Right to Work? No, RTW = Rob the Workers: John Marty

Right to Work? No, RTW = Rob the Workers

by Senator John Marty March 22, 2012
The so-called "Right to Work" (RTW) constitutional amendment pushed by Republicans is anything but a right to work. In 1961, Dr. Martin Luther King described the purpose of "Right to Work" laws as efforts "to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone.Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights." Dr. King called "Right to Work," a "false slogan" and a "fraud." King recognized that unions play a critical role; they have provided better public health and safety standards and have worked to make the economy work for everyone. In fact, on the day when Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, he was in Memphis supporting a sanitation workers' strike. To him, unions were essential to the rights and dignity of working people. Fifty years later, we are still fighting the same battle, this time with a Republican proposal to amend the Minnesota Constitution with the so-called "Right to Work." Some things haven't changed, and RTW is as fundamentally dishonest today as it was then. Anyone who is struggling to find a job would love to have a right to work. But this constitutional amendment has nothing to do with that. As in the past, this legislation is simply a proposal to allow workers who benefit from collective bargaining, arbitration, and other benefits to refuse to pay for the services they receive from the union. If this were accurately portrayed, the public would overwhelmingly reject such a scheme. That's why they use deceptive language. Their ballot question would ask voters whether to amend the constitution to guarantee people the "freedom to decide to join or not join a labor union, and to pay or not pay dues to a labor union." Workers already have that choice. Under federal and state law, if employees vote to organize a union, individual workers cannot be required to join or pay dues; they can only be required to pay for the representation provided by the union. RTW, by removing the requirement that workers pay for those services, means few unions could survive. This RTW amendment is being pushed for the very reasons that Dr. King identified: to weaken unions and bring down wages and benefits. And the impact is dramatic; the average family income in RTW states is almost $10,000/year lower than in Minnesota. Our economy is already stacked against workers. Many cannot find work, and many of those who are working do not earn enough. More than three in ten Minnesotans are struggling to meet basic needs. Some workers cannot afford housing and go from their jobs to a homeless shelter at night. Passing the RTW proposal would make the situation much worse. Just as importantly, lives of workers are at greater risk under RTW. Unions have long led the fight for worker safety laws and enforcement. During the 2011 legislative session, I remember a hearing where several firefighters sat in full protective gear -- one even in a hazmat suit -- in an already overheated capitol hearing room, to persuade lawmakers to provide sufficient training for firefighters. Unions have also been instrumental in negotiating with employers to provide safety equipment at construction sites; they fight for adequate staffing levels for nurses in hospitals and for protective gear for police and firefighters. This push for worker safety makes a huge difference. Workers in states with RTW laws are over 50% more likely to die in workplace incidents than workers in non-RTW states like Minnesota. Fortunately, the RTW proposal is struggling in the legislature. The Senate Republicans pulled the bill out of the committee it was assigned to, apparently because they didn't have enough votes to pass it there. In the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, one Republican spoke in favor of the proposal but voted against it, and another spoke against the proposal, then voted for it. They are struggling; we can defeat this. Hundreds of workers packed the hallways of the capitol outside of the hearing room to express strong opposition to a bill that would take away their rights. They understand that the proposal has nothing to do with any right to work. To them, RTW means "rob the workers". It's time to move beyond this fraudulent legislation. Let's talk about a trueright to work: Everyone who wants to work should have a right to a job - a job that pays a living wage. There are so many people eager to work, and so many tasks that need doing in our society. Yet our society has failed to connect the workers with the work that needs to be done. We could start by taking unemployed construction workers and hiring them to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure - making schools and all public buildings energy efficient, addressing the enormous backlog of deferred maintenance of public housing and buildings at our colleges and universities. We could hire teachers to expand early childhood programs, which provide great savings over the long run, and employ young adults to intervene with at-risk teens. It is time to stop attacking workers and start attacking unemployment. Defeating RTW would be a great start.

In Defense of Good Government: John Marty

In Defense of Good Government
by Senator John Marty June 28, 2011
Why does one need to write in defense of good government? Because right wing politicians have vilified government. Under their relentless attacks, government is portrayed as evil - something Grover Norquist wants to reduce "to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."  Norquist is not an insignificant figure. He founded Americans for Tax Reform, and is a key strategist behind the Republican Party attack on government. This assault on government is not a compassionate attempt to serve the public good. Norquist says, "Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat.... It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see." Inflicting pain on others does not further the values of democracy. Contrary to the public's desire for civility, Norquist says, "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." Here in Minnesota, and next door in Wisconsin, it is obvious how successful Norquist and his allies have been in that battle.Let's step back from that. I want to speak in defense of goodgovernment. In Abraham Lincoln's words, our government was instituted "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Government is not them. It is us. Government is not inherently good or evil; it's how people choose to govern themselves.As society and the economy become more complex, we need government to create the infrastructure to establish justice and to promote the general welfare. In primitive societies, with smaller communities and simpler lives, government was also much smaller. Food and necessities were produced locally; labor was done by family or neighbors. There was no Wall Street. No corporate boards made decisions affecting the lives of truly anonymous workers and consumers. No need for air traffic control or a pollution control agency.In our increasingly complex society, we need to work together to give all children access to quality education, to ensure that products we buy are safe, to pay for roads and bridges and public safety, to protect the environment, and to help those who are sick and vulnerable and unable to fend for themselves. It is through government that we can effectively address these needs. It is also, almost always, less expensive to do so collectively - it's far cheaper to pay for a clean public water supply than to have each household drill their own well, and test and purify their own water. Yet right-wing politicians across the country have been signing Norquist's No New Taxes pledge; a pledge that allows no exceptions, whether for growing needs, for emergencies, or natural disasters. Under the anti-tax ideology, if children go hungry, that's tough. If bridges collapse, too bad. After the 35W bridge collapse, Governor Pawlenty supported a tax increase to fund bridge construction needs (his spokesman explained, "Yes, it's accurate to describe this as a breaking of the [no-tax] pledge," because of the "extraordinary circumstances"). However, when pressure from the anti-tax lobby became too strong, Pawlenty backed away. But the bridge collapse was real, and the need to address transportation safety didn't disappear. The only thing that changed was Pawlenty's decision to ignore the need in favor of an ideological pledge against taxes. Meeting the needs of society can be expensive. Back in 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor did not come at a convenient time for the United States. Our nation was still struggling to recover from the Great Depression, and the federal government had no financial capacity to fund World War II. Yet all Americans sacrificed. In addition to the unmatched human sacrifice on the battlefield, there was an incredible economic sacrifice that needed to be paid for with higher taxes. Americans understood the need to work collectively to stop the brutal fascism that was taking over the world. As a nation, we pulled together to build a better future for the next generation. This is not a defense of all government. No one in the Minnesota legislature has been more outspoken than I in criticizing inappropriate spending, such as for corporate subsidies. No one has been more outspoken in fighting against government intrusion into private lives and decisions about whom one can marry. No one has been more outspoken against the corruption of special interest money in politics and the need for government reform.I'm speaking out in defense of good government, which includes criticism of bad, ineffective, and inappropriate government. But it also requires defending that which government needs to do, even if it means higher taxes. The people of Minnesota and our economy do better if we invest in early childhood education. We all benefit if everyone has access to preventive health care. We benefit if low-income workers have public transportation to get to their jobs and quality childcare to watch their children while they are at work. Failing to provide chemical dependency treatment to prisoners makes us less safe when they have served their time. Making college too expensive for students robs us all of their potential. The right-wing assault on government has been so brutal that there are times when few Democrats are willing to stand up and speak out. The rhetoric of Democrats from President Obama on down focuses on the need for cutting spending (yes, some of that focus is on inappropriate spending) but it feeds on the Republican frame that government is evil and less spending is better. A decade ago, even among DFLers, there were only a handful of votes against the huge Minnesota income tax cuts that led to our current budget crisis.Republican legislative leaders say we are spending too much and we need to cut back. Their budget makes deep cuts in services. But do we make Minnesota a better place by cutting the funds needed for investigation of child abuse? Or by denying health care to sick and disabled people? Much of the growth in government comes, ironically, from our failure to invest the funds needed to prevent those problems. If it requires more revenue to meet those needs, we should raise taxes rather than accept those cuts.When Republican legislators are voting, unanimously, for cruel cuts which affect the most vulnerable people in society, and some of those same politicians support tax increases for a publicly-funded stadium for a billionaire team owner, it is time to speak out. There is no better illustration that government is not inherently good or bad. I choose to speak out, not only in criticism of bad government, but also, in defense of good government.
To the Point!  is published by the Apple Pie Alliance.  www.apple-pie.org.  If you know others who would enjoy To the Point!, please forward this.

Republican tax increases on middle class, while giving corporate tax cuts is wrong solution: John Marty

News Release State Senator John Marty District 54 119 State Office Bldg. 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155-1206 Telephone (651) 296-5645 Use Mail Form Date: May 19, 2011
Republican tax increases on middle class, while giving corporate tax cuts is wrong solution

Early this morning, shortly after midnight, Senate Republicans passed tax breaks for businesses paid for with tax increases on the poor and middle class. The bill would raise taxes on renters by cutting their property tax refunds and lead to significant property tax increases statewide, with an extra hit to Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth. The Department of Revenue estimates that property taxes would increase by approximately $1 billion statewide over the next four years. 

“The Republicans are raising taxes on the poor and middle class, while giving corporate tax cuts through a phase-out of the state business property tax. With corporate profits at an all-time high right now, they don’t need tax cuts when people are paying more,” Marty said. 

“Republicans are continuing former Governor Pawlenty’s legacy of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the middle class,” 

he added. 

Department of Revenue estimates:

• Renter’s property tax refund program cut: $186 million. This is an average annual tax increase of $190 on seniors and the disabled, and $335 for other renters. 

• Overall, the bill contains property tax increases of $395 million in CY 2011/12, $579 million in CY 2013/14. 

• Local aid cuts of $487 in FY 2012/13, $525 in FY 2014/15. Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth would lose all their aid in four years. 

 

US uncut Minnesota and Actuallyhelping.org create a video #22May

http://bit.ly/kJf3cN

PLEASED with Draconian Cuts, MN Billionaires Thank Legislators!

http://youtu.be/65ubRX1hMVU





The MN Legislature has made lower taxes for the wealthy a top priority. While the Billionaires' effective rate of 7.7% is much lower than the middle class rate of 10.3%, the Legislature would rather balance the budget on the backs of the poor, elderly, disabled and middle class. While Minnesota is facing a $5 billion deficit, legislators are slashing funds for education, mass transit, healthcare, parks, and road repair. They have not approved any bill that would raise taxes on the wealthiest citizens of the state.