I met Roger in 2010, when he showed up on our door step, campaigning for his first State Senate seat. He wasn't looking for me; he was looking for the former owner of the home. I didn't like the way Roger looked, I didn't like the way he explicitly wore a cross around his neck for everyone to see (what middle-aged man does that, unless he's looking for Conservative votes?), I didn't like the way he equivocated when I asked him about his views on public education and I didn't like the beady-eyed, grimacing grin he gave me as he shook my hand and asked for my vote.
Since his election, I have written three letters to Roger, giving him my $.02 about state and local issues. Roger and I go way back, so I figured he might want to know what that long-haired, liberal teacher he met on that cold, grey autumn afternoon has to say. So I wrote him a letter, in a vain attempt to let him truly represent me and my family.
Roger didn't agree with what I have to say on unions. He wrote me an email that I found a bit condescending: in a voice of "Sshhh....shhhh. Let Daddy take care of the big bad unions, and you just rest well knowing that we'll make some nice new jobs without the union boogey-man trying to scare you."
But, since he does "represent" me, I felt like it was my duty to fire back at him and try again to persuade him to see my point of view. Maybe it won't mean a thing, but it makes me feel better knowing that I am actually contacting the man who my neighbors elected to represent me.
Here is our discourse:
February 2, 2012
Dear Senator Chamberlain:
Minnesota does not need "Right to Work." Federal law already protects workers from being forced to join a union. All this proposal is intended to do is weaken unions.
"Right to Work" is bad for Minnesota and its economy. Workers in "Right to Work" states earn significantly lower wages and are less likely to receive benefits such as health insurance. Lower wages translate into less consumer spending and lower tax receipts for the state.
Minnesota doesn't need more low-paying jobs. It needs higher-paying jobs in high-tech and knowledge-based industries, which require a skilled, well-educated workforce. The key to keeping Minnesota economically competitive is to invest in education, not to cut wages.
"Right to Work" laws do not lead to employment growth. Oklahoma actually lost jobs after it became a "Right to Work" state. The latest federal unemployment figures show jobless rates are significantly higher in "Right to Work" states than in Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Kirkham
(His response: February 10, 2012)
Benjamin,
Thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate your thoughts.
This is bill asks us to consider a simple question: should an individual be forced to pay money to a third party in order to work?
It’s about choice. It’s not an attack on unions. If the amendment passes, employees will still have the right to join a union. Collective bargaining will not be impacted. Unions will still exist, but membership will not be compulsory as a condition of employment. Unions that serve their members will flourish under this proposal; unions that do not serve their members well, and see their membership drop, will be forced to evolve and improve.
Freedom-to-work states experienced a 38 percent higher increase in private sector businesses established from 1993-2009. In the 22 freedom-to-work states, 497,041 new businesses were added, while only 339,834 new businesses were established in the other 28 forced-unionism states. This is especially notable because freedom-to-work states only account for 40.3 percent of the total U.S. population, but nearly 60 percent of all the new private sector businesses are located in those states. Minnesota has lower than average unemployment rates, but we could improve upon that even further with this pro-growth proposal.
Thanks again. Have a great day.
Roger C.
(My Rebuttal: February 10, 2012)
First, a union is not a third party. It is a collection of workers; people who work together joining as one voice. It is not a separate enterprise profiting off the labor of others. That distinction alone disturbs me as one of your constituents.
I belong to a strong union that is voluntary. No one ever forced me to join--in fact, my union told me NOT to join if I had any misgivings about joining.
You cite figures only from "The Private Sector." It is true that middle-class, union, "Private Sector" jobs have been disappearing as rapidly as the outsourcing of those former jobs to Third World countries. The nature of our economy has quietly changed from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy, which has over and over again resisted union support, to the point of requiring employees to sign agreements to not speak of unions at risk of dismissal. How can a union even exist if people cannot get jobs, and the jobs they can get make them sign contracts denying them to even speak of unionization? No wonder "The Private Sector" has seen a steady decline of unions.
Your figures of job growth are skewed, or at least, don't tell the whole story. More jobs may have been created in those 22 states, but were those jobs able to support a family? For example: A business paying $13/hour without benefits is much easier to manage fiscally than a business paying $15/hour plus medical benefits. Of course those 22 states have had higher job growth, but I would be willing to wager that the quality of life is much lower and the poverty levels much higher. I would also be willing to bet that education and health care (both industries are heavily unionized) in those states are worse off than in ours. Job growth means very little to me if the people working are still not able to put food on the table, buy necessary medication or take the day off of work to care for a sick child without risk of losing one's job. What good is job growth if our people are under-employed, over-worked and under-paid? Job growth means nothing if those jobs leave our fellow citizens in a dead-end job, having to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, just to get off welfare. Poor quality of life affects us all, and cost us all in taxes.
In "The Public Sector", what do you and your fellow "Right to Work" proponents in our state propose to do with collective bargaining if we do away with union membership in state-paid jobs? Public Service jobs are the largest percentage of union employees in our state. You probably knew that, but neglected to address those taxpayers in your figures of "Private Sector" jobs. I firmly believe that we have the benefit of highly qualified and educated employees servicing the needs of our state, because the benefits of our unions balance the low salaries that we accept. Over half the friends I have in union jobs have graduate degrees; possibly double that of "Private Sector" friends. Furthermore, let me reiterate that my union membership was optional, as is every public service union job I have heard of.
Please see that this is much more complicated than your original response of it being a "simple question [of being] forced to pay money to a third party in order to work." That rhetorical statement is insulting to the intelligent, educated, hard working union members of you constituency. This is not a simple issue. I am not a simple person and denigrating the right of people to join together and ask to work for something more than just basic employment is insulting to the educated, working class of Minnesota.
We all benefit from the hard work that public employees and their unions provide our community. Do the right thing Roger.
Minnesota does not need "Right to Work." Federal law already protects workers from being forced to join a union. All this proposal is intended to do is weaken unions.
"Right to Work" is bad for Minnesota and its economy. Workers in "Right to Work" states earn significantly lower wages and are less likely to receive benefits such as health insurance. Lower wages translate into less consumer spending and lower tax receipts for the state.
Minnesota doesn't need more low-paying jobs. It needs higher-paying jobs in high-tech and knowledge-based industries, which require a skilled, well-educated workforce. The key to keeping Minnesota economically competitive is to invest in education, not to cut wages.
"Right to Work" laws do not lead to employment growth. Oklahoma actually lost jobs after it became a "Right to Work" state. The latest federal unemployment figures show jobless rates are significantly higher in "Right to Work" states than in Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Kirkham
(His response: February 10, 2012)
Benjamin,
Thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate your thoughts.
This is bill asks us to consider a simple question: should an individual be forced to pay money to a third party in order to work?
It’s about choice. It’s not an attack on unions. If the amendment passes, employees will still have the right to join a union. Collective bargaining will not be impacted. Unions will still exist, but membership will not be compulsory as a condition of employment. Unions that serve their members will flourish under this proposal; unions that do not serve their members well, and see their membership drop, will be forced to evolve and improve.
Freedom-to-work states experienced a 38 percent higher increase in private sector businesses established from 1993-2009. In the 22 freedom-to-work states, 497,041 new businesses were added, while only 339,834 new businesses were established in the other 28 forced-unionism states. This is especially notable because freedom-to-work states only account for 40.3 percent of the total U.S. population, but nearly 60 percent of all the new private sector businesses are located in those states. Minnesota has lower than average unemployment rates, but we could improve upon that even further with this pro-growth proposal.
Thanks again. Have a great day.
Roger C.
(My Rebuttal: February 10, 2012)
First, a union is not a third party. It is a collection of workers; people who work together joining as one voice. It is not a separate enterprise profiting off the labor of others. That distinction alone disturbs me as one of your constituents.
I belong to a strong union that is voluntary. No one ever forced me to join--in fact, my union told me NOT to join if I had any misgivings about joining.
You cite figures only from "The Private Sector." It is true that middle-class, union, "Private Sector" jobs have been disappearing as rapidly as the outsourcing of those former jobs to Third World countries. The nature of our economy has quietly changed from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy, which has over and over again resisted union support, to the point of requiring employees to sign agreements to not speak of unions at risk of dismissal. How can a union even exist if people cannot get jobs, and the jobs they can get make them sign contracts denying them to even speak of unionization? No wonder "The Private Sector" has seen a steady decline of unions.
Your figures of job growth are skewed, or at least, don't tell the whole story. More jobs may have been created in those 22 states, but were those jobs able to support a family? For example: A business paying $13/hour without benefits is much easier to manage fiscally than a business paying $15/hour plus medical benefits. Of course those 22 states have had higher job growth, but I would be willing to wager that the quality of life is much lower and the poverty levels much higher. I would also be willing to bet that education and health care (both industries are heavily unionized) in those states are worse off than in ours. Job growth means very little to me if the people working are still not able to put food on the table, buy necessary medication or take the day off of work to care for a sick child without risk of losing one's job. What good is job growth if our people are under-employed, over-worked and under-paid? Job growth means nothing if those jobs leave our fellow citizens in a dead-end job, having to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, just to get off welfare. Poor quality of life affects us all, and cost us all in taxes.
In "The Public Sector", what do you and your fellow "Right to Work" proponents in our state propose to do with collective bargaining if we do away with union membership in state-paid jobs? Public Service jobs are the largest percentage of union employees in our state. You probably knew that, but neglected to address those taxpayers in your figures of "Private Sector" jobs. I firmly believe that we have the benefit of highly qualified and educated employees servicing the needs of our state, because the benefits of our unions balance the low salaries that we accept. Over half the friends I have in union jobs have graduate degrees; possibly double that of "Private Sector" friends. Furthermore, let me reiterate that my union membership was optional, as is every public service union job I have heard of.
Please see that this is much more complicated than your original response of it being a "simple question [of being] forced to pay money to a third party in order to work." That rhetorical statement is insulting to the intelligent, educated, hard working union members of you constituency. This is not a simple issue. I am not a simple person and denigrating the right of people to join together and ask to work for something more than just basic employment is insulting to the educated, working class of Minnesota.
We all benefit from the hard work that public employees and their unions provide our community. Do the right thing Roger.
No comments:
Post a Comment