When a law is necessary to keep an organization’s membership from leaving (e.g., a closed union shop that demands membership before someone can work there), it is ripe for competition. In this case, it was the same SCOTUS decision that made it possible for me NOT to have to join a union Janus v. AFSCME (2018). While that decision was over, having to pay a union for “collective bargaining” (ruling that non-members no longer had to pay fees to a union that was “negotiating” on their behalf), it effectively meant that unions lost power and money. LOTS of members and their dues went up in smoke.
I used to write and research about the SEUI a lot years ago about its formative years as a socialist/Communist/New Left organization with all of the intended results of those mindsets. After learning all that, I found it quite apropos that the NH State SEIU chapter was SEIU 1984. I still smile about it every time I pass by their building in Concord knowing that the Janus decision made it possible for me to NOT join the union as was expected of me. I have to admit, Gov. Sununu and then AG Gordon MacDonald put out an Executive Order that:
The Union Leader obtained a memo Attorney General Gordon MacDonald sent to Administrative Services Commissioner Charles Arlinghaus making it clear that as of the next payroll on July 6 all state workers must give permission to have any fees withheld from their paychecks. “As a result of this decision, the Department of Administrative Services must immediately stop deducting an agency fee from any state employee,” MacDonald wrote.
“No agency fee should be deducted from paychecks issued on that date and thereafter unless the employee has given his or her consent.”
So, guess what happened to the Socialist leaning SEIU in California (reformatted, emphasis mine)?
SEIU FACES STEEP DECLINES IN MEMBERSHIP AND REVENUE
SEIU Local 99’s massive strike in LA Unified ended last week with union leaders bragging that the strike showcased the union’s strength. But the reality is more stark for the union: SEIU is facing steep declines in membership and revenue, and the strike appears more like an act of desperation.
According to internal LAUSD documents, the union is struggling to retain their membership. Of the nearly 23,000 employees represented, 26% have decided to stop paying their union dues. That’s 26% of a budget the union desperately needs to engage in political donations and activity — and to lobby legislators.
The union’s predictable playbook mirrors that of an 8-year-old. Make outrageous demands and throw a tantrum if you don’t get what you want. Their strategy is not to actually negotiate — strike observers know the district offered a generous compensation increase. Instead, union leaders used the strike as a flex to demonstrate to their members that unions still matter so they can remain afloat.
…Internal documents from Oakland Unified school district note that almost half (46%) of SEIU 1021’s membership has opted out of exercising union membership.
That last bit, “as a flex…unions still matter”, is just a simple Virtue-Signaling exercise to their members. At least to those that haven’t yet accepted that the Value Added of belonging to the SEIU just is no longer a positive. How many of them did the simple math that told them “Er, I lost this much money during the strike – am I going to get that back?”.
Certainly when 46% of your members have decided that THEIR money is more valuable in THEIR pockets than in the Big Whig Leaders and their constant politicking that goes against their individual values, that should be sending a message to those same bosses that they ought to get back to basics.
Acting like they are bigger than the people they serve, their members, is not a way to keep friends around.
And in no small part, you know what the SEIU’s “Fight for $15” efforts for fast food workers, and then lobbying for even higher minimum wages in CA for them ($20), has resulted in their former members finding out what the real minimum wage is.
$0 per hour – unemployment.
All because the overblown union leaders decided that they could violate the most basic Rule in Economics – one must be finely attuned to the vagarities of Supply and Demand.
They didn’t.
