Todd Dorman

Todd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007.
Updated: 24 January 2013 | 11:26 am in 24 hour dorman by Todd Dorman

Another ‘Right to Work’ debate


thegazette.com Copyright 2011 SourceMedia Group. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

House Republicans want to put Iowa’s “right to work” law in the state Constitution:

House Joint Resolution 1, which advanced on a 2-1 subcommittee vote, would ask Iowa voters to inscribe current right-to-work language in the Iowa Code into the state constitution. The 1947 provision spells out that Iowans cannot be denied a job because they choose not to join a union and forbids union membership as a condition of employment, as well as barring fees or other charges to non-union members.

“Why do we need to put it into the Constitution? I don’t see the need of it,” said Rep. Todd Taylor, D-Cedar Rapids, a subcommittee member.

Rep. Greg Forristall, R-Macedonia, chairman of the House Labor Committee, said the stronger constitutional protection is needed because there have been efforts in past sessions when Democrats controlled the Legislature that attempted to weaken the state law or even repeal it. Even though control of the current General Assembly is split between the political parties that may not always be the case in the future.

When Democrats controlled the whole Statehouse from 2007-2011, they couldn’t even manage to get a watered-down “fair share” bill passed, along with several other labor bills that stalled. There’s no real threat to right to work, but that’s probably not going to stop the House from taking a symbolic vote on a resolution that won’t be considered in the Senate.

It’s a nice campaign issue for the GOP, and at last check, lawmakers are still politicians. And they can’t get enough of constitutional amendment ideas. Guns, marriage, right to work, militias, red light cameras, etc.

It also gives Democrats a chance to show their loyalty to labor. Everyone wins. Nothing happens.

Heck, I once watched lawmakers bicker for hours over how prominently the words “right to work state” should be displayed on state government websites. (First, they come for the font size, then repeal!) So you need very little real provocation to spark a spirited right to work debate. A healthy imagination will do.

And if a future union wave is building to wash away the law, it’s not yet in sight.

According to a new report from the Bureau of Labor statistics, union membership in Iowa declined between 2011 and 2012. Iowa’s 2012 workforce of of 1.39 million people included 145,000 union members, or 10.4 percent of the workforce. That’s down from 155,000, or 11.2 percent, in 2011. During the last decade, union membership in Iowa peaked at 161,000 in 2006, with a low of 141,000 in 2004.

The number of Iowa workers covered by a union contract, including members and non-members, also declined, from 187,000 in 2011 to 172,000 in 2012. In 2010, 192,000 workers were covered by union contracts.

Nationally, 11.3 percent of workers are union members, down from 11.8 percent in 2011. And only 6.6 percent of private sector workers belong to unions, compared to 35.8 percent of public sector employees.

And, as always, you have the right to weigh in.

Rules of Engagement
  • Be truthful. more
  • Be civil. more
  • Be responsible. more
  • Own your words. more
  • Leave the trolls alone. more
  • Take commercial ads elsewhere. more
  • Know that comments will be moderated. more
  • Or what? more
Another ‘Right to Work’ debate
  1. There are plenty of issues that are important to our state that the Rs in the house could be working on. Instead, some of them want to focus their attention on this complete waste of time. That, in itself, tells you something about them.

  2. I don’t see the value of enshrining this law in the state constitution. The law has stood for 65+ years despite several relatively pro-labor Iowa governments, so if it does get repealed in the future the anti-union crowd would likely have a lot more to worry about than just the preservation of this single law.

    Due to the nature of the state’s economy, unionism has always been confined to a few pockets in the state, currently involves a tiny fraction of the labor force (albeit arguably the best-compensated), and is highly unlikely to expand in the future due to workers’ perceptions of unions being ineffective.

    This is just another case of the GOP pandering to its “business” (perhaps a more descriptive term is “local labor exploitation”) base by making a symbolic gesture. Republicans regularly, and with some justification, accuse the Dems of catering to its labor constituency; but they are equally shameless in this regard.




Featured Jobs from corridorcareers.com