Labor Tuesday: Iowa Fair Share & Right-to-Work
Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:36:29 AM PDT
From the Des Moines Register: Labor, business square off over fee proposal
The fight is getting nasty.
Organized labor and business are butting heads in Iowa over a "fair share" fee proposal in the Iowa Legislature that would force some nonunion workers to pay fees to unions.
The two sides are arguing about the proposal's fairness for thousands of Iowans, its effect on economic development in the state, and the question of whether passage of the proposal would end Iowa's 60-year run as a "right-to-work" state.
What do "right-to-work" and "fair share" mean? What would this bill actually do? What is the Republican noise machine doing to try to prevent this from passing? This, and more, below the fold.
What is Right-To-Work?
From Wikipedia, a Right-to-work law prohibits unions from "making membership or payment of dues or 'fees' a condition of employment, either before or after hire." In a state without Right-to-work, a union contract can specify that all employees must pay a fee to a union, not just those that are members of a union. Right-To-Work prohibits making payment of dues to a union a requirement of employment.
This is widely considered an anti-union proposal, since most of the benefits of a unionized work environment are available to all employees, whether or not they are a member of a union. It is often called "Right to Work for Less" by union groups. The AFL-CIO has a page about the main issues and myths behind Right-to-Work.
What States Have Right-To-Work?
Prior to 1947, Right-To-Work laws were illegal. However, the Taft-Hartley Act allowed states to pass right-to-work laws.
States with right-to-work are predominately located in the South and West. Every state that was a part of the Confederacy has a right-to-work law. On the other hand, Iowa is currently the only state with a right-to-work law that did not vote for Bush in both 2000 and 2004.
Four states, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma, have right-to-work provisions included in the state constitution and not by statute.
What is "Fair Share" and how would it impact Right-To-Work?
Once again, from the Des Moines Register:
The fair share clause would require a worker to become a union member or pay a fee to the union if the union represents employees. The fee would likely be a percentage of the amount that union members pay as dues - possibly as much as 80 percent.
The fee would go to help pay for union operating expenses and union services, such as negotiating contracts and representing employees in grievance cases with the company.
"Fair Share" would allow a union contract to require that all employees at a firm pay a fee to the union for its services in contract negotiation, etc. This would not require the employee to join the union. This is different from repealing right-to-work because the fee would only be for those services provided by the union to all employees.
Fair Share would not automatically require employees to pay a fee to unions. This would be dependent on contracts negotiated between a union and an employer.
Isn't Forcing People to Pay Fees Unfair?
The closed shop and the union shop were first set up in the early 1900s. In a closed shop, only members of the union can be hired. In a union shop, all employees are required to join a union after a certain period of time. This obviously strengthened the power of unions. One could say that this forced employees to pay a fee to the union, even if they disapproved of it. Furthermore, if they were not a member of the union, they would pay this fee without getting any benefit from it.
There are two main problems with this analysis. First, the union is formed and authorized by a majority vote of the eligible employees. If a majority of the employees do not want a union, the remaining employees cannot form a union. The fair side of that bargain seems to be that if a majority of the employees do want a union, they should be able to require everyone to be responsible for the union. If an employee really does not want a union, they should try to get a vote against the union.
Secondly, the union does provide some benefits to all employees, not just its members. Federal law requires that the collective bargaining agreement be applied to all eligible employees and not just union members. Considering that wages in union factories are generally higher than in non-union factories, employees are getting a significant benefit from the presence of the union. There seems no reason to allow "free-riders" other than to weaken unions.
Can Fair Share Pass?
Iowa elected a Democratic "trifecta" for the first time in over 40 years last election, with the State House, State Senate, and Governor all in Democratic control. The Governor, Chet Culver, endorsed such a measure in his election campaing. The Democrats control 30 of 50 Senate seats and 54 of 100 House seats. Thus, they should have the numerical capability to pass the measure if they can hold their own caucus together. The Democrats have already passed a state-wide minimum wage increase.
However, the Republicans have threatened "a huge fight if the legislation comes up for debate" according to the Register. The Republican noise machine is already in full force. Sheryl Leonard, a teacher from Holstein, is quoted in the Register as being willing to leave the profession of teaching rather than pay a fair share fee. Not mentioned is that her husband Mark Leonard ran for Secretary of Agriculture in the 2006 Republican Primary. Several companies have also threatened that they will not consider Iowa for expansion if such a bill passes.
To date, there has been only one diary about the Fair Share proposal. The anti-union, pro-right-to-work forces seem significantly more organized than the pro-union Fair Share forces.
Permalink | 10 comments