Sen. Dave Thompson offers controversial constitutional amendment
by T.W. Budig,
ECM Capitol reporter
Gathered Republicans today (Feb. 2) presented a proposed constitutional amendment that if approved by voters would ban joining a union or paying union dues as a condition of employment.
Sen. Dave Thompson, Republican from Lakeville, heralded the proposed amendment — often generically referred to “Right to Work” — as touching at the heart of economic liberty.
Democrats were unimpressed.
Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville, presented a so-called "Right to Work " proposed constitutional amendment today (Feb. 2) at a Capitol press conference. Thompson, flanked by a number of area lawmakers, argues the proposed amendment reflects economic liberty. Photo by T.W. Budig.
“It’s an attack on working folks,” said Sen. Kenneth Kelash, DFL-Minneapolis, a member of the Carpenters’ Union for 35 years.
But Thompson, in detailing the proposal, also stressed what the proposed amendment would not do.
“This in no way changes collective bargaining in Minnesota,” said Thompson.
“Zero,” he said.
The only thing the proposed amendment would change is that nobody would be forced to join a union, Thompson said.
Flanked by a group of area lawmakers — senators Hann, Benson, Nienow, Gerlach, Hall, Gazelka — House bill author Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazzeppa, argued having voters pass the proposed amendment in November would inspire a “renaissance” in job creation in Minnesota.
Republican argue that Minnesota by becoming a Right-to-Work state would invite an inflow of investment and workers.
Drazkowski suggested the reason Delta Airline, which merged with Minnesota-based Northwest Airline, decided to base its corporate office in Georgia is because Georgia is a Right to Work state.
He called the proposed amendment the most important pro jobs bill the lawmakers could pass.
The lawmakers argued that the proposed amendment was not anti-union.
Indeed, Thompson, in reviewing the legislation, noted that the legislation prohibits employers from making nonunion involvement a condition of employment.
Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, a former member of two different unions, said the intention of the proposed amendment was “very simple.”
Hann believes the amendment will pass the legislature and be passed by voters.
“I think people should be free to join unions. I think it’s a constitutional right,” said Hann.
But Hann also argued that if unions and union benefits are so appealing, “why do you need a law to force people to join,” he asked.
Hann views the proposed amendment, if passed by voters, as forcing unions to make clearer their benefits — invite greater transparency, he argued.
But Democratic lawmakers depicted the proposed amendment as divisive and another Republican gift to the wealthy.
“(It’s) nothing more than Right to Work for less,” said Sen. David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm,
The Democrats, including House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, indicated that no Democratic lawmaker would vote for the proposed amendment.
They suggested that in part Republican support for the amendment stems from a desire to sap union-based campaign support for Democrats.
“It does not protect anybody’s rights,” said Kelash.
Beyond this, the reason some businesses are unionized is because the management agreed to it, he explained.
“This is not a one-sided thing,” Kelash said.
In union shops nonunion employees do pay union dues, but only partial dues, he explained.
Minnesota AFL-CIO President Shar Knutson depicted the proposed amendment as the latest of unending Republican stream.
“This is yet another desperate attempt from Senator Thompson, Representative Drazkowski, and out of state special interests to publicize a bill that has bipartisan opposition in the Legislature,” she said in a statement.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 5 Director Eliot Seide in a statement argued the proposed amendment if adopted would drive down wages, not increase them.
“We must stop this attack on everyday people who deserve a decent job, health care, and a secure retirement. Until we do that, big money bullies will never get enough,” her said.
Republicans argue wages in Minnesota would be higher today had so-called Right to Work law been enacted here years ago.
More than twenty states have enacted similar law, they say.
Maybe this legislation will produce more jobs, but does it produce jobs with a decent wage? Or does it simply create more jobs that keep people in poverty making $8 or $9 and hour. This legislation has been around for decades. Martin Luther King Jr. fought against this legislation, calling it a “false slogan” and saying “It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works.’ Its purpose is to destroy labor unions.” Minnesotans need to decide if we want to accelerate the downward plunge in the quality of life many middle-class Minnesotans will experience, the way other states have reduced middle-class wages and working conditions using these laws of de-unionization incorrectly called “Right to Work.”
Unfortunately, this legislation is all but assured of landing on our ballot, and I am guessing it will pass on a vote along party lines. The partisan division is a very good indication that it should not be on our ballot. It is divisive and extremist. The Constitution is about ensuring people’s rights. The problem is that each one of these potential constitutional amendment proposed so far by the Republican majority seems to be about taking rights away from people, quite the opposite of ensuring rights.
What is so controversial? You can join a Union if you want to. Oh wait, if you don’t want to you don’t have to. The Union loses out on your $$. I have worked in union shops for a total of 16 years, been out of a union for the last 5. Could I make more in a union shop? Maybe. But I am not stuck with overbearing rules on when we take breaks, who is offered overtime, what the shop hours will be and on and on… Its a very happy productive and profitable business. For the owners and the employees. 20 other states have this same type of legislation, I say yes to this. Next let’s get rid of the minimum wage.
To me the question becomes “is it good for us to squish out unions” – with started with Reagan.
The results show, – it is not, since then we all have gone down hill.
Let’s pretend I would be your capitalist boss and I would have fun making you jump and profiting for you predicament. Then Thompson would be my hero.
Steve, if this legislation is meant to “destroy labor unions” then why do they continue to thrive in right to work state like North Dakota? The answer is, that unions now have to strive to serve all their members, not just the leadership. If unions provide a valuable service to their members, then they should have no problem keeping them.
The history is crystal clear: The air traffic controllers who were represented by PATCO conducted an ILLEGAL strike. Ronald Reagan told them to get back to work or they would be fired. Those who did not return back to work by the deadline were indeed fired and the balance kept their jobs. It amazes me that people on each side of the labor issue automatically line up either behind business of labor, regardless of the individual circumstances. In the case of PATCO, the controllers knowingly broke the law and were even granted the opportunity to return to work without penalty. How is this the problem of thier employer? The employer was acting legally and the employees and their union were not. How can anyone justify the illegal actions of either a business or a union and its members? Labor complains about corrupt business people and dishonest companies, but try searching the Internet for union members and union bosses who have stolen, cheated, murdered, embezzled, or have been found guilty of corruption or conspiracy and are felons. If the shoe fits!
As a side note on Reagan, the PATCO strike and firings occured in 1981. In 1984 The Teamsters became the first of MANY unions to endorse Reagan over his Democrat challenger. The unions recognized that Reagan could grow the economy and produce jobs, including union jobs. Today, the lack of sophistication in union leadership does not understand this concept, and the number of employees represented by unions has declined since Mr. Obama has been in office, yet unions will blindly endorse Mr. Obama as they did in 2008. Absolutely mind-numbing! The 21 member board of the Teamsters voted unanimously to endorse Reagan in 1984, and as today, the Teamsters are considered the most militant “close the ranks” union organization in the country.
O, great wise Rosie. Your history lesson is enlightening. Of course all capitalists and their henchmen say strikes are illegal. Like Reagan, Gaddafi, Mubarak, and Assad all think strikes are illegal and like Reagan are using their power to break and kill the strikers. Stands to reason! Losing will cost them profit and power. Our good friend Thompson and his ideas are just greasing the sled to make it more hygiene to break Unions and to divide the disenfranchised 99%
You are not interested to find the truth; all your activity is to justify your warped view.