Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that a parent who is caring for her disabled son and being supported through Medicaid is not a "state worker" who can be forced to join a union by state law. Think about that one for a moment. The plaintiff was a woman whose son has severe developmental disabilities. She spends almost full time caring for her son. The son's medical expenses and some of his living costs are paid by Medicaid in their home state of Illinois. Some of those Medicaid payments are directed to the mother as compensation for her tireless efforts working to take care of her son. And what does the state have to say about this? The answer is simple: parents in this situation who are caring for their children are now deemed state employees and Illinois law requires that they join the state employees union. The parent caring for the sick child has to join a union. I wrote it again because it is such a shocking concept, even for the government.
So how can this have happened? How could a state require parents to join a union if they take care of a disabled child who gets help on Medicaid. The answer is simple: money. All those parents who become union members have to pay dues, and union dues are one of the biggest sources of political contributions in the country. In other words, this forced union membership is a great way to siphon off government money to help fund political campaigns. What Democrat (cause they get the contributions) could resist?
But being in the union also brings rules and requirements that go beyond the dues issue. The mother taking care of her son now has to comply with the union work rules and limitations. Technically, this mother would be limited as a union member in the number of hours she could spend each week caring for her son. There would also be other requirements, but the hours issue alone pretty much tells the whole ridiculous story.
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court ruled that these parents are not state workers. The grab for the dues fell on its face this time. The response from the left has been that this was a major assault on unions and a despicable attempt by the Court to hurt working people. Most likely, at least some of the people who are saying this stuff actually believe it. Clearly, however, such a response is delusional.
It probably is time for those liberals who are strong union supporters to take a step back to consider the need for the union movement. These folks need to ask themselves why the American private sector has shed union workers at a rapid rate for fifty years. The American workforce (outside of government workers) that used to be about 35% unionized is now 7% unionized, and the unions are shrinking. If unions are so important to the working people of America, how can this be? Why would all those millions upon millions of workers vote with their feet by leaving unionized companies and working at non-union employers. The law has not changed; indeed, if anything, it has become easier to unionize than it was sixty years ago. So what has changed? Can it be that more and more workers have watched unionized firms become sclerotic as work rules and labor changes were rusted into place. Can it be that workers watched those same unionized firms fall to competition from foreign and domestic competitors that were easily able to outmaneuver the unionized dinosaurs? Can it be that workers came to realize that the unions acted principally to confer benefits on the union leaders and their political allies while providing little advantage to the union members themselves?
It would be easy for the average liberal to snort in derision at the questions I just listed. After all, most liberals just "know" that the unions are inherently beneficial to the working people of America. But these same liberals need to take a step back and think for a moment. The reality has to be either that what they "know" is wrong or that the working people of the USA are just too stupid to understand what is in their own self-interest. Liberalism is, by its very nature, elitist. The average liberal thinks that experts employed by the government ought to make most decisions about the lives of Americans rather than leaving such decisions to the Americans themselves. As a result, the is a large group of liberals who blame the decline of unions on the stupidity of the average American worker. But they should know better. The truth is that unions do not provide much benefit for their members. The unions empower the union leaders and their political allies, and they do so with the union dues that are taken from the members. The workers understand this. Maybe, just maybe, some day the liberals will understand it as well.
So how can this have happened? How could a state require parents to join a union if they take care of a disabled child who gets help on Medicaid. The answer is simple: money. All those parents who become union members have to pay dues, and union dues are one of the biggest sources of political contributions in the country. In other words, this forced union membership is a great way to siphon off government money to help fund political campaigns. What Democrat (cause they get the contributions) could resist?
But being in the union also brings rules and requirements that go beyond the dues issue. The mother taking care of her son now has to comply with the union work rules and limitations. Technically, this mother would be limited as a union member in the number of hours she could spend each week caring for her son. There would also be other requirements, but the hours issue alone pretty much tells the whole ridiculous story.
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court ruled that these parents are not state workers. The grab for the dues fell on its face this time. The response from the left has been that this was a major assault on unions and a despicable attempt by the Court to hurt working people. Most likely, at least some of the people who are saying this stuff actually believe it. Clearly, however, such a response is delusional.
It probably is time for those liberals who are strong union supporters to take a step back to consider the need for the union movement. These folks need to ask themselves why the American private sector has shed union workers at a rapid rate for fifty years. The American workforce (outside of government workers) that used to be about 35% unionized is now 7% unionized, and the unions are shrinking. If unions are so important to the working people of America, how can this be? Why would all those millions upon millions of workers vote with their feet by leaving unionized companies and working at non-union employers. The law has not changed; indeed, if anything, it has become easier to unionize than it was sixty years ago. So what has changed? Can it be that more and more workers have watched unionized firms become sclerotic as work rules and labor changes were rusted into place. Can it be that workers watched those same unionized firms fall to competition from foreign and domestic competitors that were easily able to outmaneuver the unionized dinosaurs? Can it be that workers came to realize that the unions acted principally to confer benefits on the union leaders and their political allies while providing little advantage to the union members themselves?
It would be easy for the average liberal to snort in derision at the questions I just listed. After all, most liberals just "know" that the unions are inherently beneficial to the working people of America. But these same liberals need to take a step back and think for a moment. The reality has to be either that what they "know" is wrong or that the working people of the USA are just too stupid to understand what is in their own self-interest. Liberalism is, by its very nature, elitist. The average liberal thinks that experts employed by the government ought to make most decisions about the lives of Americans rather than leaving such decisions to the Americans themselves. As a result, the is a large group of liberals who blame the decline of unions on the stupidity of the average American worker. But they should know better. The truth is that unions do not provide much benefit for their members. The unions empower the union leaders and their political allies, and they do so with the union dues that are taken from the members. The workers understand this. Maybe, just maybe, some day the liberals will understand it as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment