State legislators would do well to make a chart listing all the pluses and minuses of making Minnesota a so-called right-to-work state.
But it appeared that such a cool-headed exercise would be difficult during Monday’s Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. Member listened to passionate pro and con testimony amid strident chants of “Just vote no” from an estimated 1,600 union workers gathered outside the hearing room.
Under consideration was a bill — sponsored by Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville — that would ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment that would establish “freedom of employment.”
Only one page long, it guarantees that no person would have to join a labor union as a condition of employment or pay dues. Conversely, it also provides that no worker can be asked to resign from any labor organization in order to keep his or her job. The provision would apply to both government and private-sector workers.
After three hours of testimony and debate, the committee voted 7 to 6 in favor of passage along party lines — almost. Bill Ingebrigtsen, who had helped to form a police union early in his career, broke ranks with fellow Republicans to oppose the measure.
The bill now goes to the Rules Committee and, after that, the Senate floor for debate, though it’s anybody’s guess whether it will get that far.
For one, there’s been no hearing so far on a companion bill in the House. And, two proposed amendments already are ahead of it in the process.
One amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman is already on the November general election ballot. A second proposed amendment, calling for voters to present photo IDs to be able to vote, is under consideration and has had several committee hearings.
Adding another controversial referendum might be too much for voters, some feel. Mike Buesing, president of AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, asked senators: “Why stir up this hornet’s nest in an election year?”
Meanwhile, a major business group, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, has not given the measure its full support. According to a spokesman, “We have not determined whether or not this rises to the level of a constitutional amendment.”
On the merits, it was hard to get to the bottom of the case, based on Monday’s committee testimony.
The pros flung out statistics, references to academic reports and anecdotal claims of labor union harassment.
The antis, most of them from Minnesota’s public service unions, referred to other studies and statistics and presented anecdotal evidence of union contributions to wage and business growth, training and workplace safety.
Here a look at some of the pro-amendment claims and opponents’ counterclaims:
|
Pro |
Anti |
|
The amendment would prevent people from having to pay dues to hold a job, which, sponsors claim, is tantamount to a “jobs tax.” |
Those who don’t join the union are only assessed a “fair share” payment that simply defrays the cost of negotiating contracts. It is capped at 85 percent of member dues but may be less.
|
|
Job growth is higher in RTW states, according to studies; incomes are higher; RTW spurs economic growth. |
Other studies: wages are lower in RTW states. Besides, Minnesota’s economy is better than the nation’s as a whole, so what’s the problem? RTW, according to one ranking, is only 16th among factors considered by business relocation specialists. |
|
Unions would have to prove their worth to prospective members. They now get paid whether they are effective or not. |
Federal law requires unions to negotiate for all workers in their unit whether or not they are members. RTW would generate “free riders” who would pay no dues but receive the same benefits as members. People wouldn’t join if they can get the same benefits for free, and lack of dues would weaken unions. |
|
Fewer than one in 10 Minnesotans belongs to a union. |
So? |
|
Union membership does not drop off after a state adopts RTW measures. |
RTW will weaken unions and protect employers from having to provide benefits, such as health insurance and pensions. |
|
Putting this measure in the Constitution would safeguard it from legislative tinkering should non-right-to-work politicians be elected later. |
This measure should not be enshrined in the Constitution. |
|
Measure would help Minnesota compete in the global marketplace. No supporting evidence. |
No counterclaim. |
|
Security clauses in labor contracts require employers to terminate workers who don’t join the union or pay dues. |
An employer can negotiate to get rid of a security clause. |
|
Workers should have the right to associate (or not) with whomever they want. |
They should have the freedom to organize and bargain on wages and work conditions. |
|
People shouldn’t have to pay dues that support political causes they object to, and unions have definite political agendas. |
Members can withhold a portion of dues directed to political action. |
|
Public service union collective bargaining contracts interfere with effective management of state finances. Anecdote: Unions pressure workers to be less productive. |
Unions advocate for safe workplaces and, in the case of public unions, better and safer services. Anecdotal testimony suggested that employers in RTW states cut staff and services without regard to patients, customers and citizens. |
|
Unions and their members bully and harrass dissenters. See how protesters outside the hearing room are yelling and shaking fists at pro-RTW legislators! |
Union members are here exercising their First Amendment Rights. Normally, we are sweethearts. |
The Heart Of The Matter
As I’ve stated elsewhere on MinnPost, it would be helpful if Right To Work For Less supporters were more forthcoming about this being an attempt to weaken unions. Keith Downey has said it would strengthen unions. Mr. Downey, do really expect ANYONE to believe that?
how about some evidence?
We know workers are paid more in pro-union states. And we also know that our unemployment is already significantly below the national average, as it has been historically.
Really?
“Union membership does not drop off after a state adopts RTW measures.”
Assuming that’s true, then who is it that’s calling for this law? Certainly not disaffected union members.
RIght to freeload
“Right to work” is a misnomer. In fact, I expect the people pushing it would say that there is no right to work, but the employer can hire who they want. The proper term is “right to freeload”, since federal law requires unions to represent all the workers, even if they choose not to pay Fair Share let alone membership dues.
Shouldn’t all the free-marketeers say this is terrible, since paycheck deduction of dues is negotiated between the workers and employers without government involvement? Proponents are actually telling the private sector how to do things. Of course, they’re for workers having choices only if they make the “right” choice. If they make the “wrong” choice, then the choice must be taken from them. You have the right to organize —- provided you choose not to.
I expect proponents next move will be to require business associations to provide their services to all businesses, including those who choose not to pay dues. I wonder how that would go over?
With all due respect, Eric
Unions are built upon “the right to freeload”.
Feckless union members freeload upon the work of mediocre members, who in turn freeload upon the work of conscientious, hard working, successful members. It’s the core of the system.
People who choose to opt out of the system are those most likely found at the bottom of that pyramid.
You have no idea what you’re talking about
I’ve seen an organizing drive close up, and I can tell you that the hardest working employees, the ones most concerned about doing the job right, are the ones most likely to organize. The feckless just leave. Maybe that’s just one person’s experience, but I’ll take that over repeating dittohead talking points.
Less than 12% of the American workforce is unionized. How can this be a major issue for politicians? I will tell you it is a major issue for the corporations that support these politicians.
Right-to-work laws make it optional for workers covered by a union contract to help pay for the expenses that the union incurs while protecting the rights of all employees.
The wages and benefits of union workers are negotiated through collective bargaining. This is a mutual agreement between labor and management If someone decides not to join the union and becomes a non-dues-paying worker they will also receive the same wages and benefits as the dues paying members. This makes them a free-loader on the dues paying members.
All the benefits without having tho pay for them. How can this be a conservative principle?
I don’t think that union members are going to their legislators and asking to disband the unions. I am perfectly happy being part of a union and I would prefer that you all would stay out of my business. I have a really difficult job and work really hard……just leave me alone and let me do my job. Please.
Freeloaders Indeed!
Every non-union employee take out your employee handbook and look at the fine print. Your employer reserves the right to change rules, wages and benefits, especially retirement pensions and health plans without notice anytime time their hearts may so desire.
Union contracts lock the employer into those pesky rules, wages, pension and retiree health benefits executives are so fond of raiding. As a former Wall Street Journal reporter cited, the only way to tap the lucrative pensions is if they all died.
The right to freeload (aka the right to work) will assist in destroying the union’s ability to fund negotiations (market data, attorney fees, etc.) and therefore solid contracts. Without solid contracts the employers are free to eliminate not only future benefits but potentially past ones as well. Wow! Erode and eliminate your liabilities what a deal! Better yet, create a wage market that aspires to Mississippi standards! it is a Wall Street Nirvana bill.
I would like the same rights in the marketplace. Where is my “Freedom from Contract”? I would like all the benefits others work to bestow upon me, but I really don’t want to have to pay for those benefits. Senator Thompson, please sponsor a bill that allows me to benefit from others investments and hard work and then give me the option of paying for it – or not. Now I understand why Republicans are so popular. Republican “Personal Responsibility” is a code phrase for Freeloader-Free-For-All! No Taxes – No Dues – No Regulation – No Rules – No Responsibility!
One thing that really isn’t being talked about with this, the Republicans are not the cause of this issue. Anyone paying attention new this was coming months ago with the attempt to unionize daycare providers by Gov. Dayton, that is the catalyst for this bill. People can deny it all they want, but that is the truth.
I’m honestly kind of confused by some of the responses here as well.
First, if you choose not join a union if RTW were implemented, that does not make you a freeloader. We all make our jobs and the jobs everyone else around us better when we do something to benefit ourselves at work, home, in the community etc… That doesn’t mean people owe you or are freeloading off of you. If the guy in the crappy house across the street fixes it up real nice and invests $50,000 into it, and because of that you benefit from a nicer view and increased property value, you are not bound to help him pay his mortgage now. You are not a freeloader, just like the RTW employee isn’t if a union gets the employer to implement a new gym membership program for health..Unions members will benefit, they work for that, anyone one person benefits, someone else will by association. That’s life, and that’s a good thing.
Secondly, not everyone wants to have their contracts done and represented by a union. Some people, like myself, want to be responsible for ourselves. I don’t a public pension plan, I don’t trust the debt liability that is being floated, I want to represent myself to take care of my own retirement. I don’t need a union making a wage scale for position X, I want to excel and market myself to my employer for my worth. Etc… Some people want their freedom of association to not have someone else have to represent them. Is that a bad thing? No. And if I make bad choices, you’re not responsible for me either. Is there a convincing reason why I shouldn’t have this freedom if I choose it?
Third, Freedom of Association is part of the 1st amendment, it’s a right we all have, and we should never be bound to our associations. Mandatory unionization is against this. There is the old “if you don’t like it, work somewhere else” line, but many jobs that the government does, that’s the only place you can do them. If someone wants to work in the public sector and make society a better place for all, that’s fine with me, I respect that, and their rights not to be associated with any group they do not want to be. Likewise, I also completely respect the wishes of anyone that wishes to be part of the union and happily support their decision, but their decision should not become mine as well, otherwise there truly is no freedom of association guaranteed by the constitution.
response to your points
First, unions are required by federal law to represent all employees working under the same contract. So if a person is wronged by their employer the union is required by law to represent them even if they are not in the union.
Second, if an employer has a contract with a union it also has an exclusivity agreement with the union that requires all employees to work under the same contract.
Third, mandatory union membership is already illegal in the US and has been for quite some time.
Unions are the workers’ lawyers. Dues are the union’s retainer fees. If you take a job that has a union contract you don’t have to be in the union but you should have to pay for the services that the union provides especially since federal law requires the union to provide those services.