SPEAKER MURPHY’S REAL AGENDA ON RIGHT TO WORK: A PLAN 14 YEARS IN THE
MAKING
Speaker
Murphy has been claiming since the election that he does not plan to repeal
Iowa’s Right to Work
law. Yet Murphy is on record supporting a repeal since early in his
legislative career. In 1993 Murphy told the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald that
supported repealing Iowa’s Right to Work law.
“Rich Bean, executive vice president of the First National Bank of Dubuque,
asked if the legislators foresee any effort to repeal Iowa’s right to work
law. Both Murphy and Connolly said they would support such a move, but
Connolly said, ‘I doubt that will be an issue.’” (Dubuque Telegraph-Herald,
January 7, 1993)
That 1993 admission is different from recent public statements he has made
in regards to a repeal:
-
“I don’t think
we’ll be repealing” the right-to-work law, Murphy said.
(Des Moines Register, November 21, 2006)
-
“Democrats aren’t
going to repeal the right to work; we’re not going to force people to
join a union.”
(Des Moines Register, February 10, 2007)
Speaker Murphy has been waiting 14 years for his opportunity to repeal
Iowa’s Right to Work law. His long standing public support of a repeal is
in direct contrast to his comments since the 2006 election.
Furthermore, Murphy’s voting record indicates that he favors a full repeal
not the mere tinkering he has recently peddled to media outlets. In 2001 he
defended then Governor Vilsack’s decision to ban all promotional material
from the Department of Economic Development from mentioning Iowa’s status as
a Right to Work state. In 2002 he again took organized labor’s side when
the Legislature attempted to ban Project Labor Agreements which violate
Iowa’s Right to Work law.
2001: Opposition To Right-To-Work Promotional Material
Murphy voted against legislation,
HF 103, supported by business groups to require “Right-to-Work
information be included in written promotional materials distributed by the
department of economic development.” (Iowa ABI, 2001 Legislative Scorecard)
2002: Taking Labor’s Side In A Right-To-Work Dispute
In
March, Murphy criticized an effort to regulate labor contracts for public
construction that Republicans argued would buttress right-to-work from labor
attacks.
House lawmakers were close to approving a bill regulating labor contracts
for public construction on Wednesday, although the governor has warned that
he will veto it. The issue surfaced when Polk County made an agreement with
local construction unions for an events center. . . . The project is partly
funded by the Vision Iowa Fund. The county agreed to limit bidders on the
project to companies offering wages and benefits comparable to what the
unions have negotiated. In exchange, the unions agreed to a no-strike
provision. Construction groups later filed a lawsuit seeking to block the
agreement. Critics said the agreement violates the state’s right to work
laws and will drive up bids. “There’s state money involved in this,” said
[Rants]. . . . [Murphy] said government shouldn’t tinker with this issue.
“We shouldn’t be telling local governments that this is the best way to run
it,” Murphy said. “Now we’re coming in when there’s a court case ... and
we’re going to interrupt this process and say it’s improper.” (AP, March
13, 2002)
“Fair Share” Provides Unions With Influx of Cash
According to Unionstats.com, an internet data resource on private and public
sector union membership, about 39,000 non-union Iowa workers will be forced
to pay union dues under
HF 324. Of those non-union workers, 28,000 are public employees.
(Note: Informaton about unionstats.com is listed at the end of the
article.)
If
forced union dues are conservatively estimated to be about $500 per year
then the unions stand to collect about $19 million for their political
coffers if “Fair Share” is enacted.
Under the so-called “Fair Share” legislation, public employee unions like
AFSCME and ISEA would be able to garnish the wages on non-union government
employees and non-union teachers. Private sector unions like the AFL-CIO
would be able to legally bully non-union workers into joining the union or
paying dues or face termination for refusal to pay.
Some unions like SEIU have both public and private members and stand to
benefit greatly from forced unionism legislation.
Why
is organized labor so intent on pushing through forced unionism legislation
like
HF 324? The answer lies with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The BLS reported on January 25 that in 2006, “12 percent
of employed wage and salary workers were union members, down from 12.5
percent a year earlier. The number of persons belonging to a union fell by
326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million. The union membership rate has steadily
declined from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable
union data are available.”
Unionstats.com
Union Membership and
Coverage Database from the CPS
(Documentation)
The
Union Membership and
Coverage Database,
available at
www.unionstats.com,
is an Internet data resource providing private and public sector labor union
membership, coverage, and density estimates compiled from the Current
Population Survey (CPS), a monthly household survey, using BLS methods.
Economy-wide estimates are provided beginning in 1973; estimates by state,
detailed industry, and detailed occupation begin in 1983; and estimates by
metropolitan area begin in 1986. The
Database,
constructed by Barry Hirsch (Trinity University) and David Macpherson
(Florida State University), is updated annually.