Wisconsin public sector unions report drastic membership declines YES THIS IS A CUT AND PASTE, BUT I AM A SLOW TYPER... February 28, 2015 WEX Magazine & Archives More than two years after Scott Walker’s showdown with organized labor in Wisconsin, the official numbers for the state’s public sector union membership are in — and they are down. Way down. According a Labor Department filing made last week, membership at Wisconsin’s American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 40 — one of AFSCME’s four branches in the state — has gone from the 31,730 it reported in 2011, to 29,777 in 2012, to just 20,488 now. That’s a drop of more than 11,000 — about a third — in just two years. The council represents city and county employees outside of Milwaukee County and child care workers across Wisconsin. Labor Department filings also show that Wisconsin’s AFSCME Council 48, which represents city and county workers in Milwaukee County, went from 9,043 members in 2011, to 6,046 in 2012, to just 3,498 now. These numbers come from the locals’ LM-2 filings, annual reports they must make to Labor Department. They can be found here. They show why the state worker unions and their liberal allies fought such a protracted, bitter battle in 2011 over Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s changes to the state’s labor laws. Under the old laws, state employees were obligated to pay dues to a union even if that worker didn’t want to belong to a union. Walker changed that to allow state workers to opt out of paying those dues. He also required unions to submit to an annual re-certification vote. Without those requirements, the unions have found it much harder to retain members. Neither council responded to a request for comment. The numbers have to sting given that AFSCME was founded in Wisconsin. The Labor Department filings don’t paint of a complete picture of ASFCME in Wisconsin. It has two other branches in the state, Council 24 and Council 11, but they do not have to file these reports. According to a Labor Department spokesman, these federal disclosure requirements do not extend to unions that solely represent state and local government employees. Councils 40 and 48 must make the filings because they represent some private sector employees. The other two do not. Other public sector unions in the state haven’t suffered much. American Federation of Government Employees Local 45 reported to the Labor Department last month that its membership was 4,362. That is up slightly from 4,256 in 2012 and 4,236 in 2011. Still, the filings do confirm earlier reports that the union’s overall membership has fallen in the Badger State. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that statewide membership “fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed AFSCME’s figures.” A union official disputed the figures to me at the time but refused to provide their own numbers. *************the last paragraph is very key...
I don't have copy pasted facts, I have been a Minnesota state employee for 16 + years my wife has worked in the public schools for the last 15 years and my Daughter is a soon to be senior at the U of M graduating with an ag science degree.
I live in ND. I grew up in MN and was a resident there the year I signed up for this forum hence the MN in my screen name. I've been in ND the majority of the past 13 years.
Has the economic climate changed since the price of crude has dropped, I am sure there is a lag but I would imagine that new well production has stopped. Good thing most on the oil patch are contract employees, I mean good for the energy companies and the state of North Dakota.
I work and live in Fargo so I haven't really noticed the effects of the oil prices. The economy in the Fargo area has been strong for a long time and continues to be. My employer is a Fortune 500 company with a global presence...so local economy didn't affect my job. The state is making adjustments to the budget due to lower oil prices. I think ND is still in good shape as long as it makes good budget decisions which is normally the case. I know some oil workers have been laid off. Prices won't stay low forever though.
that is one of the best degrees going now,, other then farmer and you get that degree on the farm... the avg age of farmers now is in the 70s I think, and no one wants to be one very sad...
they will stay low as long as the Saudis keep them low, they did this back in the 80s when they saw we were trying get away from being so dependent on them and it worked.. It will work again as well.
The U.S. produces more oil than Saudi. ND is still drilling plenty of oil and will continue to unless prices fall much further than the current levels. There are wells which are profitable even at $30 a barrel. I don't think we will see $100 a barrel oil again anytime soon and that is just fine with me. When oil prices hit bottom (it's possible it already has per the gain in Feb) it will bounce higher as over supply diminishes and global demand increases.
They have shut many operations down and several of the companies that supply the oil industry have scaled way back there have been many laid off ,Haliburton the world’s second-largest oilfield-services company alone laid off over 1000 workers. recently Another oil company is scaling back drilling in Wyoming because of low oil prices EOG Resources until oil prices improve.. Rigs have pulled out of the gulf... and once they shut down it take a while to get geared up again if ever most have move further south.. many of the worlds economy's are based on $40 a barrel oil not $30...
I understand. But all those things while painful for a lot of people are going to help sort out the over supply issue. Saudi doesnt want prices at $30-$40 either. They have budgeted a deficit of $38 billion based on oil averaging in the upper $50's in 2015. This is the largest budgeted deficit in their history.
I don't see where Gary said its the govt's job to creat jobs? The govt is responsible for monetary and fiscal policy. Decisions made at these levels directly impact the economy and job market. I'm pretty sure you know this? Obviously, all politicians campaign on how they will propose laws/manage policy in a manner which will lead to a stronger economy and job growth.
Wisconsin is near the bottom in every job creation, projected job growth, and wage growth category there is nation wide. Just sayin...
Ag based economies are slower to recover, add the job losses in the paper valley, as well as the ink industry that went hand in hand with the paper industry. Heck there isn't even as much beer made in Wisconsin anymore.
She already has a job offer, the big corporate farms. The money is with the pork producers, best internships and upward mobility.
Fargo is a very interesting city. I spent a fair amount of time up there 3 years ago. This was when the economy was still in the tank but not in Fargo, the strip malls were all full of stores no vacant store fronts. Even housing was going full tilt.
at least not to that extreme..lol actually most folks from MN and WI as well as the U.P all pretty much sound the same to me...
The accent I find hilarious the the Maine or other parts of the NW... After living in several states growing up I have virtually no accent or so I thought... well my relatives in the north say I sound like a hick and my friends here in the south say I sound like a Yankee...lol
That's simply not the case! If you do not grow up in a farming family, actually being a "farmer" is almost impossible. Sure you can work for a farmer, but that's not the same. Land prices, input prices leveling or rising while having lower markets and big ag is too much of a factor. Everyone wants to be a farmer because they think it's so easy and profitable year in and out regardless of weather, govt and so on.
