[NOTE: I'm headed north for the holidays, so this will be the last post until after the first of the year.]
Remember Wisconsin? They had an election a couple of years ago and the Republican promise of "jobs, jobs, jobs" carried the day giving that party total control of state government.
And once the election was over, do you remember what became the obsession of Wisconsin state government? Here's a hint: It wasn't "jobs, jobs, jobs." In fact it was something that nobody had bothered to mention during the election campaign: removing the collective bargaining rights of public employees--with the exception of police and firefighters, for a reason to be discussed later.
Remember Ohio? Pretty much the same story. But the citizens of Ohio made use of their ability to cancel legislation by means of a referendum. By a 2-to-1 margin, Ohioans told the Republicans in charge of state government that they were just fine with workers not needing to go by themselves to ask the CEO of a giant corporation for a raise. It seemed a much more balanced system when the union representing ALL of the workers could knock on the CEO's door.
Then there is Michigan. Last week--in a breathtaking show of raw political power--Michigan passed a "right to work" law.
What made it breathtaking was that Michigan governor Rick Snyder had said all along--including during the election--that he thought such a law was too divisive for his state. Then came the 2012 election in which Republicans lost several seats in the state house (the state senate was not up for election in 2012).
Apparently that made things less divisive because at 11 AM one day last week Snyder called a news conference and announced that he now supported a "right to work" law for Michigan. Amazingly, just such a law was introduced into the legislature early that same afternoon and was passed--without any hearings or time for public comment--by 8 PM that same evening. As you might expect, it was then signed by the governor.
Let's understand just what a "right to work" law means. New York is an example of a state that does not have such a law. So, if you take a job in a company whose employees have union representation does that mean you must join the union and pay union dues? No.
It does mean that you must pay an "agency fee" which is the portion of the union dues which actually goes toward negotiating and enforcing the contract under which everybody in that company works.
"Right to work" means that you get to say to the union, "Sure, go ahead and bargain with management on my behalf. I'll be happy to accept any benefits you negotiate, just don't ask me to pay anything to support those efforts on my behalf."
We fought a war over "taxation without representation." Right to work laws amount to representation without taxation.
It's easy to see how this benefits big corporations which make large campaign contributions, but how is this supposed to benefit the average Michigan worker?
In theory, eliminating those pesky unions makes Michigan a more attractive place for companies to build their plants, attracting more jobs to Michigan.
In theory, allowing corporations to dump anything they wanted anyplace they wanted for free should have the same effect. Let's all hold hands and race to the bottom. First one there "wins."
In practice, it doesn't seem to work this way. Research shows that the average wage in "right to work" states is $1500 less than in other states and that there is no "job flow" toward these states.
Even if there were a "job flow," how would that help the nation as a whole with one state stealing jobs from another?
Well, at least Michigan has a procedure allowing the public to overturn laws. Except, budget items. Would you believe that the Michigan legislature attached the "right to work" law to a budget bill? That's exactly what they did!
Which brings me to yacht races. I've been a sailor all my life. I spent summers teaching sailing at the Rochester YMCA camp on Keuka Lake.
There are 3 ways you can win a yacht race. The first is to have the fastest boat in the race. If your boat isn't the fastest, you can still win by having a skipper and crew with outstanding skills.
Failing the first two methods, many yacht races are won by using the rules against the other contestants. If you can force your opponent into a situation where they must violate a rule in order to avoid a collision you can win by having them disqualified.
It seems like government has become like a yacht race. The Constitution says not a word about the filibuster, yet the rules allow a minority to keep something from happening that a majority wants to happen.
And the people of Michigan must now live under a law they never asked for and never got to debate because the rules have been manipulated to keep them from having a say in the matter. How democratic.
Anybody with a brain can see that what happened in Michigan is all about politics not jobs. a lot of the money supporting Democratic candidates comes from union members and many of the people who man phone banks and pound the turf to get out the vote for Democratic candidates are union members.
Why were police and firefighters exempted from the anti-union bills in Wisconsin and Michigan? Simple. Members of these unions most often support Republican candidates.
After 9 1/2 years of teaching in Florida, a right-to-work state, I can say without a doubt that the effect of right-to-work is to weaken unions. Put simply, these underpaid people don't join in order to avoid the cost of dues. The net result is that teacher unions, which are demonized by staunch conservatives as having a stranglehold on education, in reality have very little power because they represent a minority (or, in some cases, a slim majority) of the teachers. Somehow the idea of strength in numbers doesn't resonate enough to overcome the cost of becoming a union member. And when contracts are unsatisfactory, non-member teachers blame the unions when they (non-members) are the real culprits. (They have met the enemy, and they are them.) They think they're playing the system - getting the benefits without making an investment - and don't realize they're being played. It's a lose-lose propostition, and it has a lot to do with Florida's rank near the bottom of the education ladder (and several other ladders - it's all connected).
ReplyDeleteApplied to unions in general, the effect is exponential. If people think those in power who enacted the legislation in Michigan (Wisconsin, Ohio) don't know the pattern, they should think again. The anti-unionists may have been clueless on many issues in the recent election, but they have this one nailed. If underpaid people can avoid union dues and still get the benefiits, many will. Then the union speaks for too few people (and has too little funding) to press for better contracts. Downward spiral. Drives me nuts!