Good News: Public Union Membership About to Dive

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Janus vs AFSCME. The expected outcome will reduce public unions.

Arguably the best thing about Trump's election is his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch is highly likely to be the deciding vote in Janus vs AFSCME.

Labor unions could lose hundreds of thousands of members if the Supreme Court determines this spring that public employees cannot be required to pay union dues, a new study finds.

The court is expected to issue a ruling on the case involving Illinois state worker Mark Janus and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union in the coming weeks. If the court rules against the union—the expected outcome now that Justice Neil Gorsuch has joined the court—government workers would have less incentive to join or fund unions that negotiate on their behalf.

Such an outcome would result in an eventual loss of 726,000 union members, according to a study released Wednesday by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute and Robert Bruno, a labor and employment relations professor at the University of Illinois.

The analysis is based on what happened in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin, which in recent years have become “right to work” states and now bar such fees.

The effect of the lost union membership would be dramatic,” Mr. Bruno said this week. “These unions have the capacity to raise wages because the government is the employer of choice in many local areas.”

A drop in public-sector union membership would weaken one of the last strongholds of organized labor, which has lost members in manufacturing and related fields in recent decades.

Government workers accounted for nearly half of all union membership last year and their ranks are increasing, according to Labor Department data. Public-sector union membership has increased by about 500,000 since 1997, while private-sector union membership fell by 1.7 million.

Still, the estimated loss of members after the expected court decision represents only about 10% of the 7.2 million public-sector union members.

Only a Start

Good news is likely, but it's only a start. What's needed is a 100% drop in public union membership.

Public unions and their parasitic practices destroyed Illinois. A pension crisis awaits, 100% sponsored by public unions and politicians who support public unions.

Goat Crew

To highlight the complete dominations of states infiltrated by public union corruption, please consider Public Union Files Grievance Against Poison Ivy Eating Goats for Stealing Jobs.

In other cases, unions defend incompetent teachers, even child molester teachers. In Wisconsin, unions demanded that schools get rid of volunteer parents who cleaned blackboards or mowed the grass.

Union Busting Godsend

We need to end collective bargaining by public unions and pass national right-to-work legislation.

The best way to deal with public unions is to not deal with them at all. Ronald Reagan had the right idea when he fired all of the PATCO workers.

If you want to understand what happens when public unions control everything for decades, simply Look at Chicago and Illinois.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Public unions are ALL TIME largest political donors in American history -

Public unions give 99-1 to democrats

Democrats (especially on the city/county level) could not get elected without public union support

Democrats reward pubic unions with insanely great contracts

Democrats will never turn on public unions, never.


Thanks for posting this.

A lot of the overseas readers here will gain better insight into the US political lay-of-the-land once they see where the money is headed.

Alas, a lot of Americans will see it and still not give a damn.

Mish is on his anti-union rant again over something that happened to him when he was a teenager in St. Louis. Gee, get over it Mish. Teen age angst?

100% agree... it is modern day slavery.

Politics aside, how is a common working
man supposed to counter the power of ever centralized capital if not for unions?

As I have stated before, for 50 years, the path to a middle class life in the US (for the unskilled) was to manage to get a job in a protected industry with a strong union. Over several decades the coal, steel, manufacturing and government provided these opportunities. Today, the only one left is Government, but that will soon be gone. In the future, the only path to a middle class life will be to have the necessary skills that are in demand. Otherwise, the unskilled worker will have no leverage.

I’d have to see what you describe as a nice contract. For example, does the rank-and-file have a 401(k) plan?

In the meantime, I’m reporting this to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. I’ll have her people look into it and I’m quite certain that they can outspend those smalltime pikers on your county commission.

sarc / off.

Now that there are many laws protecting workers. Like minimum wage laws. OSHA laws, etc... . Are unions needed any more? I get the need for them during the robber baron days, but those days are long gone.

"I live in Florida and our County Commission is 100% Republican. The unions here give all the money to Republicans who reward them with nice contracts here." That is a good example of why I have not identified as a republican for a long time. They are too much like democrats.

It is said that even arch-Socialist/communist dupe President F. D. Roosevelt was opposed to public sector unions. After all, those workers are employed by the only legitimate employer, the Government, which has the best interests of its workers at heart.

Get rid of public unions so government employees can live every bit as poorly as private sector workers while corporate pay and profits rise.

Mish is on his anti-union rant again over something that happened to him when he was a teenager in St. Louis." It is happening to Mish now in Illinois, as he said, baldski.

Pensions with 99% of highest, average 5 year payouts after 30 years, good healthcare policies, guaranteed overtime, and lots of worker's rights (you can't be just fired). And on top of that they get 401Ks too.

"It is said that even arch-Socialist/communist dupe President F. D. Roosevelt was opposed to public sector unions." It was not just "said", Kinuach. Roosevelt recognized the conflict of interest that would inevitably arise if politicians are supported by the unions and then they get to support the union workers with other people's money; a vicious corrupt circle if there ever was one. He wrote that down for posterity. It was Kennedy who finally approved public unions.

I think we ought to start calling taxes union dues.