The Other Side is Reading this Blog - So Let's Address Social Issues Raised by an Oak Grove Republican This Week

I was surprised - alarmed - nah, more amused - that this blog was noticed by the Anoka County Republican Wizard of Oz - Henry Hamilton, the wealthy, anti-union, curmudgeonly purveyor of Republican truths and gossip at both The Minnesota Watchdog and the Anoka County Watchdog websites.   http://www.anokacountywatchdog.com/email/2014/08.22.14_update.htm

You've got to visit his Anoka County page - I love the barking bulldog you have to click on to enter.  Classic Watchdog.  And of course, if you access the link above, you'll find that Mr. Hamilton took exception to my views on Andover Representative Peggy Scott and Andover Council candidates James Goodrich and Val Holthus - I like Holthus, he doesn't.  I don't like Goodrich.  He does. 

Like Mike Jensen of Anoka, who reviewed my own history in a recent Letter to the Editor, Henry goes into detail about me, too.  Seemingly, it's only preferable to be rich entrepreneurs and businessmen, or the people working for people like Henry Hamilton, in Henry's world.  Not so, hardworking public employees like Teachers and Social Workers and Child Support Officers and Snow Plow Drivers and Revenue Office Agents and Mental Health Professionals and Planners and Financial Workers and Librarians - especially those who made it a point to be activists in their unions working to get better wages, benefits and contract provisions that help employees perform their work in safe, secure environments.  He raises up and stresses that Val Holthus and I belong to Education Minnesota and AFSCME, respectively, as if our union membership makes us somehow criminals for fighting on behalf of our fellow employees.  As if those who work in public jobs should only settle for wage crumbs with no protection from being terminated every time as new party takes office and wants to dispense political favors to friends and family - you know, like the good old days in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Well, I'm proud to have been a member of both teacher associations and AFSCME throughout the 35+ years I've been part of the middle class workforce, Mr. Hamilton.  I've been proud to be a part of the public employee payroll.  I didn't set out to be rich.  I set out to help people - first as a teacher and later working in the public assistance system in Minnesota.  There are far more people in this world who need our help, Henry Hamilton, than the One-Percenters like you, and I'm just one of many who chose to work in service to others - and expect to be paid our worth, to be safe at work, and to be protected from willful employers.


Gene Hodel, a Republican from SD 31 in Oak Grove, pushed my buttons this week.  In a Letter to the Editor in the ABS Newspapers, Hodel wrote: 

"Our Creator set the foundation of moral behavior. The Democratic party represented by their current platform and their history are on the wrong side of most moral issues. The social conservative side, represented by the Republican party is not without its flaws, but on most of these moral issues the Republican platform is correct.
 
Of course, it if you think it is a woman’s on demand “right”, to kill the human being inside of her, then you would vote for the Democrats.  If you think that an active gay life style does not accelerate sexual diseases, bad influence on the youth and broken lives, then you would vote for the Democrats. If you think that gay marriage is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman for rising children and supporting each other, then you would vote for the Democrats. If you want your fellow human beings messed up on marijuana coming at you down the highway, vote for the Democrats."
http://abcnewspapers.com/2014/08/20/letters-to-the-editor-for-aug-22-2014/


Now, as a Democrat living in the area, as the DFL Chair of Senate District 35, as a pretty good, upstanding citizen, and as a fellow raised in the United Methodist Church, I took exception to Mr. Hodel's characterizations of what is and isn't moral.

So, I've penned a new Letter to the Editor (below), which I hope gets printed as a response to Mr. Hodel.

This election should be a referendum on Governor Dayton and the DFL.  But social issues still rear their ugly head. Gene Hodel wrote, “On most of these moral issues the Republican platform is correct,” in an August 22^nd Letter.  Of which moral issues did he say Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong:  terminating pregnancies, blaming sexual disease on gay lifestyles, gay marriage and marijuana use?

 

Life would be much simpler for voters if his old canard that Democrats are undeserving amoral libertines, while Republicans are God-fearing model citizens was true.  Alas, it isn’t.  As Chair for District 35 DFLers, it’s been my pleasure to “politic” with a lot of your friends and neighbors, who are bright, community-spirited Christians – and Democrats.  Republicans don’t own the concept of “morality” in this community, any more than they own “bigotry”, “intolerance” or “patriotism.” 

 

Is it moral for Christian Republicans like Gene to continue their determined disregard of the Roe v. Wade decision, which provided a legal basis for “life” does not begin at conception, that a child does not legally exist until birthed, and that there are limitations to how far into a pregnancy abortion is legal? 

 

Is it moral for Christian Republicans like Gene to rely on their interpretations of the laws and customs of 2000-year old Biblical societies to determine 21^st century morality?   Who decided that being gay or different is immoral?

 

Is it moral to reject the common decency and fairness of providing legal equality through same sex marriage?  Is it moral to go sticking one’s nose into what goes on in other persons’ bedrooms?

 

On marijuana, it’s hardly a moral issue; one will find many Democrats, myself included, who have reservations about legalizing it, even for medical purposes, and similarly, one will find many libertarian Republicans who fully support less-restrictive laws on marijuana.

 

I haven’t even started on the moral issues of fighting poverty, the rich getting richer, equal justice for minorities, or easy access to assault weapons.  No party has a monopoly on morality, Mr. Hodel.  Oh, and about that referendum – my side should win!

 

Harris v. Quinn: A Bad Decision for Americans - A Troubling Decision for Public Employee Unions

As a proud AFSCME member - a full member, who pays the union dues so my workplace rights are protected and my union can collective bargain for better wages and benefits for me - the Harris v. Quinn ruling is disgusting.  Justice Alito incorrectly turned this into a First Amendment right to freeload off the work union representatives provide the workplace/the work group.   From the American Constitutional Society web site comes this astute analysis by Attorney Chris Sanders....

Getting Something for Nothing in Harris v. Quinn

July 1, 2014

 

by J. Chris Sanders, Attorney, Chris Sanders Law PLLC
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/getting-something-for-nothing-in-harris-v-Quinn

In a unionized workplace, one labor union has the sole and exclusive right to represent all those employees. The workers select one union, and the union handles workplace matters for everyone. That typically means collective bargaining–negotiating as a group to build better pay, better benefits, better hours, better treatment and respect on the job into a union contract. Despite these tough times for unions, the union advantage for workers is10-20 percent over the same workers in the same industries. It also means job protection, usually requiring representation by volunteer activists and paid staff at union expense. As lawyers will understand, representation is costly, and being in a union is financially worthwhile.

Along with the right to represent people, the union has the duty to represent everyone alike. No picking and choosing between members and nonmembers. That’s right, members and nonmembers, because a worker doesn’t have to join the union in a unionized workplace to be represented. Choosing to join is and has been a First Amendment right, recognized for decades.

Workers who don’t join weaken the union in bargaining, as the proverbial chain is only as strong as its weakest nonunion link. Contracts and benefits in states and industries where unions are weak are weaker, too. You get what you pay for. Nevertheless, letting people opt out isn’t a group decision, though it affects the group. It’s an individual choice.

But, whether the union is weak or strong, the non-member gets the benefits contained in the union contract. In return, nonmembers must pay for the union services that achieved the gains made in collective bargaining and the protections provided by union representation. In the public sector, it’s known as “fair share”–paying one’s fair share of the cost all workers bear for union representation.

Until now. In Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court launched a direct attack on paying one’s fair share. The 5-4 majority discredited decades of precedent underpinning the duty to pay. But then it dodged and weaved, avoiding a direct decision on the First Amendment. Rather, it said that the Illinois homecare workers weren’t true government workers, so the statutory fair-share fee can’t be enforced. This doesn’t bode well for the new American workplace, with its “associates,” contractors, temps, subs, project people, etc. smudging the lines between employer and employee. But it’s the main issue that matters. The right-wing Justices made it clear that individual whim trumps group responsibility.  

   
A recent personal story about why it matters. I handled a case involving a young Cuban meatpacker who speaks very little English wanted to buy some pork at cost. He boxed up the meat, then asked a co-worker how to code the purchase. They miscommunicated, so he mis-coded, and put the wrong tag on his purchase. A manager met him at the gate, accused him of stealing the pork, and fired him. You can’t make this stuff up.

If this were a non-union workplace, that would be the end of the story. He would have had no legal recourse, no way to get his job back. Under the employment-at-will doctrine, employers don’t have to justify their decision to discharge, and don’t have to prove theft. But this is a union shop, where workers have rights and power. The union filed a grievance through the contractual procedure, and volunteers and paid staff advocated for him. That costs. When the company wouldn’t settle, the union sought arbitration. That’s expensive–there’s a filing fee, an arbitrator’s fee, hearing expenses, and my time as union counsel. Thousands of dollars. All at no cost to the wronged worker. At the hearing, it came out that, in mislabeling his purchase, he’d actually paid too much for the pork. The arbitrator got the picture, and put him back on the job, awarding months of lost wages.

Post-Harris, that very same protection will now also be available to nonmembers in unionized government workplaces, without ever paying their fair share of union expenses. They will literally get something for nothing when they file their grievances. The actual expense to the union, grievance upon grievance, may be big. For a typical discharge case, it’s certainly far more than that person would ever pay out of pocket for union dues over years (assuming anyone stays in any one job for years any more in the new American workplace). Imagine the same scenario above, with a long-term employee who never paid any fees, gets fired, and disdainfully demands the same services as those who pay their fair share!

Back to collective bargaining, in and of itself a huge benefit to all employees, member and nonmember alike. The Harris petitioners were making $7 an hour before they unionized in Illinois. Their union contract raises wages as high as $13 an hour. They would never have gotten there without their union, which spent hundreds and thousands of volunteer and paid hours in negotiations and advocacy to get organized and get to a contract. But the Harris petitioners will still get to enjoy their doubled wages, but now can drop their fair-share fee.  

No other organization has to provide services for free. Unions have been singled out for this burden under the “right-to-work” (right-to-shirk) scheme. Right-to-work has been the law in the South and in the West since the 1940’s, and the Supreme Court just drew a roadmap for right-to-work from Illinois to public-sector workplaces all across the country. Why should labor be singled out for required free services? Professionals, businesses, service-providers, nonprofits, and yes, government, all assess fees for services. Ask the Chamber of Commerce or the bar association if you can join and get benefits and services for free. It’s a rhetorical question, you already know the answer.



We have a long, difficult fight ahead of us, if this conservative majority of 5 holds at the Supreme Court!