Unfortunately, I’ve never been one to get highly involved with city politics here in Des Moines. Whether it is the apparent non-partisan nature of the battles that brew over city and local government or whether its the fact I like the statewide issues more, I don’t know. But I guess you could consider this post of mine over at Bleeding Heartland on the Project Destiny tax plan to be one example where I’m trying to get my feet wet in covering local and Des Moines-area politics. Check out the post and leave some thoughts.
Archive for the 'Labor' Category
Last week, the Fair Share bill that had been watered down to only apply to state workers (those in the public sector) was suddenly pulled from the floor of the House because it appeared that House Democrats did not have enough votes to pass the bill. Now, some have speculated that dirty tactics by House Democratic leadership have led some members of the caucus to become frustrated and have caused other members to break down in tears. Other reports say that that member was feeling ill partially as a result of a heart condition, not because of leadership intimidation. To suggest otherwise, simply from a video of some hack in the House gallery, seems to be a very irresponsible thing to do.
While I support the Fair Share legislation, I think the leadership has been approaching the debate in entirely the wrong way and the backroom tactics, whether they are strong-arming members or not, have not been the way to solve the problem. The issue is clearly controversial as even while I was gone for three weeks from the blog, the first thread I had on Fair Share continued to attract contentious debated. I have heard, from a source on the hill, that Speaker Murphy has been the driving force behind the tactics used and is offering veiled threats for those who won’t sign on to the agenda that he sets. Clearly, he’s following in the ferocious leadership that Chris Rants used while Speaker of the House so we can’t necessarily fault him for what he’s seen the last few years. However, if Murphy really is the one driving the agenda (that appears to be flailing around in the public) then something has to be done to improve the public perception of the work that’s being done.
And, no, Chris Rants, you aren’t the Spartans trying to outlast the Persians like in 300. You’re a political minority that was in the majority just a short few months ago. Your allegory fails.
I’m going to keep seeking out more information and exactly what happened and if we’ll see debate on the bill again anytime soon. This week the only bills up for debate are bills originating in the House and the Fair Share bill is a Senate bill so it can’t be considered again until next week. What I’m looking for from my readers is any insight on what happened up at the Hill. If you’ve got any ideas or knowledge, leave it in the comments.
I missed this on Friday, but Governor Culver mentioned during his appearance on Iowa that if the Iowa legislature passed Fair Share legislation that he would sign the bill into law:
“”They are talking about amending the current law. Very few people are talking about repealing ‘Right to Work’ law,” Culver says. Iowa’s so-called “Right to Work” law forbids forced union membership in workplaces where unions have organized. Culver says he is not demanding that legislators pass the proposed bill, which has been labeled “Fair Share.”
But if lawmakers do pass it, he’ll sign it into law. “This is a big issue for a lot of hard-working folks across the state,” Culver says. “I expect the legislature will take that up in the next week or two and it could be on my desk in that period of time.” Culver points to his own background as a member of the Des Moines teachers union as one of the reasons he backs the move.”
I don’t think anyone expected Culver to veto any bill, but I think this statement of support clearly earns him some support from those lobbying for the Fair Share changes to Iowa’s labor statutes. The important thing to remember, contrary to Iowa’s anti-labor Republicans are saying, no one is articulating repealing Iowa’s right to work law — or at least if anyone is, they’re not going to get anywhere. Legislative Democrats know that compromise is part of the responsibility of leadership and they’re going to do so by passing Fair Share legislation, which is an addition to Iowa’s already existing labor statutes. You can see the Senate Study Bill here. You should clearly note that it isn’t eliminating any part of the law but is instead adding to it.
The other important thing to remember about the Fair Share legislation is that fees would be limited to activities the union is required to perform for all employees under federal law. That means no required fees or contributions to political or education funds. Some commenters have seemed to think that that is the case with Iowa’s law. Not true.
As I have noted before, Republican leader Chris Rants in the Iowa House has made it his and the Republican crusade to rail against Democratic efforts to reform Iowa’s labor laws, including the so-called ‘right-to-work’ law. This legislative session, the issue is going to generate a lot of contentious debate. And so far, the biggest Republican talking point against it is “Democrats didn’t campaign on it.” Sorry, but they’re going to have to do a hell of lot more than that to oppose something that would allow Iowans to change the nature of collective bargaining agreements with their employers that include fair share as an option.
As Chase noted over at Iowa Progress, Republicans and/or big business in the state have already launched a push-polling effort against ‘fair share.’ It also affects the impact that polls might have on the issue, as David Yepsen tried to argue this week that Democrats would be risking control of the legislature in 2008 if they repealed the current statute (which they aren’t trying to do). Yepsen tries to assert that Democrats and labor bickering in Iowa has caused Democrats to be out of power for so long in this state — and when we are in power for it to be short periods of time. That is a flat out assertion and just not true. There are other fundamental demographic and political reasons more than just labor not being able to work well with Democrats. To assert so is just stupid.
Just what is ‘fair share’? The Teamsters have put together a fantastic post on supporting Fair Share in Iowa in this diary over at Daily Kos. This argument seems like one of the best to me:
“Under 60-year-old right-to-work (for less) laws, unions must represent all members of a bargaining unit equally regardless of if they are members of the union or not. This means that nonmembers, who do not pay union dues, must receive the same union benefits as their dues-paying counterparts. Failing to provide equal services and representation would land the union in federal court where they could be fined, sued, etc.
Is that fair?
Of course not, and it’s shamelessly hypocritical. What do you think the Chamber of Commerce’s response would be if employers were required to give something for nothing – say, like health care, or a pension? They’d go nuts!”
Iowa Republicans are notoriously anti-union and they’ll be fighting hard against the fair share legislation. You can find Senate Study Bill 1120 here which would change Iowa’s current statute if passed, but not actually repeal the right to work. The bill is currently proposed as a Committee on Labor and Business Relations issue that would be guided by Sen. Dick Dearden. We’ll see where it goes. However, there is already a significant amount of lobbying going on behind the scenes by both those in favor and those opposed to fair share. Yepsen’s column was the first real coverage of the debate that Register has given the issue and I seriously hope they commit more resources to the debate in the future because it is going to be of considerable interest to Iowans.
In essence, fair share is compromise that maintains Iowa’s current right to work law but changes the nature of collective bargaining so as to allow for expanded options and to end the freerider problem that is killing unions and labor as an organization in America.
Admittedly, I do have to give Republicans kudos for actually standing up for their crazy platform this time by opposing changing the current right to work laws (unlike the bad Republicans who voted for a minimum wage hike, particularly when their own platform doesn’t even support a government-mandated minimum wage in the first place!).
SEIU President Andy Stern was over in Eastern Iowa earlier this week. I was invited, as a blogger, to sit down and meet with him but was unable to take up the opportunity thanks to classes and other meetings. However, John Deeth was able to go to the meeting with other activists and chat it up with Stern and others. You can read his report on the breakfast meeting here.
Matt Stoller of MyDD was also at the event and has been traveling with Stern. You can read and watch his interview with Stern here, as well as read another report here. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to make it because I would have loved to have had the opportunity to meet him.
In other news, they did offer me a complimentary copy of Stern’s new book, A Country that Works, that I hope to receive soon and read. I’ll probably start it after I finish Terry McAuliffe’s book What A Party!
Today, on his 41st birthday, Chet Culver was able to sign his first piece of legislation that represented one of the biggest campaign promises that he, as well as House and Senate Democrats, campaigned on in 2006: a minimum wage increase. Big Lug over at Bleeding Heartland has a quick report about the signing, as he was at the event. This year and beyond will prove just how much Iowa will be able to benefit from solid Democratic leadership, and the work of the activists who keep them honest and working hard.
Last night, right around 10 PM I believe, the Iowa Senate passed minimum wage legislation, raising the wage to $6.20 on April 1st and $7.25 by January 1st, 2008. The vote was 40-8 — props to the Iowa legislature for getting this passed and getting it done before the US Congress (though, we should blame Senate Republicans in Congress for filibustering a wage hike). Governor Chet Culver will be signing the increase into law this afternoon at 3:30 PM in the Capitol Rotunda. Jonathan Roos over at the Register has more on the story here.
And if you’re curious, you can read the Iowa Policy Project report about a minimum wage increase here (PDF) with a January background update here (PDF). The IPP recommended indexing the wage to inflation, but unfortunately, that did not happen. I hadn’t really known much about the IPP before but they’re now becoming one of my favorite sources for economic policy research about Iowa and I’ll be frequently visiting their site for more information.
For those keeping tally at home, with the signing of the minimum wage legislation, Democrats have fulfilled campaign promise number one within the first three weeks of the legislative session.
As Mark Langgin over at Bleeding Heartland notes, the Iowa House passed a straight up increase in the minimum wage for Iowa yesterday on a vote of 79-19. The Register has a story on the raise here as well.
I’ve mentioned before that I was disappointed that some House Democrats basically forced the Senate to drop measures that would set the minimum wage to increase annually with inflation. The other option the Senate had considered was eliminating the 90-day training wage, which was less than the standard minimum wage. It is doubtful that Senate Democrats will try and re-attach those options via amendments offered during their debate on the bill. I do think, however, that if Governor Culver had specifically interjected himself into the question about the annual adjustment and asked the legislature for that kind of policy in the legislation, House Democrats would have been more inclined to consider the possibility to its fullest potential instead of capitulating for political expediency.
Oh well, at least the primary House Democrat and Culver priorities is on its way to passage and hopefully will be on the Governor’s desk by Friday ready to be signed.
But it isn’t the compromise or true political leadership I was looking from from the House Democrats:
“Statehouse Democrats are expected to move ahead today with plans to raise Iowa’s minimum wage, but they’re dumping the idea of automatically raising the wage floor annually.”
Read the rest of Todd Dorman’s piece for the story on how the process will go.
Essentially, the Senate bill, even if it passes with the annual increase tied to the CPI and gets rid of the 90-day training wage, will be changed in conference to match the House bill, thus passing a blanket minimum wage increase with nothing else included in the bill to get rid of the political battles about increasing the minimum wage again in another 5 or 6 years.
I commend the Legislature for being able to take the issue and get it passed and signed before the federal government does (as that looks likely), but I really wish that they could have gotten the kinks worked out of the system before running head on into problems on their most triumphant campaign promise when it became a legislative issue.
Chris Dorsey from IowaPolitics.com has the scoop:
“Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, and Senate President Jack Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg, will draft a resolution urging Congress not to escalate the war in Iraq and not to approve the president’s request for 21,000 additional troops.
Vilsack, a Democratic presidential candidate, said it was time for Congress to step up in his final press conference Wednesday at the Statehouse. He asked lawmakers in Tuesday’s Condition of the State address to draft a resolution disagreeing with approving additional troops.
The resolution will be drafted, but Gronstal did not indicate a timetable for when it would be revealed. Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, said the issue has not been raised in his caucus.”
This is fantastic news. Sen. Dick Dearden has already said he would support such a resolution were it to come to the floor and it looks like one will soon be emerging on the floor. With Dearden, Gronstal, and Kibbie added to the eight senators who opposed the 2003 resolution, that puts at least 11 Senate Democrats who are likely to be in favor of such a resolution.
As for the House, I’m not sure where things stand other than Pat Murphy seems to be playing it safe with regards to the resolution and even in regards to the minimum wage issue. In today’s Register Speaker Murphy says:
“Said House Speaker Pat Murphy of Dubuque, “We campaigned on raising the minimum wage to $7.25. Indexing (for inflation) was not part of the discussion.”"
Look, he and I both know that campaigning on something doesn’t make it happen and it doesn’t include all the different possibilities that might impact such legislation. Democrats campaigned on local control issues but it is very unlikely the legislature will go as far as passing blanket local control but other aspects will be considered. That is a game of political compromise but you’re still going to face many Democrats pushing hard for it as well as Iowa citizens. Moreover, tying the minimum wage to inflation is simply a good thing to do because it ends the political bickering and its best for the people you’re trying to serve. You won the election and by putting Democrats in charge, you have a mandate. Act like it and get the job done. Being a leader means taking the heat and controversy, then waking up the next day and doing it all over again.
Only, I don’t think this should be a snag. As both the Register and the Gazette note, the Senate’s version of the bill which would peg the minimum wage to inflation and adjust it annually. As I noted early on Monday when the Senate’s bill was introduced, I figured the debate on it would be interesting. What I didn’t expect was that before the bill itself would even be discharged out of committee, Democrats themselves were still trying to figure out whether or not it was worth keeping that provision in the bill. And as Tyler says, the provision itself in the bill is good politically as it keeps the issue from being a haggling point every session.
If I were in the Democratic caucus, there would be two things I would do. First, I would try to figure why the hell this wasn’t decided in the two months following the election victories in November. The campaign promises were an immediate increase by 2009 to $7.25; that should have made it easy to draft two similar bills (i.e. the one in the Senate being just like the simple one in the House). Instead, there were two different bills.
Secondly, I’d tell the caucus to pick one of the two controversial provisions of the Senate bill (either the peg to inflation or the elimination of the 90-day training wage) and keep it. Use it as a bargaining chip with Republicans who want to haggle on small business assistance provisions. Or get rid of them all together and pass the bill as is. We have the votes to do so and the governor who will sign it into law.
All in all, I just have to say that I’m frustrated that the caucus is discussing this now. We should have been able to take of this discussion a while ago. I know the effort will get passed, we just need to have a solid front going into this session. We’re the majority now, let’s act like it and govern.
Here in the Iowa Senate, this afternoon at 3 PM the Labor and Business Relations Committee will meet to discuss SF 1, raising the minimum wage. According to the Register, the bill will likely make it through committee this afternoon and be on the floor of the Senate by tomorrow for consideration. The House will likely pick up the bill next week.
Currently in the US House, debate is going on about raising the minimum wage as well. I guess we can see who gets it done first. A lot of folks have asked, well, why is the state legislature even debating it and voting on it if the federal government is going to get it done first? The answer to that, I believe, lies in the Senate bill under consideration this afternoon. As I noted on Monday, SF 1 ties the minimum wage to to a cost of living index, in this case the consumer price index, which basically allows for the minimum wage to be increased annually based on inflation. As Drew notes, its just good policy.
I’m not sure that it will come out of committee with that provision, or if that provision will even make it into the final bill, but if it does congrats for the legislature in getting it passed.
Just a few minutes after the House introduced their first pieces of legislation and went to recess, the Senate did the same thing, ushering in 9 bills for consideration in the Senate. I was unable to get any of the committee referrals for the bills, but those should be updated on the bill history pages sooner or later.
- SF 1: As with the House, the first Senate bill is an increase in the minimum wage along the same lines of the House bill in terms of dates and amounts. However, there are two significant differences. First, the Senate bill would require an annual increase in the minimum wage after 2008 based on the rise in the consumer price index. Second, the bill gets rid of the special minimum wage for workers in 90-day training programs. The conference compromises on the two different but the same minimum wage bills could be quite interesting. That’s all dependent on the bills passing from committee to the floor as is. I expect the actual committee hearings in both houses might be even more interesting.
- SF 2: Allows for a physician’s assistant to make the twice-a-year mandated visits to patients in nursing facilities instead of simply the physician.
- SF 3: The bill expands the time period prosecution for hunting violations (misdemeanors) from one year limitation to a three year limitation.
- SF 4: This bill deals with sales tax exemptions on automobiles, watercraft, and other things like that.
- SF 5: This is Sen. Kettering’s bill that would raise the speed limit from 55 to 60 on certain highways, as was listed in the prefiled bills.
- SF 6: This bill increases the child and dependent care credit under the individual income tax by doubling the income limit in each credit bracket.
- SF 7: This bill permits a qualified organization that represents volunteer emergency services providers holding an annual game night to award prizes of up to $100 to a participant per game and up to $500 for all games conducted during the game night.
- SF 8: Deals with restitution payments of convicted criminals, particularly those incarcerated.
- SF 9: This bill provides that an advisory board created pursuant to an agreement for fire protection service or emergency medical service may advise or submit nonbinding recommendations to the governing body of each municipality party to the agreement regarding funding for emergency services.
Whew, that was a bit of work. I’m off to lunch now and we’ll get down to some more posting a little bit later this afternoon, hopefully expanding beyond talking about the legislature, I hope. Oh, and just so you know, the Democratic caucus at 1:15 is a joint caucus of the House and Senate.
Just a couple of minutes ago, the Iowa House adjourned until 2 PM. Prior to doing so, the first reading and referral to committee of seven bills was handled by Speaker Murphy and the Clerk of the House. I will list the bills and try to provide a link to each.
- HF 1: Raises the minimum wage to at least $6.20 by April 1, 2007, and to $7.25 by January 1, 2008. The bill was assigned to the Labor Committee.
- HF 2 & 3: Both bills deal with urban renewal and withholding tax credit. The bills were assigned to the Ways and Means Committee, I believe.
- HF 4: From my elementary understanding of the bill, this would allow for small business associations to come together and pool healthcare costs. The bill was assigned to the Commerce Committee.
- HF 5: The is Rep. Lisa Hedden’s bill on limiting finance charges on car title loans that I mentioned was in the prefiled bills. The bill was assigned to the Commerce Committee. Let me just say how thrilling it is to see the House really get to work on bills like this.
- HF 6: This is the Heddens and Dandekar compulsory attendance age bill that was also listed in the prefiled bills. It was referred to the Education Committee.
- HF 7: This bill establishes a leadership institute for manufacturing executives in Iowa. It would allocate $25k to the Department of Economic Development to do so. I believe the bill was assigned to Ways and Means.
And that’s it for the introductory legislation. The House Democrats will caucus at 1:15 PM. The Senate is still in session and they are continuing to move through procedural issues. When the get to legislation, I’ll try to provide the same summary here.
I’m currently listening to the live audio of the Iowa House of Representatives. Pat Murphy has been duly elected speaker and they’ve fulfilled some honorary and other necessary business. The Register has a welcome story this morning as well.
Right now, Republican Minority Leader is speaking currently, and according to Kay Henderson, he’ll be railing on Democrats for even considering or talking about Fair Share. Rants will be on a crusade this session to keep the state’s right to work law and will be relentless on pushing his message.
UPDATE: Thank goodness for Kay Henderson. She’s got the full prepared text of the leadership remarks for the House here and the Senate here.
