Sad to say, WV has been politically interesting lately. One thing we talked about on this week's Front Porch podcast is Hillary Clinton's apparent fall from favor since 2008. Gazette-Mail political columnist Phil Kabler relates some of the other weirdness here. And, while we're on the topic of interesting things, this lawsuit by labor groups against WV's new right to work for less law could be as well, especially in light of this week's state supreme court race.
If you read this blog regularly or listen to the Front Porch, you may recall this segment on transgender rights (and the loopy bathroom predator myth). Here's more coverage on that by the Gazette-Mail's Erin Beck.
Showing posts with label right to work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label right to work. Show all posts
May 08, 2016
April 09, 2016
This is interesting
There's been some good news for working people this week. In Wisconsin, a circuit judge struck down that state's "right to work" law. Here's some of what the Center for Media and Democracy had to say:
HELP NEEDED. So I've heard from several people that they no longer get Goat Rope by email. I'm trying to sort that out but if you DO get it that way could you please let me know? Thanks!
In his ruling today, Judge Faust found that the unions had “a legally protectable property interest in the services they perform for their members and non-members.”
“When members pay their dues and non-members their fair share fees, all would say the union is building a treasury that it holds as property. When it expends those funds to perform services, as it must, no one would dispute that that money is the union’s property. Plaintiffs will be obligated to spend treasury—their property—on services for which they cannot legally request compensation. This is enough to establish that unions do have a legally protectable property interest at stake,” read the ruling, in part.I wonder if an argument like that could hold up here. Hmmmm....
HELP NEEDED. So I've heard from several people that they no longer get Goat Rope by email. I'm trying to sort that out but if you DO get it that way could you please let me know? Thanks!
February 11, 2016
Another day in hell
Starting on a positive note, kudos to WV Governor Earl Ray Tomblin for vetoing right to work for less legislation as well as the repeal of prevailing wage. He had this to say about that:
Alas, the framers of WV's constitution screwed up and left things so that a simple majority is all that is needed to overturn a veto.
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE BAD IDEA FACTORY, the WV House passed the misnamed Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was nice to see this op-ed by WVU's David Fryson opposing this backlash of bigotry.
AS IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH, a coalition consisting of WV's ruling class and representative of the thriving pseudo-Christian Taliban are getting to work on gutting school science standards.
And why not--people have to be stupid to put up with this ****, right?
“Foremost, I dispute that West Virginia needs a right-to-work law. The issue of right to work has been discussed for a number of years, but I have never had a company cite right to work as a barrier to relocating to West Virginia. We do not lack prospects. Our issues are best addressed by improving our workforce and creating new development opportunities. Since becoming governor in 2010, West Virginia has welcomed more than $10 billion in new investments and expansion projects. I do not believe West Virginia needs a right-to-work law, a law that would lead to little if any economy growth and may lower the wages of West Virginia workers.”
and
“Last year, I worked with the Legislature to create a compromise on prevailing wage to help local communities by exempting projects less than $500,000 and to improve our state’s prevailing wage calculation. These new rates have been in place for less than a year – we need to give this new methodology time to work. We don’t need to pass bills that lower the wages of West Virginia workers and do little, if anything, to stimulate our economy.”
Alas, the framers of WV's constitution screwed up and left things so that a simple majority is all that is needed to overturn a veto.
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE BAD IDEA FACTORY, the WV House passed the misnamed Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was nice to see this op-ed by WVU's David Fryson opposing this backlash of bigotry.
AS IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH, a coalition consisting of WV's ruling class and representative of the thriving pseudo-Christian Taliban are getting to work on gutting school science standards.
And why not--people have to be stupid to put up with this ****, right?
February 01, 2016
Hitting bottom would be nice
The climate at the WV legislature this year reminds me of the lyrics of a John Prine song:
"We're goin' down down down to the bottom of a hole in the ground/smoke em if you've got em."
At this point hitting bottom would be nice since it would mean things wouldn't get much worse.
I'm going to share several items from the Gazette-Mail that tell the story.
FIRST, there's this Statehouse Beat column of Phil Kabler that lays things out pretty well. See especially the part about the hypocrisy behind the Republican leadership's anti-labor moves and the bogus WVU study.
MEANWHILE, I just love it when well-fed and well-paid outsiders urge leaders to take food from the mouths of hungry people. I have a feeling the guy who wrote this hasn't missed too many meals.
It's almost as good as when Koch brother-funded hacks urge the abolition of public broadcasting. My friend Scott Finn had this to say about that.
HOW DO YOU TOP ALL THAT? Maybe totally screwing up public education for good.
These are only a few more reasons behind my campaign to change the state motto to "you can't make this **** up."
December 08, 2015
It's not all bad (another installment)
There's been a lot of nastiness in the air over the Syrian refugee crisis. It was nice last night to attend an event at the Islamic Center in which Christians, Jews and Muslims stood together against hate and in favor of a humane response.
THIS MAY SOUND LIKE INSIDE BASEBALL, but an article in the Sunday Gazette-Mail by statehouse columnist Phil Kabler shows what happens when media is concentrated into a few very rich and very ideological hands.
TALKING SENSE IN HUNTINGTON. This Herald-Dispatch editorial argues that mine safety violations should carry felony rather than misdemeanor charges. I'm with them.
THIS MAY SOUND LIKE INSIDE BASEBALL, but an article in the Sunday Gazette-Mail by statehouse columnist Phil Kabler shows what happens when media is concentrated into a few very rich and very ideological hands.
TALKING SENSE IN HUNTINGTON. This Herald-Dispatch editorial argues that mine safety violations should carry felony rather than misdemeanor charges. I'm with them.
February 08, 2015
Racing to the bottom
I've been unusually prolific in writing op-eds in the Charleston Gazette lately, mostly because things are so awful. Here's the latest, about efforts to bring right-to-work-for-less to WV. Somebody has to feed the trolls.
It’s starting to feel like open season on working people at the state Capitol.
First, the Senate Government Organization committee pushed through a bill attacking West Virginia’s prevailing wage law, which could reduce the number and quality of local jobs for local workers. It could also compromise worker safety while opening the door to cheap, low-quality labor from out-of-state for public projects.
If that wasn’t enough, there is also likely to be a push for misnamed “right to work” legislation, which has nothing to do with the right to employment. It can more accurately be called “right-to-work-for-less.”
If enacted, it promises to speed up the shrinking of what remains of the middle class in West Virginia and adversely impact non-union as well as union workers.
Here’s a brief summary of the situation: As things now stand in free labor states like West Virginia, if the majority of eligible workers in a private sector site vote to join a union in an election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, all workers belong to the union.
Getting to that point isn’t easy, as some employers intimidate workers in an effort to discourage or defeat the election.
Once in a union, all workers then have the right to representation in the event of grievances and all benefit from the wages, job safety, benefits and working conditions negotiated by the union, which can be substantial.
After a successful vote to organize, if the majority of workers no longer want to be represented by the union, they can petition for a vote to decertify the union.
(Historical note: the coal miners who worked at Massey’s Upper Big Branch mine were once represented by the United Mine Workers union. Once Massey acquired the mine, it was successful in pushing through an election to decertify the union. You know how that story ended.)
The current process for union representation is no different from any other kind of election. For example, if the majority of voters elect someone to political office, that person will generally serve in that position until he or she retires or is voted out of office. Or if duly elected representatives pass a law, that law goes into effect until it is repealed by other legislation or declared unconstitutional by the courts.
Further, if a union member conscientiously objects to the use of union dues to support other purposes than direct representation, he or she has the right under the Supreme Court Beck decision to pay reduced dues that only cover those expenses.
Right-to-work-for-less laws undermine the basic democratic process. In states that have such legislation, unions are legally obligated to represent all workers, even those who don’t support the costs of such representation. The free riders get all the benefits of membership without contributing to the cost of getting them. In the end, this drags down wages and benefits for everyone.
If that kind of thing applied to other areas, I suppose you could drive 100 miles per hour in a school zone if you didn’t want to be represented by the officials who set the speed limit.
So much for the technicalities of the law: Why should we care about this?
n First, if right-to-work-for-less laws were a cure-all for quality of life and well-being, we’d expect states that have them to be at the top of the list on such things. However, last year, Politico compiled the results of 14 state rankings on quality of life issues, such as income, education levels, graduation rates, life expectancy, crime, etc. They came up with a ranking for 50 states and the District of Columbia. It didn’t specifically look at labor laws.
Only three of the top 10 states ranked for quality of life had right-to-work-for-less laws. On the other hand, all five of the lowest-ranked states did. Right-to-work-for-less states made up only nine of the top 25 states, but 15 of the bottom 25.
That reminds me of some drug commercials on television, where side effects sound worse than the conditions the pills aim to cure.
n Second, wages for all workers are lower in right-to-work-for-less states than in free labor states. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the average worker makes $1,500 or 3.2 percent less per year in those states than comparable workers in free states, even if you factor in differences in the cost of living.
n Third, a 2011 study found that employer-provided health insurance and employer-sponsored pensions were both lower in those states than in free labor states.
It’s true that union members generally earn higher wages than their non-union counterparts. They are also more likely to have health care benefits, paid sick leave, vacations, and pensions. Those are the kinds of benefits that make for stable families and communities.
However, there is a positive “spillover effect” from union to non-union workers. Many non-union employers offer competitive wages and benefits due to the standards set by collective bargaining agreements. Some employers even pay higher than union wages to avoid unionization.
Further, some of the basic things that we take for granted as part of living in a decent society are hard-won gains that union members fought and sometimes died to gain for everyone. These include things like the abolition of child labor, basic safety regulations, limits to the hours someone can be compelled to work, overtime laws and programs such as Social Security.
In the public policy arena, union members frequently support legislation that benefits all workers, not just union members. To use a local example, last year, unions supported an increase in the state minimum wage, even though their members earn higher wages. Labor has also been in the front lines of other struggles for justice, such as the Civil Rights movement.
Bottom line: if extremists in the West Virginia Legislature push this law through, it won’t just affect union members. It will drag down many more working families and communities and speed up our race to the bottom.
It’s starting to feel like open season on working people at the state Capitol.
First, the Senate Government Organization committee pushed through a bill attacking West Virginia’s prevailing wage law, which could reduce the number and quality of local jobs for local workers. It could also compromise worker safety while opening the door to cheap, low-quality labor from out-of-state for public projects.
If that wasn’t enough, there is also likely to be a push for misnamed “right to work” legislation, which has nothing to do with the right to employment. It can more accurately be called “right-to-work-for-less.”
If enacted, it promises to speed up the shrinking of what remains of the middle class in West Virginia and adversely impact non-union as well as union workers.
Here’s a brief summary of the situation: As things now stand in free labor states like West Virginia, if the majority of eligible workers in a private sector site vote to join a union in an election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, all workers belong to the union.
Getting to that point isn’t easy, as some employers intimidate workers in an effort to discourage or defeat the election.
Once in a union, all workers then have the right to representation in the event of grievances and all benefit from the wages, job safety, benefits and working conditions negotiated by the union, which can be substantial.
After a successful vote to organize, if the majority of workers no longer want to be represented by the union, they can petition for a vote to decertify the union.
(Historical note: the coal miners who worked at Massey’s Upper Big Branch mine were once represented by the United Mine Workers union. Once Massey acquired the mine, it was successful in pushing through an election to decertify the union. You know how that story ended.)
The current process for union representation is no different from any other kind of election. For example, if the majority of voters elect someone to political office, that person will generally serve in that position until he or she retires or is voted out of office. Or if duly elected representatives pass a law, that law goes into effect until it is repealed by other legislation or declared unconstitutional by the courts.
Further, if a union member conscientiously objects to the use of union dues to support other purposes than direct representation, he or she has the right under the Supreme Court Beck decision to pay reduced dues that only cover those expenses.
Right-to-work-for-less laws undermine the basic democratic process. In states that have such legislation, unions are legally obligated to represent all workers, even those who don’t support the costs of such representation. The free riders get all the benefits of membership without contributing to the cost of getting them. In the end, this drags down wages and benefits for everyone.
If that kind of thing applied to other areas, I suppose you could drive 100 miles per hour in a school zone if you didn’t want to be represented by the officials who set the speed limit.
So much for the technicalities of the law: Why should we care about this?
n First, if right-to-work-for-less laws were a cure-all for quality of life and well-being, we’d expect states that have them to be at the top of the list on such things. However, last year, Politico compiled the results of 14 state rankings on quality of life issues, such as income, education levels, graduation rates, life expectancy, crime, etc. They came up with a ranking for 50 states and the District of Columbia. It didn’t specifically look at labor laws.
Only three of the top 10 states ranked for quality of life had right-to-work-for-less laws. On the other hand, all five of the lowest-ranked states did. Right-to-work-for-less states made up only nine of the top 25 states, but 15 of the bottom 25.
That reminds me of some drug commercials on television, where side effects sound worse than the conditions the pills aim to cure.
n Second, wages for all workers are lower in right-to-work-for-less states than in free labor states. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the average worker makes $1,500 or 3.2 percent less per year in those states than comparable workers in free states, even if you factor in differences in the cost of living.
n Third, a 2011 study found that employer-provided health insurance and employer-sponsored pensions were both lower in those states than in free labor states.
It’s true that union members generally earn higher wages than their non-union counterparts. They are also more likely to have health care benefits, paid sick leave, vacations, and pensions. Those are the kinds of benefits that make for stable families and communities.
However, there is a positive “spillover effect” from union to non-union workers. Many non-union employers offer competitive wages and benefits due to the standards set by collective bargaining agreements. Some employers even pay higher than union wages to avoid unionization.
Further, some of the basic things that we take for granted as part of living in a decent society are hard-won gains that union members fought and sometimes died to gain for everyone. These include things like the abolition of child labor, basic safety regulations, limits to the hours someone can be compelled to work, overtime laws and programs such as Social Security.
In the public policy arena, union members frequently support legislation that benefits all workers, not just union members. To use a local example, last year, unions supported an increase in the state minimum wage, even though their members earn higher wages. Labor has also been in the front lines of other struggles for justice, such as the Civil Rights movement.
Bottom line: if extremists in the West Virginia Legislature push this law through, it won’t just affect union members. It will drag down many more working families and communities and speed up our race to the bottom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
News Feed (RSS & Atom)