IMO, gutting the union is not a bad thing. I think that in today's environment unions are largely unnecessary, as evidenced by the huge decline in unions in the private sector over the last 30 years. Unions tend to enable the poorest employees (ones who really should be let go) and hold back the best employees, while at the same time resulting in a variety of work rules that are burdensome to the employer and in some cases are patently ridiculous. At the very least, the Supreme Court got it right that no employee should be forced to pay dues to union if they are not a member, as those dues end up supporting political activity of the union that the member may disagree with. What that should force unions to do is to make a better case to nonmembers that the union offers them something of value and adopt policies that truly ensures that no fees of that member will support political causes or candidates that the member does not want to support. In short, this ruling will either force unions to improve or they may well risk dying out. And by the way, I was once a member a government employee union. I hated it once I saw how the union actually functioned. I'm not opposed to unions in concept, I just hate the way the typical union today operates.
If it had not been for unions, law enforcement might still be making sub-par wages and lack sufficient benefits to attract and retain qualified employees. I cannot speak for other states, but in CA law enforcement unions lack the real power that many seem to impart upon us. We cannot strike or conduct labor actions, and a contract can be imposed at impasse unless there is binding arbitration built in to the MOU and the arbitration favors the union. We are largely at at the whim of the jurisdiction and must rely on their good graces. About all that we have been able to rely on is the political clout that comes from the financial support of politicians. And even with all of our supposed power, my state has done their damnedest to gut laws and benefits for public safety here to the point where overtime and burnout is the norm.
I was once a member of AFSCME and the CTA and greatly disliked their strong-arm tactics and the fact that so much of my money went to liberal candidates that I disagreed with. However, they were focused largely on labor issues and unions tend to be a single issue animal - labor issues only, and to heck with other political leanings even if they might be counterproductive.
Fortunately, I suspect most law enforcement and fire union members will remain because they know the cost of litigation if they are out on their own. It's better to have the umbrella of a large association for those times when/if you will be sued or prosecuted, especially since we are now entering a time when doing your job within law and policy can still cost you that job if the right people scream loud enough. Police unions should come out of the other end pretty well. Teachers unions, not quite as well. Though losing the political clout that comes with deep pockets will impact our ability to affect legislation and candidates that are supportive of our people and legislation that we believe promotes law and order.
When I first started in law enforcement, officers were making so little money that you needed a second job and an average career resulted in a pension at the poverty level after 30 years (if you could last that long, physically). It was largely through union action through the 90s that enabled this to be a career that could attract and retain qualified people ... actions that are now being rapidly undone and it is the public, at least in CA, that will be paying the price for a generation to come.
