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.

I can almost reach my rights ...

The ability to vote is a cornerstone of the freedoms that make America great. Sometimes, though, those freedoms get out of hand. Take Iowa, for example. For more than 15 years, people convicted of a felony or an aggravated misdemeanor who have already finished serving their time in prison or jail have been automatically granted the right to vote. And for who knows how long, registered voters have been able to show up at the polls, sign in and cast a ballott without ever having to show a photo ID. It's maybe never been required, if you can believe that. But don't worry. Gov. Terry Branstad has already rescinded the executive order that allowed ex-cons to automatically vote and hold office once they got out of prison. Now, after they pay any fines and restitution, they just have to go through the simple process of petitioning the governor to regain those rights. It only takes three to six months, if they ever pull things together enough to take care of it. And Republicans with their new House majority are pushing legislation that would require every single person to show a photo identification in order to vote. That's pretty easy for those of us with a driver's license. Unfortunately, a chunk of the population that skews heavily towards the poor, disabled, racial minorities and elderly doesn't have a state-issued photo ID. The proposal would remove cost barriers that might stand in the way of some getting an ID. That's great, if they ever pull things together enough to take care of it. In both cases, the ability to vote will remain just out of reach for at least a segment of those affected. Branstad and GOP legislators treat voting like a sacred priviledge that's in danger of being desecrated. There's one problem with that: Voting is not a priviledge --- it's a right that belongs to all citizens. What's more, they have no proof of any systemic "desecration" that would warrant tightening voting rights. There is no widespread voter fraud in Iowa. A concern that felons can begin voting before paying all the fines or restitution associated with their conviction can be addressed without petitioning the governor. Just wait until they finish paying those before their rights are automatically restored. Read views for and against Branstad's action on the felon voting rights.

Union Supporter (she might start a civil war)

Republican lieutenant governor candidate Kim Reynolds supports the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage. She also wants to give Iowans the opportunity to vote on how marriage is defined after the state's Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. But she would never consider the possibility of legalizing civil unions for homosexual couples, says the Branstad campaign. Except that she would. Last week in Carroll Reynolds said, "We could take a look at civil unions. There are other options maybe that I would be in favor of looking at." (See story at http://bit.ly/demgx0.) Branstad's campaign "clarified" that by contradicting her and then pretending that she was actually talking about extending domestic partnership benefits to employees at private companies. (See story at http://bit.ly/aYb6hK.) All of the pretending is necessary because Branstad is trying to court Christian conservatives who still want to cast a vote for Bob Vander Plaats even though he lost the primary. And why? Because he has proven gay marriage is his top concern: He'd sign an executive order his first day in office overturning the court's decision. (See story at http://bit.ly/d9Ut5Z.) As for Branstad, well, he whines that the governor doesn't have the authority to do that. But he'll push for that constitutional amendment.