Commentary
One on One: The 'right-to-work' amendment
Editor's note: A week after Indiana became the first state in more than a decade to become a "right-to-work" state, Minnesota Republicans in the Legislature have proposed a "right-to-work" amendment to the sate constitution. This is a transcript of a conversation that aired today on "Morning Edition." Host Cathy Wurzer sat down with Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville, and Sen. Ken Kelash, DFL-Minneapolis.
Cathy Wurzer: What's the issue that this amendment is trying to address?
Sen. Dave Thompson: A very simple one. And that it is an attempt to allow the voters of Minnesota to decide whether people should be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. Currently, if you want to work for an employer that has a collective bargaining agreement in place, you must join the union or if you choose not to, pay the vast majority of the dues, typically 85 percent. The only thing this will do if it passes in November, if it gets on the ballot, is it will allow people who choose not to be part of the union not to join and not to pay dues. It doesn't touch collective bargaining, doesn't touch anything else. It's a simple freedom of choice for employees.
Wurzer: I'm thinking, Sen. Kelash is a former union carpenter, that you have strong feelings on this. Why do you believe Minnesota should not enact a measure like this?
Sen. Ken Kelash: First of all, there is a way to not join a union, that is to not apply for a job at a union firm. So, that in the first place if you choose not to join a union, that's number one. Number two, if you are hired by a union firm, you have the opportunity to pay fair share dues, which is not joining the union but paying the union's cost of doing it. What this legislation, or this amendment, is trying to do is provide for a free lunch. I'd love to play at the Edina Country Club, golf, without being a member there, but it's not allowed.
The other thing it does is it disallows language in a contract between two parties which is something we haven't done in the past. The contract is decided by both the union and management, that our employees are going to belong to this union and that this union is going to represent the workers in collective bargaining over wages, benefits, working conditions, etc.
Wurzer: I want to ask Sen. Thompson about the first part of your concerns. To be clear, the shop, the company, could still be unionized. But those choosing not to join a union would still get the union benefits. Is that fair?
Thompson: They wouldn't necessarily get the union benefits. It would be up to the employer and individual employee to contract for the terms of their contract. An employer would choose to do that, but they wouldn't necessarily have to. If you don't belong to the union, you don't automatically get the protection of the union.
I would like to point out that Sen. Kelash made the point that while you shouldn't be able to join the Edina Country Club without paying the dues, we don't have a fundamental right, I believe, to belong to any organization, whatever it may be. However, we should have the right to work without having to pay a third party for that right. Quite a difference.
Kelash: You want a free lunch. What this is saying is that if a union, through years of collective bargaining, have gotten wages and benefits and better working conditions for employees, then those employees who are benefiting from that shouldn't be required to help pay the cost. One of the things that Sen. Thompson missed is that if there's a union contract in place and there are non-union employees, that union is required and obligated to represent that employee. If this goes through, one of the big problems is they're required to represent those employees even though they're not paying any dues into the organization.
Thompson: Doesn't it seem a little bizarre that, if a union is unable to voluntarily get people to join their union, they think they should have the force of law to make these people join the union or pay the fair share, which is 85 percent of the dues, in the vast majority of cases? I can think of no other example where an organization attempts to obtain customers, obtain members, obtain adherence to their program, but if you don't want to do it, the government makes you.
Kelash: On the contrary, they don't need to become members of the union if they're employed by a union. What he's saying is that we shouldn't have language in contracts that both management and labor agree on that require that this group is going to represent you in collective bargaining, it just destroys the collective bargaining process.
The bottom line is that where "right-to-work" is in place, wages are depressed, they are down. In the 22 states that have right to work, Minnesota workers earn about $5,500 more per worker.
Wurzer: Other studies show, Sen. Thompson, that wages would go up, result in higher wages. What's the correlation there?
Thompson: If you look at where states start and how they move, the movement of wages upward is upward much more quickly in states that have employee freedom, right to work.
Wurzer: Here in Minnesota, per capita income is the 11th highest in the nation and that's higher than North Dakota and Iowa, two "right-to-work" states.
Thompson: We have a significantly higher cost of living than North Dakota. You have to factor that in when you look at income relative to cost of living. For example, one of the statistics I saw, New York has a significantly higher income than some of the "right-to-work" states. Well, yeah, a studio with a Murphy bed in New York is $3,000 a month, not the case in North Dakota, you could live pretty well on 40 grand a year. If you look at the trends and if you look at what the economies have done in states that have adopted freedom for employees to choose, overall household income goes up.
Kelash: If you have a look at the most recent case of Oklahoma, it was the most recent state to go "right-to-work." Their wages went down, they had net job loss since "right-to-work" went in. What "right-to-work" is for is an effort to lower wages and compete for low wage jobs.
The strongest economies in this country are those who have a highly educated workforce like Massachusetts and Minnesota, we're not going to be able to compete on low wages with the rest of the world. We have to have an educated, strong workforce, and that requires a strong wage rate for the people who are working.
Thompson: Let's see, in order for me to have a job at the company I want to work at, I have to pay. When Sen. Kelash says, well, you don't have to belong to the union — well, no, but they're still going to get 85 percent of the dues — it's the Hotel California, you can check out any time you like but you can't leave.
Kelash: On the contrary, if you don't want to pay union dues, you don't have to work for that company. There's lots of other companies that won't require that, so it's not like you have no option. If you want the benefits this union has bargained for, then you have to pay the freight. I would love to vote for free lunch. All the "right-to-work" states have significantly higher poverty rates than Minnesota has.
Wurzer: And you're going to chalk that up to unionization?
Kelash: It certainly has to do with the ability to make a decent living. Unions help raise wages.
Thompson: That makes no sense at all because by and large it's not middle and lower-middle class people who are unionized. It's by and large public employees and people in higher paying occupations.
Wurzer: You're both good at counting noses, what really are the chances of having this pass this session?
Thompson: I don't know. I believe it's one of the best things we can do to increase the job climate in Minnesota, to attract employers to come here and grow here and make Minnesota better off. In the end of the day, I might succeed and I might not, but I step up and do what I believe is right and let the chips fall where they may.
Kelash: Here's the thing on whether or not it's got a chance to pass. The labor movement knows that there are Republicans that don't want to support this. Whether or not their caucuses allow them to or not, is going to be part of what happens as we move forward. I do know there are no Democratic votes for it.
Comments (22)
There is one thing that is not mentioned here. In choosing to be non-union member in a union shop, I must send a written letter to the union requesting that my payment be only used for bargaining the contract. If I do not do this they can use the money to lobby Sen. Kelash to say nice things about them.
The "right to amendment" really means that works would be unalbe to address work issues - pay, health, any job security
Quite awhile ago I had a union friend tell me how much he hated the union and paying dues. He was forced to pay dues, and "get health insurance" via his union and his wife was a Mayo Clinic employee. Her insurance was exponentially a better value than anything the union could offer. Was he mistaken? Could he have opted out of that insurance? Were I to vote today this would be the major factor causing me to press "yes" to pass this amendment.
As for Mr Kelash's comment... "First of all, there is a way to not join a union, that is to not apply for a job at a union firm. " Really? Being a non-smoker I know that one of the main arguments helping pass the MN smoking ban was that smoking environments prohibited people from getting jobs in an environment due to health concerns (e.g. an asthmatic person). How did you vote then? Did you say, "they can chose to work someplace else"? That sir, was a statement I hope you regret going on the record.
So, in summary "right to work" seems to equal decreased wages, cuts to benefits like health care and retirement savings, and gives corporations more power to outsource your job. The upside is giving workers the "freedom to choose" not to have the aforementioned benefits. I did a quick search to see who was funding the right to work amendment vote: all I could find were right wing political organizations. Obviously, this isn't about employees having more freedom at work, it's about shifting power to managers and corporations. More work, less pay; not much of a choice.
the ammendment makes an assumption that and individual employee can make better choices for them self in a 1-to-1 bargain with a company owner. Check in with people coming back into the workforce - after the recent economic downturn. The employer offers nothing, bargains for nothing and dictates everything in your "contract". Right to work simply eliminates that obligation of an employer to meet or confer with unions. If the effort to proceeed with right to Work effort wants my vote - add this provision ... all employers must publish the positions the have and the pay rate of those positions. Let the potential "employee" be an informed consumer. Make the companies actually compete for good employees in the market.
Regarding the attempt to equate the smoking ban in bars with an ability to work. (1) Prior to the ban - 99% of bars were smoke filled at any given time. - there is a much healthier mix of union-ized vs. Non-Union companies in nearly all of the trades. (2) Woking in a unionized shop will NOT adversely affect your health - but working in a smoky bar will. (3) The costs of smoking and alchol related issues (personal health, fire, crashes, death of others) is far far far higher than those related to unions.
Thompson proves Kelash's point with his one sentence:
"Thompson: That makes no sense at all because by and large it's not middle and lower-middle class people who are unionized. It's by and large public employees and people in higher paying occupations."
Why do you think those occupations are "higher paying"? Could it be because they are unionized?
I may be missing something. I am not an expert on the subject, but can't we have it both ways? Is there some reason all workers need to make the same wages? Is there some reason it can't be that if you opt into the union you get the union-negotiated benefits, but if you choose not to you are left to your own devices? If you can negotiate a better deal with mangement on your own than the union is able to provide, you should be able to opt out I think without paying a penalty. If you cannot, it behooves you to join the union and get that benefit and value the union provides. I understand that at one point, consistent pay scales were designed to streamline company payroll and provide scalable efficiency in HR management, but we have computers now right? It's 2012. I think there is a technology solution to this problem that stands to benefit both works and management, allowing for more flexibility on both sides. Having some flexibility may serve both parties and create a more competitive and efficient company that employees, unions and management can leverage to their own unique advantage, when it makes the most sense.
Under Right-to-Work, you can still join a union. What is with the fear mongering that claims otherwise.
The big difference is the Unions have to persuade you to join them instead of saying "This is a union shop" and forcing the issue.
If the Unions offers so much, why are they worried about losing forced enrollment/support? If it really as good as the Union members claim, then having Right-to-Work pass should not affect them at all.
I just don't see the need for the amendment if there isn't a problem. Most unions in Minnesota are not causing problems for the long-term health of the companies.
I think one of the problems for unions is that sometimes when an industry is struggling, the union fails to think long-term for the companies health. When this occurs, it makes union's look bad, such as the public unions of Wisconsin and the autoworkers unions in Michigan.
However, the majority of the unions, including the public unions in Minnesota, have a better grasp of long-term.
This story and these comments make being in a non-union shop out to be the equivalant of begging at the feet of a king for table scraps. I personally am doing far better than any union could ever manage to do for me. Uneducated, incompetent, lazy, and poor workers are who benefit from unions. Anyone who is competent, motivated and able to perform their job would be much better off without a union. People should have the right to choose, if you are competent you don't join the union. If you are incompetent you join the union. The better people will be payed more with higher quality benefits.
@DW Bauer
There is a problem is somebody wants to work in a field that has many "Union shops", but doesn't want to support the union.
Everybody should have the choice to form a union, without costing them a job or opportunity. Everybody should also have the choice NOT to be in a union with out costing them a job or opportunity.
Choice is good.
Yes there is a problem. I've taught for 9 years. When in a private school I didn't have to pay union dues. When in a charter school I didn't have to pay union dues, although a public school. But when I was in a traditional public school, my annual dues averaged between $550 and $800. That is real money. That is 2 months of groceries, or 1/2 a vacation, or 4 car payments, or several months' utility bills or kids' savings, etc. And what did the union get me with those dues that was tangible? One local gave me a t-shirt. Several others said I had some legal protection, or better insurance rates. Fact is, every one of those districts offered comparable insurance plans. Still others said I had discounts at certain retailers since I was a teacher. I have better discounts through AAA, or my Chase BP card. I can contact my representative without a union rep. doing it for me. I can vote for whomever I wish, regardless of my union's endorsement. I can rally for kids on my own and rally my fellow teachers on my own without the union's help. I admit my pay at those traditional public schools was more than at the charter or private school, but it's unverifiable what those pay scales would have been had those districts not have had unions. I would like to imagine that those districts would act professionally and put up pay and benefit packages that would attract quality teachers. Lastly, teachers ought to be given a choice for full, fair-share, or opting out.
Advocates describe Right to Work laws as preserving workers' freedom not to join a union, which is a noble goal -- but it's not what Right to Work laws do. In fact, these laws interfere with the right of contract and they bar certain consensual economic arrangements -- specifically, they bar employers from agreeing to hire only union workers.
Let me put it this way: Imagine a liberal talking about a law imposing maximum hours rules. He might say, "nobody should be forced to work 50 hours a week." That's true -- nobody should be forced to work 50 hours a week -- but it's also a bit besides the point. Bosses don't force employees to do anything: they place conditions on those who want the boss's money. If you want to work for me and get paid by me, you will do A, B, and C. Some of these demands are more reasonable or more compassionate than others, but barring extreme circumstances, the conservative position is that people should be able to place whatever conditions they like on those who want their property.
Right to Work laws bar employers from imposing a different sort of condition: the requirement that all employees join a union. Thus they take away property rights and infringe on the right of contract.
There are plenty of stupid labor laws that restrict employer freedom, but none of these laws force employers to have a closed shop. Preventing employers from agreeing to a closed shop is no free-market solution.
What Republicans are really after with 'right to work' legislation is clearing the decks of any opposition to their policies. Public employee unions are an organized obstacle to total control by the Republican party. This amendment has nothing to do with 'free choice' and everything to do with silencing collective opposition. Now that corporations are considered to be individuals the push is on -with tons of corporate money- to control the political landscape. Scott Walker, Indiana and now Minnesota didn't happen in a vacuum; this push and others to limit individual rights is promoted by big money think tanks. Senator Thompson is simply reading from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is pretty much the Republican blueprint for governance. Please do not be fooled, 'right to work' is simply the beachfront for corporate control of wages and benefits for all working people.
I find it rather ironic, that the republican controlled legislature has decided that we need a constatutional amendment. This is the same party who says government should stay out of the way of private buisness. Truth is the main reason a company has a union shop, isnt because people got together and said lets pay someone to work here. Most shops are unionized because workers feel they are being treated unfairly. Or there cost of working at a company has gone up.( higher insurance less pay loss of benefits poor management )
People should also remember that most workers enjoy what unions have provided there members. Lets not forget about the UAW who in the 1920's fought for a 40 hr work week. And time and one half after that. Health insurance was once a benefit reserved for those in managment. Unions faught hard for there members to recieve the same benefits. Now most workers even non union recieve that benefit. Unions have also been hit hard by the economic down turn affecting us all. They have not come out unscathed.
the company i work for has buisness all over the country and world. Those employees in right to work states ( Texas North Carolina ) Do not enjoy the same benefits. Higher insurance cost, lower premium pay for working holidays and weekends. lower wages for the same job dutys. Mandatory on call and so on.
So rather then slam the unions in this country take a moment to think what you have gotten because of them.
Right to Work for Less? Wrong for MN!
Can you live on $13,645 a year? If you take the average earnings of $38,000, minus ($7,190) health insurance premium, minus ($4,000) out of pocket expense, 2% pension contribution shift ($760), 5% holdback for performance pay ($1,900), State & Federal taxes, Social Security & Medicare (8,000), Property Taxes with 4.5% hike ($2,500), this equals Earnings minus pay cuts and taxes of $13,645.
Call your state legislators today. To get their numbers, call 651-296-2146 or 1-800-657-3550 toll free. Tell them that right to work for less is wrong for Minnesota. Please keep it off the ballot!
I work in a trade I am in a union. I went to trade school for 2 years and then had union night school for 4 more years. I am better trained and qualified to do my job than the non union people in my trade. The thing with right to work is if there are more people being represented by the unions but no one has to pay dues how are unions going to stay in business? This is just another attempt to break the unions. When union employees get a raise so do their non union counterparts, which drives wages for everyone. You know 13% of Minnesotans are union employees, compared to 55% in the 1950s when the middle class was still strong.
Who do you write about Right to Work amendment, US Rep, or MN state reps?
Could the Democrats opposition to this have anything to do w/ compulsory union dues being funneled almost exclusively to them at election time? If more people "opt out", dues are reduced, along w/ democrats war chest. Progressives like to claim they "Speak truth to power". When their OWN power is at stake, and the unions are the bullys, it's a different story. Follow the money MPR.
I have been a construction worker for 10 years and was making the same pay for 5 years straight no benefits, vacation, 401 k or anything. I recently joined a union and now make $8 more an hour have benefits, 401k the 9 yards. Not to mention my raises are all pre determined every 1200 hours. I can finally provide for my family and save for our future. This right to work gives employers and contractors a way to bring in cheaper workers which puts everybody in the unions jobs in danger. I will gladly pay the union to negotiate and preserve the benefits and working conditions the have provided me. This bill will cut wages. I have been a long time republican but this bill makes me feel like they want to eliminate the middle class.
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder says, â¦. if workers see no "value" in unions they should not have to pay union dues.
=
Oh! Happy Day for those workers who are attracted, not to those employment opportunities in a low wage job, but they do see this "value" in an employment opportunity making a good living wage, not having to pay their fair share in union representation. Not one penny, in recognition of the livable wage he or she is about to receive, and acknowledging some support for what unions fought for, and who will continue to fight for, health benefits, safe working conditions, retirement benefits, a living wage, worker representation.
=
Realizing the âvalueâ choice these workers made, with good safe working conditions and benefits, they can now feel secure in stable wages, and now, maybe for the first time, or in a long while, being able to feed and care for their families. Being able to purchase those things that a living wage offers. Living the American dream. Perhaps now, being able to put a down payment on a home? Being able to sleep at night. All this because he or she made the right "value" choice and decided to rather than take a job opportunity with lower wages, with no benefits, no value, these workers realize without too much thought, there is âvalueâ in a union environment, and with no union participation whatsoever to support the very environment that choices in what "valueâ offers. One which fosters good working conditions now, and into the future. The other without.
=
The worker choosing âvalueâ, Governors Snyderâs cryptic observation, one would think the worker be responsive, to play fair. But âright to workâ is not about whatâs fair.
=
One then wonders, why is the police and fire unions exempt? Why not make this Governor Snyderâs âvalueâ thing fair for everybody while we are destroying unions? Where is this âequal protectionâ of Article 1 of the Michigan Constitution speaks of?
=
The argument that âright to workâ is a solution to unemployment levels, really? Right to work state employment levels have absolutely not a thing to do with a workerâs right to work! How does ones work or âright to workâ effect overall employment if either the business or the state is unable to attract new business? A worker has no control of this. What should matter to the worker, given his or her opportunity, responsibility and abilities, is the participation and contribution towards the process of obtaining better working conditions. Letting others, who donât want to be a drain on society, contribute and make life easier in order to provide a living wage for you and your family is not âright to workâ but is what is now, as some consider the 47% solution.
=
Corporations lobby their political allies in Congress and state legislatures to oppose and destroy unions in order to dictate whatâs best for the worker. To make the worker subordinate in order to profit off of worker low wages poor working conditions that this would bring. Is this not the argument rather than the unemployment issue? âRight to workâ, is notâ¦workers rights!
=
To subordinate that very same worker who, if not for his labor, his labor down on the factory floor making the product, these companies would not see the profits that they enjoy. There would be no company.
=
You will not see workers rights in âright to workâ.
=
Crying, unionâs donât do enough? Workers do not get âtheir moneyâs worth.â? That âvalueâ Governor Snyder suggests? No, itâs what others lack and donât get that is the problem. When was the last time you went in to the boss and fought for anything, just one thing? Never! Is your answer. However, letâs again go over what a union fightâs for in securing benefits on your behalf in an 8 hour workday. Living wages, health care benefits, safe working conditions, job security, worker presentation. Whatâs missing?
=
Itâs very simpleâ¦. if you donât lack that courage. Now itâs your turn. Going in to your boss, the elevator takes you to the top floor, he sits behind a huge desk in a big chair. Now, explain to him since âunions donât do enoughâ you expect much more that what union representation can offer. Your turn,â¦..explain exactly what you want? Perhaps your suggestions to the boss will solve the problem of 10,000 abandoned homes? Way to go!
=
My advice to those who this applies to, you make that job choice, but when you go to bed at night, before you fall asleep, think about your âvaluesâ in not supporting those others who sacrificed and made it possible for you to enjoy and benefit in what your choice in âvaluesâ has made possible. Have a good sleep.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
