(From Heritage.org)
With Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker attempting to rein in the unbalanced power of government unions, and given the fierce stranglehold that union members have on their ever-increasing taxpayer-provided benefits, now is a crucial time for Americans to understand the difference between private-sector and public-sector unions. Collective bargaining in the private sphere—where companies face competition—is a world away from collective bargaining in government—which faces no competition, and where unions have a legal monopoly. Heritage Foundation labor expert James Sherk explains why it is time to restore voter control over elected government, and how it can be done.
Collective bargaining by unions takes place very differently in government than it does in the private sector. Private-sector unions have competitors and bargain over the profits they help create. The government earns no profits. Government unions have a legal monopoly and bargain for a greater share of tax dollars. Collective bargaining in government means that voters’ elected representatives must agree on tax and spending decisions with union representatives.
Collective bargaining also politicizes the civil service. Government unions negotiate contract provisions that force workers to join and subsidize their fundraising. These subsidies have made them the top political spenders in the country. They use that money to lobby for higher taxes and protect their inflated compensation.
America can no longer afford these special-interest subsidies. State and local governments should:
- Restore voter control over government spending by ending collective bargaining with government unions.
- Restore a nonpartisan civil service by ending subsidies for union fundraising and giving workers the choice of paying union dues. Voters should tell the government how to spend their money, not the other way around.
Collective Bargaining: The Process
Under collective bargaining, a union is designated as the employees’ “exclusive bargaining representative.” The employer must negotiate with the union over pay, benefits, and work rules. The employer may not employ workers for anything other than the union-negotiated terms. This gives the union a monopoly on the labor supplied to an employer. Even if other workers would take the job, the employer may not hire them for anything other than union rates.
The Private and Public Sectors. The labor movement grew out of the difficult working conditions of the industrial revolution. The founders of the labor movement saw unions as a way to prevent employers from exploiting workers. They also believed that labor and capital were opposed to one another. They believed that workers and management fought to divide the profits they mutually created. Labor leaders wanted monopoly bargaining power to gain clout to win more of those profits. Competition moderates union demands in the private sector. Unions know that excessive pay makes their employer uncompetitive and puts their jobs at risk.
The government operates very differently. Government employees need not fear exploitive bosses. Since the late 1800s, public employees have enjoyed the protection of civil service laws. The government also creates no profits over which to bargain. Government unions bargain for a greater share of taxes to go to their members. Since the government has no competitors and no profits, unions have little reason to restrain their demands and government has little incentive to resist them. Taxpayers, not government leaders, bear the cost of concessions.
The arguments for unions in the private sector do not apply to government. Up through the 1950s, the union movement recognized and agreed with this analysis. Movement supporters believed, as AFL-CIO president George Meany did, that “It is impossible to bargain collectively with government.”[1] President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed the National Labor Relations Act, had the same view. In his words, “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”[2]
Strikes Paralyze Public Services. Private businesses have competitors. Consequently, private-sector strikes have a limited effect on the general public. Consumers can buy from another company during a strike. A strike by the United Auto Workers against General Motors does not shut down the auto industry—Americans simply buy cars from Ford or Toyota instead.
The government generally has no competition. The public cannot purchase alternative police; alternatives to public education and mass transit are not accessible to everyone. A monopoly on essential services gives government unions tremendous leverage to force concessions from the public. Unless the voters’ elected representatives give in, they can grind large parts of the economy to a halt.
Unions are willing to use this leverage. Detroit public school teachers went on strike illegally in 2006. The teachers union ignored the Michigan law prohibiting teacher strikes. As a result, 130,000 students started the school year late while the union pressed for concessions.[3] The final contract gave the Detroit teachers raises. In December 2005, New York City transit workers went on strike over a proposal to increase their contributions to their pension plans. The strike paralyzed New York City during the busiest shopping days of the year and cost the city an estimated $400 million a day.[4] The government ultimately agreed to a new contract that did not increase pension contributions.
President Roosevelt deplored the possibility of strikes if government bargained collectively: “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”[5]
(Read more at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/02/Time-to-Restore-Voter-Control-End-the-Government-Union-Monopoly
The issue of collective bargaining is a hot topic around the nation. Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and most recently Iowa, have been focal points for a debate about each state’s process for collective bargaining.
In Wisconsin, Democrat Senators fled the state in order to prevent a vote that forces public employees to pay for a portion of their health insurance and pension plans, and the bill also eliminates collective bargaining rights, except for wages. Republicans in Wisconsin control the Senate, the House, as well as the Governor’s office. Gov. Walker has vowed a vote on the bill and is not about to compromise.
Iowans are not unfamiliar with the issue that is being debated in Indiana where a scene similar to Wisconsin flared up as Democrat House members have reportedly fled the state. Indiana Republicans are attempting to pass Right-to-Work legislation, which prevents any worker from being forced to join or pay dues to a union to get or keep a job. The current arrangement, also known as “Fair Share,” forces non-union workers to pay union dues regardless of their membership in the union. Iowa is currently a Right-to-Work state, and Iowa Democrats attempted to change that in 2007 by repealing those provisions in Iowa law. Their attempts ultimately failed in the House after the bill had originally passed the Senate.
Iowa had its own run in with labor issues this week. Wednesday saw a protest from union members, and a counter-protest from TEA Party members. Also under discussion in a Labor sub-committee that afternoon was HSB 117, which is a bill sponsored by House Republicans that affects the collective bargaining law in Iowa.
The subcommittee heard from a variety of individuals who spoke for and against the bill. The major changes in the bill include: the ability of a public employee to opt out of representation by the union, allowing the state to control the portion state employees pay for insurance (currently, 84% of state employees pay no premiums for health insurance), allowing an arbitrator to make a decision between two opposing sides during the arbitration process (currently, the arbitrator must only choose either side A’s offer or side B’s offer), forcing the arbitrator to compare public and private wages and benefits when possible (currently, the arbitrator does not have to compare to private wages or benefits), and forbidding the arbitrator from considering past bargaining agreements when negotiating new contracts.
The bill will continue to be worked on by Republicans, who have invited their Democrat counterparts to provide input into making the bill better and then send it to the Labor Committee.
On FEBRUARY 21, 1848, John Quincy Adams suffered a stroke at his desk in the House chamber, shortly after making an impassioned speech against the Democrat plan of extending slavery to the Western territories won in the Mexican-American War. He died 2 days later without regaining consciousness. A bronze marker on the floor indicates where Adams’s desk once stood, known at the “whispering spot” in Statuary Hall. John Quincy Adams was the only President to serve as a Congressman after having been President. Nicknamed Old Man Eloquent for speaking out against slavery, he offered a plan for its elimination. In 1841, John Qunicy Adams defended before the Supreme Court 53 Africans who had mutinied aboard the slave ship Amistad, gaining them their freedom. As African slaves were purchased at Muslim slave markets, John Quincy Adams wrote in his “Essay on Turks” (1829): “The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran…The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies…” John Quincy Adams continued: “In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab…spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth…He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion…The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”
from “American Minute” with Bill Federer.
Repeating John Quincy Adams quote on a fundamental doctrine distinction between the Christian religion and of the Muslims — “The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran…The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies…”
We encourage all who can attend, to join fellow Patriots in Des Moines on Tue, Feb 22nd at 12:30. We have been in contact with groups from across the state and all are in agreement we need to be in Des Moines to counter the AFL-CIO protest that is scheduled to take place at the Capital in support of the Wis unions. We will be standing in support of Gov Walker and the freedom loving people of Wisc who voted for CHANGE in Nov!
Meeting on the sidewalk across the street from the steps on the west side of the Capital Bldg.
From “Bear Witness”
|
Statement About Wisconsin |
|
“In the current situation in Wisconsin, we see Democratic politicians and their constituency standing against democracy. Instead of responding to the will of the people, Democratic legislators are in hiding, and refusing to show for a vote which they are certain to lose. Teachers have closed down the schools. Union thugs have overrun the capitol and are damaging property, and carrying signs with crude abuse and threats. Meanwhile, instead of acting “Presidential” and calling for a restoration of the democratic process, civility and decency, the President and his Organizing for America are actually standing against democracy in Wisconsin.
In summary, here is what we see in Wisconsin ; Democratic legislators in hiding and not legislating, teachers on sick-out and not teaching, and students out of school and not learning. Most importantly, we see our President, who is supposed to be a leader, not “leading.” Is it any wonder that public opinion has turned against the President, the Democrats, public employee unions and their thugs?”
|
Capitol Comments
House Provides Home Rule for School Districts
This week the House passed a bill establishing home rule for school districts in Iowa. House Republicans feel this is necessary to give school districts some autonomy and control over their own operations with local challenges.
The home rule discussion in Iowa has a longer history than any other state. In 1868, an Iowa Supreme Court Justice, John Dillon, established a rule that became known as Dillon’s Law. Dillon’s Law essentially states that local government entities are simply children of the state and have no powers separate from those granted by the state. Three years later a Michigan judge, Thomas Cooley, challenged Dillon by declaring that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provided both states and the people with the powers not expressly given to the federal government. According to Cooley, the people have a right to exercise their 10th Amendment powers through local governments. “Cooley’s Rule,” which has become known as home rule, held that “local government is a matter of absolute right, which cannot be taken away by the state.”
Dillon’s Law had a firm grip on the nation for decades after Justice Dillon’s establishment of the rule, with many states adopting its tenets. However, California started a movement in the second decade of the 20th century towards adoption of home rule. From 1913, with California’s enactment of home rule, to today, 37 states have approved some form of home rule. Even in states with Dillon’s Law in effect, the range of its enforcement ranges from aggressive to somewhat lax, with a diminishing presence of the rule over time.
It certainly isn’t a new concept in Iowa. Iowa adopted home rule for cities in 1968 and again for counties in 1978. Those have been in place in Iowa now for decades, giving not only local authorities an understanding of the implications, but also Iowa’s courts, should issues of legality arise.
The home rule bill that the House passed this week extends that local control to school districts. House Republicans feel that heavy-handed state regulations can be burdensome for creativity and innovation and that local boards and superintendents know best what would serve their district and their students well. The bill gives them a chance to try new things and work effectively with the tools they have at their disposal.
This increase in authority is not, however, without check. Consider it a “limited” home rule. Taxing authority still falls on the legislature. Local boards cannot create new levies without the state allowing them to do so. Additionally, anything created at the local level under home rule is not permanent law. Should problems arise, either the local community can make a decision to stop the practice, or the legislature can mandate a solution. Finally, home rule does not come at the expense of existing state law or the constitution. If state law says that a school district must act in a certain way or spend funds on specific purposes, they must abide by those statutes.
House Republicans passed the bill because they believel that local boards were elected by the community to provide a service to them and their children. They should be given the opportunity to be creative and innovative. A waiver process does exist for some things with the Department of Education, but it still gives ultimate control to the state, leaving local boards with no option other than to ask for permission. They deserve the opportunity to have some control over their affairs and don’t need permission for everything not already dictated in Iowa law.
Nursing Home Assessment – What is it?
As work begins on the FY 2012 Health and Human Services appropriations bill, discussion has begun about Governor Branstad’s proposal to fund the increasing costs to Iowa nursing homes. In order to provide an additional funding, the Governor has proposed to increase the nursing home quality insurance assessment to fund rebasing of nursing home rates.
So, what is the nursing home quality assurance assessment? This process, created in 2009, requires nursing homes to pay a daily fee on the beds in their home. These funds are then used to draw down additional federal Medicaid matching funds. The assessment revenue and federal match are used to increase reimbursement to nursing homes, with a focus on improving direct care to seniors.
The assessment is not applied uniformly to every nursing home. Most nursing homes pay a 3 percent daily fee on each bed, while some pay less than 3 percent. A few nursing homes pay nothing. The funds generated by the assessment provide an additional $10 per day per Medicaid-eligible resident, pay for quality-based reimbursements, and provide additional resources for the Medicaid program. Because the state is projected to get at least $41 million in Medicaid funding from the Federal Government, the majority of Iowa nursing homes will get back more money than they paid in for the tax.
Some nursing homes will receive less than their tax amount. It is estimated that the number of nursing homes falling in this category is less than 25 homes. These facilities primarily serve residents that pay for their own care.
Governor Branstad’s proposal would raise the assessment rate from three percent to five percent in FY 2012. The revenue generated from the change – $13.6 million – would be used to rebase nursing home rates and provide a five percent increase. Rebasing is the process by which the state recalculates the rates based on current costs. This is done every two years.
Tax Relief for all Iowans passes the House
HF 194, which provides a 20% across the board income tax cut for all Iowans, passed with bipartisan support. The bill helps all Iowans and specifically helps small businesses put Iowans back to work. The bill puts money into the hands of small business owners throughout the state. Small business is where the real job creation takes place in our economy. This will help them invest and grow their businesses.
This is a jobs bill
Iowa has over 1.5 million taxpayers; many of these are organized as small businesses. The biggest job growth comes one to five employees at a time. This bill helps small entrepreneurs in every community in Iowa. With Iowa’s unemployment rate still high at 6.3%, now is the time to stimulate Iowa’s economy and help accelerate our recovery.
We put the taxpayers of Iowa first
When you hear people in government talk about priorities, the taxpayer is rarely mentioned. The “want list” from government is endless, which usually leads to more spending and taxes. This bill shows the people of Iowa that we heard the message of less spending and lower taxes, and we trust Iowans to spend their money as they best see fit.
Legislative Forums
February 18, Hull, Pizza Ranch, 12:00 noon
February 25, Inwood, Market Place Grille, 12:00 noon
February 26, Rock Rapids Forster Community Bldg., 8:00 am, “Eggs and Issues”
March 11, Boyden Public Library, 1030 a.m.
March 11, George Pizza Ranch, 12:00 noon
Recently, House Republicans announced budget targets for the fiscal year 2012 budget. The targets fulfill campaign promises of aligning ongoing spending with ongoing revenue. This is in contrast to the last four years when ongoing revenue was not sufficient to cover all of the increased spending demanded by the former governor and legislature. Remember, the fiscal year 2011 budget approved by Legislative Democrats and former Governor Culver last year spent $6.35 billion and included $872 million in one-time funds. That use of one-time funds has created a difficult budget situation, as you know.
For fiscal year 2012, Governor Branstad recommends expenditures of just over $6.1 billion, or a decrease of $185 million. This is the first budget proposal in five years to align spending with projected revenue. While I think this is a good start, it does not go far enough.
House Republican budget targets propose spending $477 million less than the expenditure limitation under current law. Republicans are committed to shrinking the size of government and the burden on taxpayers. So that people know the seriousness of our efforts, we accept the premise that programs we like are going to have to be cut, as well as those we don’t think are necessary. But this work must be done so the state has the ability to fund priorities like public safety and taking care of the most needy.
In other important business, the House set K-12 allowable growth for next year at zero percent. That effort backfills the 10 percent across the board cut ordered by Democrats last year and increases aid to schools by $216 million. Also, the House proposed providing $47 million in property tax relief for school districts affected by declining enrollment. Other parts of the education system will probably see some cuts, but K-12 will be supported as much as possible.
As I write this, the House is debating House File 194 which proposes a 20 percent cut in Iowa’s income tax rate. There are two philosophies at battle here. One believes more government is better and you the citizen need to give more of your money to government. Government knows best. The other philosophy believes you the citizen should keep more of your own money, and make your own decisions in how to spend and save. You know best. The latter is where I stand. I’m convinced that this move will spur economic growth in a variety of ways. That means more jobs and more income.
Track what is going on at the legislature by going to http://www.legis.state.ia.us/
Contact me any time in the Iowa House by calling 515-281-3221 to leave a message, or by e-mail at royd.chambers@legis.state.ia.us Royd Chambers of Sheldon represents House District 5, which consists of O’Brien, Osceola, the rural parts of Clay, and 4 townships in Sioux County.
Royd E. Chambers
State Representative
“Surrender on [same-sex] marriage is surrender on marriage — which is surrender on the family and, ultimately, surrender on civilization. This unwillingness to fight for the family, on which civilization depends, is another sign of the failure of modern conservatism. The right can win a thousand battles against big government and lose the war for America’s future, if it surrenders on marriage and the family. America’s social traumas — illegitimacy, juvenile crime, drug abuse, [single-parent] households — can all be traced back to the decline of the family: which started with the Great Society in the ’60s, accelerated with no-fault divorce in the ’70s, continued with the rise of cohabitation, and reached its culmination with [same]-sex marriage. Unfortunately, many conservative intellectuals have lost sight of a crucial fact: American exceptionalism rests on three pillars — faith, family, and freedom. Remove any one, and the entire structure collapses. Without the family, it doesn’t matter how many times we defeat socialism (nationalized health-care, government take-over of business, soaring deficits, redistributionism), in the end, we lose — which is why the left has made same-sex marriage its priority, and why it is less tolerant of dissent here than anywhere else. Conservatives who don’t understand this, understand nothing.”–columnist Don Feder
Income and Property Tax Relief Measures on the Move
House File 4, which calls for a 20% across the board cut to individual income tax rates, was unanimously approved by subcommittee last week. The last major tax relief measure signed into law was a 10% across the board cut in 1997. According to a study by the Tax Foundation, Iowa is ranked in the bottom ten for individual income tax rates. Iowa received low scores due to high rates and a progressive bracket structure.
According to the Tax Foundation these states have the worst business climates:
CA, MN, IA, OH, NY, NC, MD, NJ, RI, CT
According to the Tax Foundation study these ten states have the best tax climates:
MT, AK, NV, WY, SD, IN, NH, TX, FL, DE
States that do not impose an individual income tax received high scores, as well as states that have a flat, low tax rate with few deductions and exemptions. States that scored poorly have complex, multiple rate systems. The bill was approved on a bipartisan vote in full committee and now moves to the floor of the house.
House Study Bill 41, which establishes a school district property tax relief supplement for Fiscal Year 2012, was also approved on a bipartisan vote in full committee and will move to the floor of the house.
The previous two legislatures have not fully-funded allowable growth, thus pushing the burden to Iowa property tax payers. If the House passes zero percent allowable growth while fully-funding it, there still is property tax impact of $70 million.
Of that $70 million, $47 million of the increase would come from the budget guarantee. This bill would address the budget guarantee portion and protect Iowa property taxpayers from the full increase. The budget guarantee last year totaled $25 million, and the increase for FY 2012 is projected to be $22 million for a total of $47 million.
The Department of Management will notify each school district the amount they will receive and an appropriation will be made from the general fund. In addition, school districts that receive a property tax relief supplement are prohibited from levying additional property taxes, and the money must be used in the same manner and purpose that property taxes would have been used for.
Federal Healthcare Law Ruled Unconstitutional
The much-anticipated ruling of a Florida court in the multi-state challenge to the federal health care reform law arrived on Monday. The Florida court threw out the entire law and put the Obama administration’s plans for implementation into question.
As many legal experts anticipated, Judge Roger Vinson found that the law’s provision requiring all Americans to have health care coverage violated the Constitution’s limits on federal power over commerce. But these same experts were surprised that the judge focused on a factor that has not been as prominent in the discussion over the individual mandate – regulating inactivity.
Vinson found that the law was setting up federal regulation of inactivity, in this situation the decision by Americans to not purchase health insurance or sign up for Medicaid. Judge Vinson made an interesting analogy in discussing his belief that Congress’s actions went beyond the founders’ intent:
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.
The Hudson ruling had found the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but allowed the rest of the bill to move forward. To the surprise of many legal scholars, Vinson threw out the whole law, because the bill lacked a severability clause.
Without the severability clause, Judge Vinson ruled that the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate rendered the whole bill unconstitutional. While Vinson threw out the whole bill, he did not issue an injunction to stop the federal government and the states from implementing the provisions of the bill. This means the Obama administration is free to continue implementation of the bill.
The decision has created confusion amongst the states as to their next move. In Wisconsin, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has said for his state the federal law is “dead.” But Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has been silent about the ruling. In other states, officials continue to move forward with implementation.
Bills Passed This Week
HF 149 passed the House on Wednesday. The bill promotes Iowa’s Right-to-Work status by including that statement on all state marketing tools. HF 149 ensures the state begins to market one of its most valuable tools – our Right-to Work status. When companies sit down with state officials to determine whether or not they want to locate here, one of the first questions they ask is, “Is Iowa a Right-to-Work state?” That statement alone gives a welcoming approach to relocating companies.
HF 111, called the Health Care Freedom Act, also passed from the House on Wednesday. The bill ensures Iowans that the federal government will not control their health insurance. The bill prevents Iowans from being forced to purchase health insurance, mandated by the overreaching federal health care legislation passed last year. HF 111 stops this measure based on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that the mandate to purchase a government sanctioned health insurance policy is unconstitutional. Small businesses and individuals should not be subject to a fine, fee or penalty for not purchasing a government mandated policy.
HJR 6 was approved in the House on Tuesday. Following a well-attended public hearing on Monday evening, the resolution to place the definition of marriage as the only union between a man and a woman that is valid in Iowa on a future ballot was debated and passed. After a three hour debate, the final bi-partisan vote was 62-27 with one absent. We believe it is important for this issue to be decided by the people since there is a difference between the Supreme Court decision and the latest printed version of the Iowa Code. The Court opinion did not strike the definition of marriage in the Code, Chapter 595.2(1). Our Legislative Services Agency recognized that separation of powers. The definition can only be stricken or changed by legislative action and a signature of the governor, not smiling agreement by one political party, which is what happened when the Culver administration was in charge.