Union California in a Right-to-Work Country

For some reason that psychologists might refer to as projection, liberals always accuse conservatives of wishing it was still the 1950's.  But when it comes to unions, it's the liberals who want to live in the 1950's.  Unions were necessary at one time but have been largely surpassed by events; does anyone truly "look for the union label" anymore?

California's government workers might.  California is one of the minority of states that is still a "fair share" state, meaning workers can be compelled to financially support a union even if they are not a member of that union (yours truly is what's known as an "agency fee payer").  The major Sacramento newspaper has an entire online section devoted to the opinions and views of state workers!  Don't believe me?  Here's their explanation:

The Sacramento Bee launched The State Worker blog in 2008 to cover state government from the perspective of California government employees. Every day The Bee filters the news through a single question: "What does this mean for state workers?" Subscribe to alerts on state pay, benefits, pensions, contracts and jobs at sacbee.com/newsletters. Twitter: @TheStateWorker.

You might have thought I was kidding, but I wasn't.

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case out of Illinois, a case that is widely believed (or hoped!) will end forced unionism in this country.  Here's "what this means for state workers":

California labor leaders sound almost apocalyptic when they describe a looming Supreme Court case that many of them concede likely will cost them members and money...

They’re alarmed by Janus vs. AFSCME, the Illinois lawsuit that challenges the rights of unions in 22 states to collect so-called “fair share” fees from employees who do not want to join bargaining groups but may benefit from representation. That practice has been legal and common since 1977, when the Supreme Court favored union arguments for fair-share fees in a lawsuit against the Detroit Board of Education.

Since then, business-backed groups and politicians have chipped away at fair-share fees across the country. They contend that the fees subsidize a union’s political activities, undermining the First Amendment rights of some workers.

Now, unions anticipate a 5-4 Supreme Court decision banning the mandatory dues with President Donald Trump’s nominee on the court, Neil Gorsuch, tilting the balance against their side just a year after the court deadlocked on a similar case against the California Teachers Association.

Hidden in the middle of the article is this gem which explains exactly why I'm against forced unionism and for the marketplace:

To hold on to power, public employee unions will have to shift to a model already used by California’s private sector unions that centers on motivating people to opt in to union membership even though they don’t have to. The model works for groups like the California Medical Association and the 400,000-member State Building and Construction Trades Council.

Provide a service I want and find of value, and I'll buy it.  Sadly, though, that's not quite what the unions have in mind.  Their method of "motivating people" is to craft laws which favor the union, for example, the law that allows unions access to new government employees so they can get them to join the union.  No, there's no "equal time" clause for professional organizations or anti-union information.

You might wonder why, when members are given the choice, unions lose 15-30% of their members once those members no longer are required to be members.  You might, if you were truly interested.  But unions aren't interested, they just want your money and the political influence it buys.  It must be hard for them to give up what they see as an entitlement, and hopefully, by next June 30th, they'll have to.