Robert Enders, an Allen County Libertarian, I believe, has some interesting thoughts on “right to work” legislation. I recommend the whole post, but here is the gist:
Employers have a right to require an employee to join a union, just as they have a right to insist that a worker receive training or attend certain classes. Admittedly, many now wish to give up this right and have lobbied the state legislature to that end. . . . The government has been used as a weapon by both labor and management against each other in disputes. It’s wrong when either side does it.
The right to work legislation is intended to limited the freedom of an employer and a union to contract. In particular, it prohibits union shop provisions in labor contracts. I suspect employers want this limitation. It’s easier to point at the law, and say, “nope, we can’t put this into a contract” than it is to stand firm on negotiations.
Proponents of this law say it’s all about the rights of potential employees who might not want to be part of a union shop. But, since when has there been overwhelming concern about potential employees objecting to a condition of employment? Almost universally, the response in Indiana anyway is along the lines of “tough shit. You don’t like the terms, go work somewhere else.” But, suddenly, when the condition is paying union dues or their equivalent as opposed to, say, cutting your hair or dressing professionally or having reliable transportation or whatever; suddenly, it’s a moral imperative that potential employees be able to disregard an employer’s condition of employment.
House Democrats have apparently left the state in an effort to deny the House a quorum to vote on the “right to work” legislation. Today is the deadline for the House to adopt committee reports one of which is HB 1468 – a right to work bill voted out of the Labor Committee. Under the House Rules, February 25 is the deadline for bills to pass third reading.
In response to the House Democrats procedural move to prevent a quorum, I’ve seen some online discussion about how they are cowards and need to come back to do their jobs. Regardless of what you might think of their policy preferences, I’d argue that it takes more effort and courage for them to do what they’re doing. It would have been dead easy and required no courage for them to go meekly like lambs to the slaughter and warm some seats for a few hours while the House majority passed its agenda.
Their job is to negotiate for the best policies they can (as they see it.) Maybe they won’t have any luck negotiating anything better. Maybe they’ll get punished at the polls. But, the 2010 election results suggests that obstruction can be rewarded. I wasn’t a huge fan of the unprecedented filibustering in the U.S. Senate. But, those were the rules of that particular game, and that filibustering engendered no apparent backlash. The House Democrats are using the last arrow in their quiver. Time will tell if it hits its mark, flies wide, or wounds some of their own. And, if future general assemblies don’t want to deal with this kind of thing, they’ll need to re-write the quorum rules.
The one difference between a filibuster and leaving the state is a filibuster is limited to one bill. What other bills are not being passed because of this maneuver?
Frankly, I can’t believe the Dems will do it for “right to work” legislation, but won’t do it for a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage (even if Bauer did vote for the ban).
Last rule of checkers….when the games not going your way, throw the board.
WOPR: “The only winning move is not to play.”
Gee, Doug, would you have applauded and called Republican US Senate or House legislators “courageous” if, as the minority parties, they had chosen to flee DC and hide out from their constituents to avoid voting on any of the unpopular Democrat bills Pelosi/Reid put forth? Or would you have maligned them for dereliction of duty and branded them cowards, weasels, or spoiled sports?
Elections have consequences. These Democrat leaders may not agree with the direction the state senate is taking them. Tough. Voters spoke in November at the polls.
I sincerely hope, and encourage, the House Democrats not to leave the state.
Bosma is making the threat to have members of the minority returned to the chamber in chains like the GOP attempted in the 1990s.
Compare that to what happened in 2001 when Bosma lead a walkout because his plan to rip apart Julia’s Carson district was rejected. Democrats waited them out, and there was no threat to release the hounds. I know, I was working there at the time.
All I have to say is this, House Democrats should stand strong, and they shouldn’t leave the state. Let Bosma try to return them to the chamber in chains. That’s the threat he’s trying to throw out there now. Make him eat it.
And come next year, let’s put a measure on the ballot in to make protection of union rights a constitutional matter.
Classic Film: I don’t suppose I would bother much with adjectives to laud or condemn the personal characteristics of the minority party lawmakers either way. They have policy objectives they want to accomplish; the procedural rules allow them various tools to accomplish those objectives. I’m not going to call them a coward or a hero for using one of those tools.
Elections have consequences, sure. The majority party has better tools for accomplishing its goals and a lot more leverage to pass its legislation. But, the consequence isn’t that the minority party is required to simply acquiesce to everything the majority party wants.
In this case, if the majority would agree to bail on right to work, I imagine it could get almost all of the rest of what it wants passed. It can get 95% or whatever because it won the election and has an enormous amount of leverage. Calling the minority party “cowards” out of frustration over not getting that last 5% seems kind of petty.
So the author of this article feels that if, in a democratic society, where debate and amendments happen in state houses..if things are not going your way… LEAVE! I wonder if thats what he tells his children.
As for the right-to-work laws. Think about it. If you want to wkr in a state, by law you are REQUIRED to join a union..an organization that may not represent your views or wishes.. They will garnish your wages for union benefit…this is what its really all about for unions.
taking tax payer money to pay union head undreds of thousands of dollars a year and promoting democrats.
All-caps are always persuasive. But, you apparently don’t understand the current state of the law or the language of the proposed legislation.
Union membership isn’t mandatory in this state. Under current law, a business is within its legal rights to employ individuals who are not union members. The business may, however, contract away this right. And it’s this freedom of contract that the new law proposes to eliminate. The legislation would criminalize union shop contracts.
I teach my kids to play by the rules with which they are presented. In this case, the House Rules impose certain quorum requirements and deadlines for adoption of committee reports. The House Democrats have chosen to take advantage of those rules to stop a specific piece of legislation. If they want, voters can penalize the Democrats in 2012. House Republicans can penalize them by giving up less in negotiations (assuming they were compromising in the first place.)
Cost of living is higher in forced-to-join-union states:
See a connection?
Cost of living:
http://www.missourieconomy.org…
(Indiana is ranked #15 out of 57, uh, 50)
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
There is also a fairly strong correlation between former slave states and “right to work” states. Cheap labor is appreciated in such places, I suppose. I can probably dredge up a map if you think it’s relevant.
Here and now.
Not there and then.
There Doug goes again, bringing the Civil War back into the conversation. GET OVER IT DUDE!
;)
The unions brought this upon themselves. When you are the biggest source of campaign funds, and 95% of it goes to Democrats, you should not be surprised when Republicans try to knee-cap you the first chance they get.
Dressed like that, they were just *asking* for it.
First off, LOVE the War Games reference.
I really despise unions other than for the use of creating a safe work environment. I think they are just as corrupt as politicians, and I don’t know why anyone would want more of either. I also really hate the idea that, in order to work in the job I feel best able to do, I have to pay them money that they’ll give to all sorts of things I disagree with.
That said, I have to say that your point about businesses doing through law what they refuse to do on their own strikes a chord with me. In fact, it is enough for me to agree that this law shouldn’t be passed. Business owners need to grow a pair instead of making politicians do their dirty work.
See the recent law to start carding 80 year olds as another case study. Business owners didn’t like people getting upset when they carded them, so they made the state pass a law that everyone must be carded. Now they can say the state *made* them do it, and maybe bitch a bit about too much government at the same time.
Switching gears again, I also agree with others that running out of the state is juts BS, even if I think this is a bad law. Stand in the statehouse, make your points, then let the cards fall.
Late chiming in.
My late father was an ardent supporter of right to work laws, though we never talked about it much. I think it arose from an assault by a “union goon” early in his practice. I finally took to sending back his mail from the National Right to Work Committee with “what is it about ‘dead’ you don’t understand?” notes.
But it’s never been much of an issue for me, and what Enders said is exactly along the lines of my thought. A conservative generally ought not to be telling business that they may not do X, even if businesses are begging for it with winks and nudges. One exception would be laws forbidding invidious discrimination against a class with so sorry a history as to warrant special protection (and we can argue about how sorry is sorry enough).
Review the Libertarian web site. You will find their position contradicts Enders. LPIN.org
http://lpin.org/2011/02/22/right-to-work-deserved-to-be-heard-on-the-house-floor/
http://lpin.org/2011/02/14/libertarians-support-school-choice/
Union greed . . .
Here’s the pay package for the NEA leadership (2008):
Reg Weaver – President* $686,949
Dennis Van Roekel – Vice President* $366,840
Lily Eskelson Secretary/Treasurer $346,716
John Wilson – Executive Director $389,257
John Stocks – Deputy Executive Director $295,269
The NEA has over 375 employees that make over $100,000
(Van Roekel replaced Weaver as president)
http://www.neaexposed.com/documents/08LM2Staffcompensation.pdf
Enders position is more consistent with libertarian philosophy than LPIN. Government intervention in freedom to contract is usually opposed by Libertarians.
Union greed?
Let’s see the president of an organization making 10 maybe 20 times what the average member makes.
Compare that to say GE, Ford or any other union work place and it jumps to around 200-400 times. Not even accounting for the fact that they are taxed at an effectively lower rate than their employees (stock options and other loopholes created for them).
I would agree that some unions in their current state (auto workers and teamsters seem to get the worst rap) can be just as corrupt but not nearly so.
This is just a power struggle and those of left in the middle class are stuck in the middle and paying for it in all sorts of ways.
gizmo
I also enjoyed the Wargames comment.
I understand the Democrats left the statehouse and this means a quorom is not present, thus foiling the Republican agenda. However, the Dems in both the Wisconsin and Indiana legislature have left not just the capitol, but their whole entire state (for Illinois, which is a terrible choice, but I digress). What is the added benefit of not just leaving the statehouse, but leaving the state entirely? Is the purpose to ensure that they are not forced to reenter the legislature? Are they fugitives?
“But, suddenly, when the condition is paying union dues or their equivalent as opposed to, say, cutting your hair or dressing professionally or having reliable transportation or whatever; suddenly, it’s a moral imperative that potential employees be able to disregard an employer’s condition of employment. ”
You might have a point there IF the law didn’t force companies to deal with unions at all. But there is no freedom of association in this country. The companies are dragged to the “bargaining table” by federal law and sign contracts with “labor representatives” under duress.
There is no moral power behind any union contract in this country.
And there is no moral reason to force anyone to pay for union representation THEY DON’T WANT.
But our “betters” and “brights” always know what’s best for us, don’t they?
Congrats on your post being reprinted in today’s Indy Star on the op-ed page. You and only a couple of others! I started reading and said, “whoaa, deja vu, this seems familiar”.
Just out of curiosity, do they call and ask you for permission, or communicate anything?
Nobody asks permission – they just kind of reprint it. When I get attribution, I don’t really care. It’s here for free in any case.
Paul, leaving the state is to ensure that they are someplace where the Speaker of the Indiana House has no authority. Article 4, Sec. 10 of the Indiana Constitution gives each chamber the authority to compel the attendance of its members. As a practical matter, I don’t know if that gives the Speaker authority to order the Capitol Police or county sheriffs and/or state police to arrest people.
Nice job by the Indiana Republicans – they over-reached, and now they’ll lose their school legislation with it. Maybe they should have just listened to Mitch.
Thanks Doug. Also, congrats on the publishing.
So, Article IV, Section 10 states:
“Each House, when assembled, shall choose its own officers, the President of the Senate excepted; judge the elections, qualifications, and returns of its own members; determine its rules of proceeding, and sit upon its own adjournment. But neither House shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any place other than that in which it may be sitting.”
I guess it is that last sentence “neither house shall… adjourn for more than three days” that attempts to compel attendance? Seems like a bit of a reach to state that the quoted provisions gives the chamber the authority to compel attendance, but I admit that I have not researched my Indiana Constitutional law to see what caselaw developed.
I just gave you the wrong cite. Whoops! It’s Art. 4, sec. 11:
here here!
(also, hi!)
Lawgeekgurl! Long time!
it’s true! I am following some Indiana measures for old time’s sake. Someone posted a link to your blog on FB and I was all “aww, I should go visit!” and so I did. Also, I think my uncle is caucusing in a bookstore somewhere. Honestly, if you can’t find him, and he’s not on the floor, he’s probably in a bookstore or library. My stance is: a caucus is a caucus, even if it’s in the literature section of a Barnes & Noble. Sez me. :)
also, I see the AG had a bit of a hootenanny today. I have a friend who works in that office and when I was able to read about it in living color in ye old wilds via the magic of the AP newswire, I thought “man, I bet he’s not liking life about now.” heh.
IndyGuy77,
Do you have any citations for this:
Are you saying that if a company says, “No, we won’t sign union paperwork, we’re going to be a union-free shop”, the state forces them to sign anyhow?
My understanding is that employers only became union when they might lose employees that they would rather have instead of hiring new ones.