Trashing collective bargaining

Remember that rally earlier this month staged by union supporters at the Statehouse in Des Moines? Afterwards, they packed the Iowa House of Representatives for a two-hour public hearing. For a moment, it looked like a Wisconsin-style worker uprising was fomenting. Or, at least for a very, very brief moment. But just because there wasn't going to be an uprising didn't mean opponents were going to roll over and give up. When the House started debate on a  Republican-backed collective bargaining bill a week ago,  minority Democrats proposed a whopping 103 amendments. That tied up the bill in debate for the rest of the week. Finally, House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer cut off debate Friday with a noon vote, approving the bill along party lines. Now all the House needed to do was send the bill on to their colleagues in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which had no intention of considering the legislation. It headed to the Senate labor committee and was immediately declared dead. This was a foregone conclusion, making the House vote an empty political victory. Let's be clear, though, this was still a political victory. It can help Republicans as they campaign in the next election to take control of the Senate --- as well as Democrats who want to recapture control of the House. Politicians of either stripe could use the situation to motivate their bases so similar legislation would either become law or be stopped. One important point is that this bill really was nowhere near as sweeping as legislation approved and signed into law in Wisconsin. On the other hand, Republicans may view it as a first step heading in that direction. 

Steamrolling workers' rights

Union supporters Tuesday protested proposals by Gov. Terry Branstad and Republicans in the Legislature to limit public employees' collective bargaining rights. An Iowa House subcommittee was discussing the issue that day. Branstad had earlier laid out his own plans to reform the state's labor laws. Among his priorities are eliminating automatic step raises for another year of work and having workers pay more for health insurance. Another recommendation is allowing the governor or Legislature to set aside an arbitrator's ruling, which is made after a union and government employer come to an impasse. He's also using tough talk when it comes to unions, tellling a Lee Enterprises reporter earlier this month that they have "totally" had it their way. "They rolled over the previous governor, and that is going to change," he said. Former Gov. Chet Culver gave him cover for such a statement by essentially declining to negotiate contracts with state employee unions so they could settle before his term ended. Branstad had requested that his admininstration be included  in the negotiations. While Branstad makes a valid point, I think he owes his revived political career to a different steamroller that he's still driving (and that flatten Culver). Essentially, that's the tea party-fueled backlash against government, which is disgusted with business-as-usual and freaked out about spending levels. In that vein, Branstad is challenging union power in at least one other way. He issued an executive order after taking office last month prohibiting state funds from being spent on public works projects that use project labor agreements. The agreements give preference to contractors who spell out workers' pay and benefits. Branstad has threatened Cedar Rapids with the loss of state I-JOBS funds awarded earlier for remodeling its convention complex, which uses a project labor agreement. The Cedar Rapids City Council Tuesday approved contracts for the project despite the threats.