What happens when public workers don't have to join a union? They don"t
Wisconsin continues to lead the way. We hear that public sector workers are leaving the union, according to The Capital Times in Madison:
"In 2011, the year Act 10 was approved, the four councils that make up the state organization reported a combined income of $14.9 million. In 2012, the first full year that the law was in place, the revenue had dropped roughly 45 percent, to $8.3 million.
While AFSCME's income occasionally fluctuates to reflect infusions of cash it receives from other labor groups that support its political agenda, most of its money comes directly from member dues. If we look specifically at dues revenue, the picture is also ugly. In total, dues revenue for the groups dropped 40 percent, from $12 million to $7.1 million."
Why is anyone surprised? Union membership has two problrms:
First, it was mandatory and people hate to be told what to do; and.
Second, the public sector union in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, was nothing but a collection machine for Democrats.
For example, the Democrat presidential candidate received 53% of the vote in 2012, 56% in 2008, 50% in 2004, 48% in 2000 and 49% in 1996.
My guess is that public sector workers voted along these lines and yet their dues did not. In other words, does anyone seriously think that the Romney campaign got 46% of the union contributions?
Let me be clear. I have nothing against unions but they should never be mandatory, especially in the public sector. Furthermore, their contributions to political campaigns should reflect the wishes of the membership not the leadership.
P. S. You can hear CANTO TALK here & follow me on Twitter @ scantojr.