Labor’s Losses Are Its Own Fault

LABOR leaders are panicking ahead of a Supreme Court decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which could drastically alter the relationship between government unions and employees forced to fund their activity. Adding to their woes is a new study by the union-funded Illinois Economic Policy Institute that predicts disaster for organized labor if the court rules in favor of Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee who sued AFSCME, arguing he shouldn’t be forced to pay “agency fees” to the union since its collective bargaining with the government constitutes lobbying and political speech he may not agree with. A decision is due this summer. The most eye-catching assertion by IEPI is that public-sector union membership could drop by 726,000 if the court sides with Janus. Unions want you to believe Janus and the hundreds of thousands of other public-union members who want to leave will get a “free ride,” enjoying the collectivebargaining benefits of union membership without paying dues.

But these would be, by definition, workers who do not want the union to represent them; they’re

forced riders, not free riders, required to fund political speech against their will.

They’d gladly represent themselves, but unions consistently oppose bills that would let them do so, including ones recently in Michigan, Oklahoma and Missouri, largely because the bigger their numbers, the greater their bargaining leverage. In other words, unions

choose to represent nonmembers because it’s in their interest.

If IEPI is right, it means 726,000 people will no longer be forced to fund political speech against their will. That’s a feature, not a bug.

Instead of complaining about trapped workers being set free, union bosses should rethink their priorities and ask workers why they’d want to leave. Odds are, the bosses would hear answers they don’t like: Their workers don’t feel they’re getting their money’s worth — or don’t support what the union is advocating.

IEPI claims that if Janus wins, public-sector workers could lose $1,810 in annual income, worsening the “pay penalty” that comes with working in state and local government. But union dues themselves can cost as much as $1,000 a year. And the “pay penalty” simply doesn’t exist, particularly in forcedunion states that would be affected by the Janus case.

Total compensation for state employees in those states is far higher than for comparable private-sector workers: 42 percent in Connecticut, 35 percent in Pennsylvania, 34 percent in New York and 26 percent in Illinois, according to a 2014 American Enterprise Institute study.

The IEPI study claims the post- Janus decline in membership would trigger a $16.8 billion plunge in wages and benefits. But another way to look at that — if it were to happen — is that $16.8 billion would be saved by taxpayers. As the study itself admits, “governments may be able to reduce overall tax burdens” as a result. What’s not to like?

Such savings would be good for states’ fiscal health, since those with the strongest government unions are in the worst fiscal shape. Moreover, the decision would likely empower state and local governments to better reward their most effective workers by enacting merit-pay policies.

North Carolina is indicative: One of the least-unionized states in the country, it has led the nation in teacher-pay increases, with more than 20 percent in hikes — and that followed nearly $5 billion in tax cuts for the state.

Organized labor has a real problem, and the movement’s leaders seem to understand that. Government workers make up a growing percentage of union members; public-sector union membership has grown by about 500,000 since 1997, while private-sector union membership has fallen by 1.7 million. There are five times as many private-sector employees as government employees, yet union membership is almost identical in the two sectors.

Having lost the private sector, unions are now circling the wagons around government employees. But, as the unions themselves admit, hundreds of thousands of those employees don’t want to be hemmed in.

All the potentially negative side-effects of Janus bemoaned by organized labor could be avoided if the unions would simply provide value to members, listen to them and give them a compelling reason to stay.

Workers don't feel they're getting their money's worth - or don't support what the union is advocating