in the universe. if i want to join a church (or not) its my decision; if i want to join a political party, it's my decision; if I want to move from a high tax city or state, to a lower tax one, it's my decision.

what's next? exit fees for people who want to leave new york and move to florida?

if something truly has value, you don't have to force people to join and pay dues.

Excellent points.

 

[Sickofleft]

Much talk about Scott Walker and Wisconsin these days, and the cast of attempting to bust unions and take away the benefits that union membership brings.

But, in the end analysis, the union member, the employee, was left with the choice to maintain enrollment and pay dues... or not.

We see, given that choice, a stark decline in enrollment and payment of previously mandated dues.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/...wfully-lonely-places-in-wisconsin-these-days/

Does this speak to the politician... or does this actually speak to the freedom of choice of the employee?

I would say both, they (Unions) fought Walker on giving people that choice, I believe he survived a re-call vote?

Also, the decline in Union membership has lots of causes not the least of them is a better educated work force.