From the Houston Chroicle: Union dues bill faces contentious road ahead Senate hearing set for revived legislation following 2015 setback

For 2306 this week.

- Click here for the article.

After being blocked by moderate Republicans two years ago, controversial legislation that would prohibit voluntary payroll deductions of union dues from state employee paychecks is up again Monday for a new hearing.

This time, passage of the measure has been tagged as a priority by Gov. Greg Abbott and figures in a broader push by conservative Republicans intent on pushing ahead their agenda that include school choice and pension reform.

On Monday, the Senate State Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 13 -- authored by the panel's chair, Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston -- with passage expected to allow full debate soon by the full Senate.

From the Pew Research Center: 10 facts about American workers

Just in time for labor day.

- Click here for the article.

Curious result: While fewer workers belong to labor unions, support for the right to unionize is high.

From the NYT: Victory for Unions as Supreme Court, Scalia Gone, Ties 4-4

We cover agencies fees in some 2306 classes - Texas doesn't allow them. If conservative opponents have their way, no state can.

- Click here for the article.

Under California law, public employees who choose not to join unions must pay a “fair share service fee,” also known as an “agency fee,” typically equivalent to the dues members pay. The fees, the law says, are meant to pay for some of the costs of collective bargaining, including “the cost of lobbying activities.” More than 20 states have similar laws.

Government workers who are not members of unions have long been able to obtain refunds for the political activities of unions, like campaign spending. The case the court ruled on Tuesday, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915, asked whether such workers must continue to pay for any union activities, including negotiating for better wages and benefits. A majority of the justices had seemed inclined to say no.

Relying on a 1977 Supreme Court precedent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, upheld the requirement that the objecting teachers pay fees. Tuesday’s announcement, saying only that “the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court,” upheld that ruling and set no new precedent.

The unions defending the compulsory fees said the teachers’ First Amendment arguments were a ruse. Collective bargaining is different from spending on behalf of a candidate, the unions said. They said the plaintiffs were seeking to reap the benefits of such bargaining without paying their fair share of the cost.

Limiting the power of public unions has long been a goal of conservative groups, and they seemed very close to victory when the case was argued in January.

In 2014, the court stopped just short of overruling the foundational 1977 decision and declaring that government workers who choose not to join unions may not be forced to pay fees in lieu of dues. In the 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court made a distinction between two kinds of compelled payments.

Forcing nonmembers to pay for a union’s political activities violates the First Amendment, the court said. But it is constitutional, the court added, to require nonmembers to help pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace.”

- From Scotusblog: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.

On the minimum wage, the right to unionize, and Walmart

I stumbled across a fruitful blog post that touched on the relationship between minimum wages - along with the wages of low income workers in general - and the ability of workers to collect their strength under the heading of a union.

Perhaps the problems faced by low income workers are better served by allowing them to unionize than to simply increase the minimum wage. Something for M3's to consider as you put your papers together.

I'll post a few separate items based on the links in the story above.

Is the decline in manufacturing job pay tied into the decline of unions?

Something to think about as we begin discussing factions and their impact on public policy. Union membership is the lowest its been in almost 100 years, and middle class wages have stagnated for 30 years. Some suggest this is no coincidence.

Story in Wonkblog. Nice Graphic below:

From the MWJS: Judge throws out Walker's union bargaining law

An illustration of federalism, civil liberties, and the nature of home rule authority. A federal court threw out part, but not all, of Wisconsin's recently passed laws limiting collective bargaining rights for city and state employees:

Gov. Scott Walker's law repealing most collective bargaining for local and school employees was struck down by a Dane County judge Friday, yet another dramatic twist in a year and a half saga that likely sets up another showdown in the Supreme Court.

The law remains largely in force for state workers, but for city, county and school workers the decision by Dane County Judge Juan Colas returns the law to its status before Walker signed the legislation in March 2011.

Colas ruled that the law violated workers' constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal representation under the law by capping union workers' raises but not those of their nonunion counterparts. The judge also ruled that the law violated the "home rule" clause of the state constitution by setting the contribution for City of Milwaukee employees to the city pension system rather than leaving it to the city and workers. 
- The laws in question: Wisconson Act 10 and Act 32.
- Click here for the judge's ruling, and here for excerpts.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union

In an ideologically split 5-4 vote (with Kennedy siding with the conservatives) the Supreme Court ruled the public sector unions cannot collect an "agency fee" from non-members in order to help advance political measures that benefit the employees collectively. This severely weakens the ability of unions to enable all public sector employees to act collectively, but enhances the ability of public sector employees to opt out of these efforts if they choose. The majority argued that forcing non-members to pay for the unions efforts violated their free speech rights.

Scotusblog has a rundown of the case, here's an analysis from Cornell's Law School. The opinion can be found here.

Opinions about it are mixed.

- The New York Times calls the Roberts Court. anti-union.
- A Washington Post writer argues that this is a victory for the free speech rights of non-union members.
- The American Prospect argues this is conservative judicial activism, they decided on an issue that was not argued before the court.
- A Forbes writer wonders if this ruling will apply to shareholders. Do they have to subsidize poliitcal speech?

What are Collective Bargaining Agreements and Right to Work provisions?

Here's a brief primer for 2301 and this week's discussion of interest groups. This will help us come to grips with the recent controversy over collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, which is central to the strength of unions - why else join is you can't get the material benefits they promise

Wisconsin Backlash

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's crusade against unions seems to have had a predictable effect: a mobilized pro-union movement:

- Fueled by Protests, Angry Wisconsin Voters Show Up to Fight.
- Kloppenburg Declares Victory In Wisconsin Supreme Court Race.

The as yet uncertified result - no way to say who the actual winner is yet - would result in a liberal majority on a court that had been conservative. The difference between the two candidates, apparently, is about 200 votes out of almost 1.5 million. Turnout and intensity matters.

Suppressing Free Speech?

For 2301 and our discussion free speech and the marketplace of ideas: Paul Krugman thinks there are efforts underway to intimidate people challenging legislation limiting collective bargaining rights:

Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state's political turmoil. He started a blog, ''Scholar as Citizen,'' devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin's Republican governor has turned his back on the state's long tradition of ''neighborliness, decency and mutual respect.''

So what was the G.O.P.'s response? A demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon's university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word ''Republican'' and the names of a number of Republican politicians.

If this action strikes you as no big deal, you're missing the point. The hard right -- which these days is more or less synonymous with the Republican Party -- has a modus operandi when it comes to scholars expressing views it dislikes: never mind the substance, go for the smear. And that demand for copies of e-mails is obviously motivated by no more than a hope that it will provide something, anything, that can be used to subject Mr. Cronon to the usual treatment.

Does democracy exist only for the wealthy?

There's evidence to support that idea.

From Ezra Klein (via Andrew Sullivan) points to a book that makes the case:

Ezra Klein explores inequality's roots in a review of Winner-Take-All Politics, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson:


[T]he book’s greatest strength is its easy command of political science data, which sets it apart from most of the other studies of inequality that have been released. Perhaps the most shocking study the authors cite comes from Martin Gilens, a political scientist at Princeton University. Gilens has been collecting the results of nearly 2,000 survey questions reaching back to the 1980s, looking for evidence that when opinions change, so too does policy. And he found it—but only for the rich.
“Most policy changes with majority support didn’t become law,” Hacker and Pierson write. The exception was “when they were supported by those at the top. When the opinions of the poor diverged from those of the well-off, the opinions of the poor ceased to have any apparent influence: If 90 percent of poor Americans supported a policy change, it was no more likely to happen than if 10 percent did. By contrast, when more of the well-off supported a change, it was substantially more likely to happen.”


In part, this is because politicians began to need money more than they had before, as the costs of campaigns started skyrocketing. The predictable outcome? Both parties have been relying more on wealthy donors and less on labor unions.

Referendum in Ohio?

From the Atlantic, an item for 2301:

Yesterday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- who after just two months in office already had a 28-year record low 40 percent job approval rating -- unveiled his budget plan, which includes slashing public school budgets and selling several state prisons to the private sector. Meanwhile, a coalition of labor unions, community groups, and small student associations held a "Day of Actions" in protest of Senate Bill 5, with activities such as a teachers' rally, picketing on Columbus's Capitol Hill and phonebanking.

The bill, which is backed Kasich and currently making its way through the Ohio House of Representatives, would severely limit collective bargaining power by public-sector employees, including police, firefighters and teachers. Unions would not be able to bargain on pension or health-care plans, yearly step increases would be thrown out in favor of merit raises, and if there were disagreements over contract negotiations, the bill bans strikes, and adds fines for walkouts.

Labor groups and Democrats anticipate the bill's passage through the Republican dominated House -- it passed the Ohio Senate on March 5 -- but plan to fight back by working to put the legislation directly before voters in a special ballot election this fall. Ohio, unlike Wisconsin, lacks a mechanism for recalling elected officials, but it does have a direct means for overturning unpopular legislation: If labor and Democrats are able to secure 200,300 signatures in the coming months, a ballot proposition to vote on overturning Senate Bill 5 will appear before voters come November.

That means Ohio pro-union forces won't need to rely on labor-friendly Democrats to get elected in a special election in order to overturn anti-union legislation -- their plan in Wisconsin, where they are seeking to recall eight GOP senators, elect Democrats in their stead, then repeal the just-passed law stripping public sector unions of most collective bargaining rights in the state. Instead, Ohio union supporters can take on the offending legislation directly themselves.

Early Poll Results on Republican Governors

Not good, Walker and Kasich are polling in the 30s, but there's little chance that defanging unions will be undone, which probably pays off dividends down the line.

Republicans Negative, Democrats Positive in Describing Unions

From the Gallup Poll.

Will the Attack on Collective Bargaining Make Democrats More Enthusiastic than Republicans in the 2012 Election?

We've been asking this in class recently, Nate Silver comments and give some evidence that it might.

Labor on the Rise? Tea Party Cooling Off?

From the NYT, a relatively common story. A group out of power feels put upon by a group in power and uses it to mobilize support. Two years ago it was the tea party; now its the unions. The question is whether unions will be able to ride this anger to the polls in 2012.

Organized labor has been on a long decline, but the recent attacks against it in Wisconsin and elsewhere have had a surprising result — they have energized the nation’s unions. Instead of just playing defense to protect benefits and bargaining rights, labor leaders are plotting some offense, with several saying Mr. Walker may have unwittingly nurtured a comeback by unions.

As the Wisconsin showdown has unfolded, several recent national opinion polls have shown strong public backing for unions. And labor leaders say public awareness, especially among younger people, of what unions do has clearly increased.

“The challenge for us is to take this moment and turn it into a movement,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. She acknowledged that she was not sure whether labor could accomplish that, but union leaders are quietly forging strategies to propel labor’s cause beyond the immediate statehouse battles.
By the way, we've discussed the calming effect elections are supposed to have on the angry. Charles Blow makes the same point:

A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that anger at the government among Tea Party supporters fell by 40 percent from September 2010 to this month. Furthermore, anger among Republicans fell by more than half, and anger among whites, the elderly and independents fell by 40 percent or more.

On the other hand, the percentage of Tea Party supporters who said that they trusted the government always or most of the time doubled from last March to this March, and the percentage of Republicans saying so nearly doubled. In fact, the percent of both Republicans and independents saying so is now higher than it has been since January 2007.

Less anger? More trust? What happened? The midterms happened, that’s what.

Elections have a way of cooling passions, especially when voters get what they want.

But this combined with increased anger on the left sets us up for another wave (counter-wave?) election in 2012.

Old v Young: The future has no union.

In class I mentioned that, in my opinion, the budget cutting process would indicate which interests are powerful and which are not. Of course recent history reminds us that the interests of the old are better served than those of the young, and David Brooks sees this playing out in budget battles across the nation. He's worried that this outs future prosperity at risk:

A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.

So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.
Clive Crook adds to the sentiment and points out that part of the current dispute with labor unons is that in the past they traded low wages for high future benefits. This shifted the costs to future taxpayers.

Paul Krugman wonders if Texas is neglecting our next generation of children.

Weakening Unions

Howard Finemann adds to the idea that the Wisconsin attempts to minimize the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions is part of a broader attempt to weaken a key supporter of the Democratic Party prior to the 2012 election. This is especially urgent since unions have the same expanded ability to engage in political activities following the Citizens United decision which rules they have the same free speech rights as people. He also reports that Republicans had expected to do far better in the 2010 elections than they did.

The real political math in Wisconsin isn't about the state budget or the collective-bargaining rights of public employees there. It is about which party controls governorships and, with them, the balance of power on the ground in the 2012 elections.

For all of the valid concern about reining in state spending -- a concern shared by politicians and voters of all labels -- the underlying strategic Wisconsin story is this: Gov. Scott Walker, a Tea Party-tinged Republican, is the advance guard of a new GOP push to dismantle public-sector unions as an electoral force.

Last fall, GOP operatives hoped and expected to take away as many as 20 governorships from the Democrats. They ended up nabbing 12.

What happened? Well, according to postgame analysis by GOP strategists and Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi -- who chaired the Republican Governors Association in 2010 -- the power and money of public-employee unions was the reason.

"We are never going to win most of these states until we can do something about those unions," one key operative said at a Washington dinner in November. "They have so much incentive to work hard politically because they are, in effect, electing their own bosses -- the Democrats who are going to pay them better and give them more benefits. And the Democrats have the incentive to be generous."

Republicans Vote to Defund the NLRB

Which would undermine collective bargaining in general.

Strikes in Wisconsin, Democracy in America

The war on collective bargaining is already several decades old and is now being waged against public sector unions. The Republican Governor of Wisconsin wants to eliminate the ability of public sector unions to engage in collective bargaining. Paul Krugman thinks this effort will mark America's transition back to oligarchy:

Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes.

So it’s not about the budget; it’s about the power.

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
Andrew Sullivan has a nice series of links to stories illustrating various aspects of the issue.