To Be Announced...

Whenever a woman runs for high political office there's always the question of whether or not voters will support electing a woman. Either that, or the suggestion that we don't have enough women in high office because we're a bunch of sexist pigs. News like what is linked below doesn't help.

Fair share legislation looks like it is on permanent hold after a closed door meeting of Democrats. I don't think it can be brought back to life given the tone of the DSM Register story. Maybe they're finally seeing that it ain't playin' too well in the general public...

Democrats postpone action on 'fair share'

Democratic leaders in the Iowa House unexpectedly postponed Thursday's "fair share" debate after meeting in private for four hours and concluding they no longer had enough votes to pass the bill.

Three Democrats departed the Capitol grounds during the meeting, and one just before it.

Rep. Dawn Pettengill, a Democrat from Mount Auburn, who has told Republicans she opposes the fair share proposal, had tears on her face when she left the room where Democrats were meeting in private, according to Republican lawmakers she passed in the hallway.

Those ball bats hurt, don't they?

And Rep. McKinley Bailey, a Democrat from Webster City, walked out in frustration, got into his car, and drove out of the Capitol parking lot, he said.

Bailey came back awhile later and said he'd left the meeting because it was "pointless."

"I love this party, but I don't always agree with it," Bailey said. "If I were in charge, I would maybe run things differently."

Differently how? Fewer broken kneecaps?

-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!

Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!

WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)

Labels: fair share

The "fair share" grab-fest is already beginning.

Drivers' contract has 'fair share' language

About half of the Dubuque school district's 88 bus drivers and attendants do not belong to a union, but could see an automatic deduction from their paychecks for union fees under a four-year contract ratified this week.

The contract language was added in anticipation of the Legislature approving a "fair share" bill that would allow unions to assess nonunion public employees - including schoolteachers and city, county and state government workers - a fee for services they provide. The Iowa House is scheduled to debate the bill today.

Normally, downtrodden "working people" in a story like this would get all kinds of sympathy quotes and a tone that would lead a reader to side with the "little guy." But these are union thugs we're talking about, so off with their heads!

Not one non-union member who might be subject to the new forced fee is quoted in the story. Probably too scared to say anything for fear of having his tires slashed and kneecaps broken by his now "union brothers"

The amount nonunion workers would pay is yet to be determined. The Dubuque school board ratified the contract Monday night. It was one of the first public employee contracts finished since legislative debate over fair share began.

"It's a good move for organized labor and for our members," said John Rosenthal, a representative of Teamsters Local 421, which negotiated the Dubuque contract. "We feel good to have it in the contract and to have it pass as law, even if it's just for the public sector. It kind of brings unity in the group, gets people more involved."

That is such crap. It'll bring unity to the group? Forced unity. The Taliban would be proud.

I wonder how Rosenthal can say that with a straight face.

Notice also in all of these discussions about "fair share" and forcing non-union members to pony up even if they don't want to...that nobody ever suggests that it could be revenue neutral. Why don't they offer to lower the union dues of members in exchange? Though still wrong, it might make non-members feel better because it won't be seen as just a grab for their money.

That's because it IS a grab for their money. Although the forced fee isn't set, I'm sure they'll have that worked out by the time more of those Presidential candidates come a'courtin...

The controversial legislation comes as many Iowa public employee unions are in the midst of bargaining - leaving some in a quandary over whether to include the provision in their contracts. "Their concern was if they're in negotiations now and this legislation passes a week later, they can't do anything for the duration of the contract," said Mark Smith, president of the Iowa Federation of Labor.

"There's way too many unanswered questions," said Lana Oppenheim Schlapkohl, an ISEA spokeswoman. "How do you even determine what the fee is, how's it going to work?"

And the duration of the contract could be too late to use the excess cash to put in the pockets of candidates.

Like I said. You determine the fee based on how much it'll cost you to buy support from those Democrat candidates.

-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!

Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!

WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)

Labels: fair share

Beat 'em...

Scaled back. I like that. I think this will turn out to be the worst decision that unions and Democrats have made yet. Regardless of how it can be explained away, the public perception will be: "What unions can't do for themselves, they'll get lawmakers to do for them."

Leaders scale back 'fair share' bill

...A bill endorsed Wednesday by the Senate Labor and Business Relations Committee would limit the "fair share" proposal to public employers and their workers - including schoolteachers and city, county and state employees.

...The bill would add union service fees to the list of items that unions representing public employees can negotiate with state officials, school boards, city councils, county boards of supervisors and other local governments.

Fees could be assessed to nonunion workers for union costs pertaining to such things as collective bargaining and representation of employees in a grievance matter.

Fees made part of a negotiated contract would be automatically deducted from nonunion employees' paychecks. A worker could not refuse to pay the fees, but would have the right to challenge the amount.

Sarcasm: I'm sure they'll be as efficient in responding to those challenges as they are to the challenges involving Beck decision cases...the ones where union members challenge political donations to causes and candidates they don't agree with.

In the competitive nursing field, employees at public hospitals who don't want to pay the fees could easily move to private hospitals, Greg Boattenhamer, a representative of the Iowa Hospital Association, told lawmakers.

Let them eat cake?

It's not exactly an inspiring message for future union organization efforts, is it? If you don't want to join the union, fine...but you'll still pay for it out of your check. Nice.

Stephani Gatica, a nurse practitioner at Broadlawns Medical Center, is in the process of filing a petition with the Public Employment Relations Board to remove nurse practitioners from the union at Broadlawns.

"I think it is outrageous they're trying to force me to join something I don't want to join and don't agree with. Why would I want to pay money for something I don't agree with?"

Supporters of the legislation insist they are just trying to bring fairness to the workplace.

Fairness by force. Karl would be proud.

-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!

Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!

WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)

Labels: fair share

The QC Times has a story this morning announcing that the "fair share" bill in the Iowa legislature may be dead.

Next week is the so-called "funnel week" when bills not out of committee aren't allowed to be voted on by the legislature. I prefer the term meat grinder because this legislation in particular should be ground up into tiny bits, jammed into some casing, and force fed to an animal and eventually used as the fertilizer that it is.

But let me be clear about a couple of things...

Just like the national Democrat party, it appears that the state Dems don't have a spine when it comes to following through on their crazy ideas. This idea was only campaigned on - in the sense that it even was a part of a campaign - AFTER the election in November. Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal was first to bring it up on an Iowa Press program after Dems swept into power. Nowhere can I find an incident where it was discussed by any Democrat prior to the election.

Since it was kind of "snuck in" to the list of things Dems wanted to do once they found out they won the election...I imagine they'll try the same thing with the actual legislation. They won't actually have success, but they'll try.

Iowa Legislature: Fair-share bill appears dead

Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, is not predicting whether House Democrats have the votes to pass the current fair-share proposal.

“We’ll have to wait and evaluate that,” Murphy said. “The big part is we won’t be taking up bills if we don’t have the votes.”

But behind the scenes, Rep. Bob Kressig, D-Cedar Falls, said he’s been told by leadership the fair-share proposal is dead.

“It’s not going anywhere,” Kressig said. “They don’t have support.”

And rest assured...politicians won't do anything if they don't think they can win. For Democrats in particular because they know their margin of power and control is razor thin.

Chris Rants is still wary though...

The Legislature’s biggest opponent of fair share, House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, doesn’t think the bill is dead.

“They must have some secret plan to try to roll this thing out again when the public’s not looking,” Rants said.

He thinks many Democrats, under pressure from unions, are reluctant to talk about the issue because “they know it’s wrong.”

“But they’re getting their arms twisted to the point that they’re about to break and fall off,” Rants said.

Sometimes I wish Democrats and Republicans would actually go through with a vote on this kind of stuff...even if they know it will fail. They do enough polling of regular Americans like us, it's time we had some way of finding out where they stand.

-----------
-----------
Sign up to the new GregSays Newsletter. Weekly highlights, unique insider information and valuable extra content delivered right to the email address you provide. Your Privacy guaranteed.

Labels: fair share

Coincidence? I warned you...

See: Breadwinners vs Freeloaders

CR Gazette: State, union agree to 3% raises

DES MOINES — The state of Iowa and its largest employees union have reached agreement on a collective bargaining contract that will provide a 3 percent across-theboard pay increase for each of the next two fiscal years, union officials confirmed Thursday.

Although no "direct tie" between the minimum wage increase and this one is alleged, I can't believe that the words of former union thug Edward T. Hanley weren't heeded:

“The purpose of the minimum wage is to … provide a floor from which we can upgrade your compensation through collective bargaining.”

[Source: Edward T. Hanley in Catering Industry Employee, December 1977, p. 3. Cited in Belton M. Fleisher, Minimum Wage Regulation in the United States (Washington: National Chamber Foundation, 1983), p. 9.]

And I'm sure they didn't ignore the advice of AFSCME Council 61 and AFSCME Local 12 at the University of Iowa Labor Center workshop.

Bottom of Page: Protecting the "floor" under our wages: Minimum wage laws affect our wages.

Good thing the Legislature didn't pass that automatic increase every year proposal the Democrats floated.

If you're scoring at home:

Minimum Wage --
Unions and Democrats: 1
Part Time Teenagers: 0
Business Owners: 0

Anyone still really think they should continue to call it "fair share"?

-----------
-----------
Sign up to the new GregSays Newsletter. Weekly highlights, unique insider information and valuable extra content delivered right to the email address you provide. Your Privacy guaranteed.

Labels: fair share, minimum wage

A roundup of stories and comments featured over the past couple of days concerned the "fair share" legislation being considered in Iowa.

Keep in mind that the calm, reasoned debate we're currently hearing runs very contrary to the statements made by Senator Mike Gronstal late last year on an Iowa Press program:

Gronstal: WELL, THE CONCEPT IS IF THE THREE OF YOU ARE REPRESENTED BY A GROUP AND YOU DON'T PAY ANYTHING AND THEY PAY, YOU'RE A FREELOADER. YOU'RE GETTING ALONG -- YOU'RE GETTING A FREE RIDE FOR ALL THE SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE. YOU'RE A FREELOADER. ASKING YOU TO PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE OF THE DUES -- NOT THE ENTIRE DUES BUT YOUR FAIR SHARE FOR THE BENEFITS YOU RECEIVE --

By calling those that choose not to be union members "freeloaders" you don't give me a whole lot of confidence that the legislation is going to be in any way beneficial to them. It smacks of revenge more than anything else...

Critics: Plan would boost unions

In the Quad-Cities, where unions have shrunk but still represent 12 percent of the work force, there are sharply diverging views.

“It sticks in my craw that there’s people out there getting a free ride,” said Bob Waters, a 47-year-old Davenport worker at Oscar Mayer. Waters is a 20-year member of the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

See? Revenge...

Remember, that 12-percent figure includes members of the governmental workforce like teachers, police, fire, etc. Excluding them, the percentage of workers who belong to unions in the private workforce is around 7-percent.

And where is the concern for current union members when they see their hard-earned union dues going to causes they don't support?

During the 2004 elections, the Center for Responsive Politics reports, unions spent at least $61,484,080 in political contributions—87 percent to Democrats, 13 percent to Republicans. That year, according to a CNN exit poll of 13,660 respondents, 61 percent of union members voted for Democrat John Kerry, while 38 percent supported Republican George W. Bush.

We already have a "fair share" law with respect to that kind of tom-foolery, but nobody pays much attention to it. Some union members are even afraid of asking for the right to have a portion of their union dues returned to them based on the Beck Supreme Court decision.


-----------
-----------
Sign up to the new GregSays Newsletter. Weekly highlights, unique insider information and valuable extra content delivered right to the email address you provide. Your Privacy guaranteed.

Labels: fair share

via: State29

If you're going to have a debate and/or a public hearing about a bill called "fair share," maybe you should be fair to begin with.

Although the article points out that most lawmakers left town on Friday, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Democrats took advantage of the situation.

Radio Iowa: Tempers flare over "Fair Share" hearing

Tempers flared at the statehouse when some of the opponents of a pro-union bill were unable to sign up to speak at a public hearing. The bill requires non-union workers to pay fees to the union. With most lawmakers gone from Des Moines last Friday, Representative Rick Olson, a Democrat from Des Moines, scheduled a public hearing for this Wednesday and within a few hours union members had taken 60 of the 70 available slots to speak.

It's also no stretch to believe that union members were notified well in advance of the sign-up for slots to speak. It's one of those "give backs" that lawmakers kind of owe union members for their support.

Olson and House Republican Leader Christopher Rants of Sioux City quibbled about the situation on Monday. "If you've gone to any rock concert, sometimes tickets sell out in a hurry," Olson said. Rants replied: "True, but usually people know when the tickets are going to go on sale, Representative Olson."

There are also complaints that the hearing was scheduled on Valentine's Day when some legislators -- and potential witnesses -- had hoped to spend the evening wooing their sweetheart rather than spending it at the statehouse speaking out on proposed legislation.

Certainly "sweetheart deals" for union bosses would qualify as wooing...

-----------
-----------
Sign up to the new GregSays Newsletter. Weekly highlights, unique insider information and valuable extra content delivered right to the email address you provide. Your Privacy guaranteed.

Labels: fair share

Now you see it...now you don't.

Now that the minimum wage bill in Iowa is signed and done with, Democrats want to take away some of what they gave you by going too far in my view.

Yes, they may have a majority...and somewhat a mandate for some things...but I think they are going to be taken to the woodshed by voters for this...

Fair share issue heats up at the Statehouse

DES MOINES --- Unions and business groups are going head-to-head with lobbying efforts for and against "fair share" legislation that would require non-union members to pay if they benefit from union services.

John Campbell, a lobbyist for the United Steelworkers of America, argues Iowa workers should pay for the salary increases and benefits negotiated for them by unions as well as the union's costs of representing them in grievances.

"It's just a matter of economic equity and fairness. Should you get something for nothing? Why should we spend our resources, our efforts and our time to defend someone who doesn't pay for that service?" Campbell said.

Good question. I'd ask the same thing about union dues always seeming to go toward support for Democrats and liberal causes that a lot of members don't support. (see below)

Under the current proposal, Senate Study Bill 1120, public employees who are not union employees but whose workplaces are covered by collective bargaining agreements would see automatic payroll deductions for "fair share" fees.

Private-sector employees who work at unionized workplaces would have to authorize the payroll deduction. But signing off on that deduction could be a condition of employment if it is part of the negotiated contract between the employer and the union.

Calling something "fair share" and it being "fair" are two different things. Who's going to decide the "fair price" for non-union workers to pay? Who's going to decide just what an employee is receiving in benefits that they otherwise wouldn't without a union representing some of the workers? Our crazy court system...that's who.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said the chances of the bill passing the Senate are 50-50.

"It could go either way," he said.

It was Sen. Mike Gronstal on the Iowa Press program last year that called non-union workers, "freeloaders"...so he's a little more invested in wanting this passed than he lets on...

Gronstal: WELL, THE CONCEPT IS IF THE THREE OF YOU ARE REPRESENTED BY A GROUP AND YOU DON'T PAY ANYTHING AND THEY PAY, YOU'RE A FREELOADER. YOU'RE GETTING ALONG -- YOU'RE GETTING A FREE RIDE FOR ALL THE SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE. YOU'RE A FREELOADER. ASKING YOU TO PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE OF THE DUES -- NOT THE ENTIRE DUES BUT YOUR FAIR SHARE FOR THE BENEFITS YOU RECEIVE --

I honestly don't think this is going to go anywhere. Most common sense freeloaders like me aren't going to take it too kindly at the ballot box next time when we find out we're being forced to pay money to a union we don't belong to.

In fact, some current union members don't always find it fun and peachy-keen that their hard-earned dues always seem to go to support Democrats and their causes...despite the fact that roughly 20 to 40-percent of union members vote Republican (Source: AFL-CIO numbers).

And many union members aren't all that informed of the Beck decision which allows them to withold the portion of their dues going to causes they don't support. The unions don't want to tell them about their rights (or lie about the percentage that goes to Dems and causes)...and often stonewall efforts by individual members who make a claim under Beck.

Sen. Bill Dotzler, D-Waterloo, takes a more tempered view. Dotzler supports fair share legislation, although he does have some concerns with the current proposal.

He argues the impact on Iowans will be negligible if the legislation is passed.

"The predictions that Iowa's economy is going to go in the tank are so far off," Dotzler said.

It's not the economy that will go in the tank...it's going to be support for Democrats that go in the tank if this is passed.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves in is sinful and tyrannical." Political contributions, like unionism itself, should be a matter of individual choice.

-----------
-----------
Sign up to the new GregSays Newsletter. Weekly highlights, unique insider information and valuable extra content delivered right to the email address you provide. Your Privacy guaranteed.

Labels: fair share

Having won the minimum wage increase for labor unions, the Democrats are trying to weasel out of adopting the "fair share" legislation request from those same unions.

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register has it right today. Just as I did weeks ago. See Post from earlier this month.

Pay particular attention to the comments of Mike Gronstal on the Iowa Press program from November of last year:

Gronstal: WELL, THE CONCEPT IS IF THE THREE OF YOU ARE REPRESENTED BY A GROUP AND YOU DON'T PAY ANYTHING AND THEY PAY, YOU'RE A FREELOADER. YOU'RE GETTING ALONG -- YOU'RE GETTING A FREE RIDE FOR ALL THE SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE. YOU'RE A FREELOADER. ASKING YOU TO PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE OF THE DUES -- NOT THE ENTIRE DUES BUT YOUR FAIR SHARE FOR THE BENEFITS YOU RECEIVE

When you promise something like that using language like that...you're bound to be stuck in between the rock and the hard place.

Yepsen: Dems pursue right-to-work changes at their peril

This year, the unions started pushing something called "fair share." Instead of repealing right to work, they said they'd just ask that non-union workers be required to pay a fee to the union for services the union provides them, like representation in a grievance proceeding.

It's not only the union-backed candidates for the legislature that are in a tough spot...the Governor is too..

Gubernatorial candidate Chet Culver endorsed the idea at the state labor convention in Waterloo. So did many other Democratic candidates.

But now, lawyers and others trying to craft the legislation to enact it are discovering that they can't do it without gutting part of the right-to-work law. (That law also says it's illegal to collect "dues, charges, fees, contributions, fines or assessments to any labor union, labor association or labor organization" as a condition of employment.)

Yepsen says that calling it "fair share" sounds more reasonable than nixing the Right to Work law in Iowa...but not when you call people "freeloaders"...

Democrats are researching the possibility of a fair-share requirement for teachers and other public employees.

That may be the only out for Democrats. They'll have to squeeze between that rock and hard place pretty good, but after Culver is done giving them the largest raise in Iowa history, they probably won't complain too much.

-----------
-----------
Sign up to the new GregSays Newsletter. Weekly highlights, unique insider information and valuable extra content delivered right to the email address you provide. Your Privacy guaranteed.

Labels: fair share

Some people have asked why it is that unions are so hopped up on raising the minimum wage. I'm suspicious too, so I did a lot of searching about it. The reason I'm a skeptic is because I don't believe that unions are all in it for "the little guy" and looking out for the best interests of the "working poor." Call me a cynic, but I ask the questions around here.

"What's in it for them?"

While I couldn't find specific relevant quotes that suggest a link between union wages and the minimum wage, I don't think it's all that outside the realm of reality to suggest that many unions will use an increase in the minimum wage to influence their own collectively bargained wages.

It's a natural human reaction and it happens to all of us. If the dude you're working with gets a raise, then by golly you're probably going to want one too.

What I did find were plenty of suggestions that this is the case.

From the University of Iowa Labor Center, I found a list of a series of workshops to help AFSCME members better negotiate their contracts.

5 workshops Sponsored by AFSCME Council 61 and AFSCME Local 12

Policy issues for AFSCME members

Free Trade in our services? How trade agreements can threaten public sector jobs-and what we can do about it.

Protecting the "floor" under our wages: Minimum wage laws affect our wages. Should "living wages" replace them?

Jobs, food and shelter: What's happening in Iowa-and around the world--to these fundamental worker rights

Wedge issues and the union voter: Understanding key wedge issues and how to keep them from undermining union collective power in the voting booth

The health care crisis: How to understand and explain the debate-and make a difference in public policy

Then, from the International Labour Organization, I found some published papers related to...

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS

The union's demands should be carefully studied. The following are some of the matters to which attention should be paid:

1. Assess the economic impact of the demands on the company.
2. Make a comparative study, e.g. in a wage demand one should ascertain comparative wage rates in the industry and in allied or similar businesses, the minimum wage, if any, and the rates applicable in other collective agreements.

So I'm going to take that information as a confirmation of my theory. Unions support increasing the minimum wage so as to increase the "floor" at which they base their collective bargaining negotiations upon.

But it gets better than that.

According to a few think tanks (and a dead corrupt union thug), an increase in the minimum wage does more than just increase their own "base wage floor"...

The Minimum Wage: Washingtons Perennial Myth

The success of a union depends on its ability to maintain higher-than-market wages and provide secure jobs for its members. If it cannot offer the benefit of higher wages, a union will quickly lose its members. Higher wages can be obtained only by excluding some workers from the relevant labor markets.

Unions attempt to fix or limit the supply of labor in a particular market, which raises the value or price of the labor available within that market. The winners are those still included in the labor market, the union members. The losers are those excluded from the market, the unemployed.

Although unions already hold privileged positions in labor markets, minimum wages further increase their gains by raising employers' labor costs. As long as union members earn wages above the minimum rate, their positions are made more secure by the government policy that eliminates those who might undercut the union wage. People willing to work for less than the government's minimum are not allowed into the labor market at all.

It was former mob-backed union thug Edward T. Hanley that first suggested the true purpose why unions love a minimum wage:

“The purpose of the minimum wage is to … provide a floor from which we can upgrade your compensation through collective bargaining.”

[Source: Edward T. Hanley in Catering Industry Employee, December 1977, p. 3. Cited in Belton M. Fleisher, Minimum Wage Regulation in the United States (Washington: National Chamber Foundation, 1983), p. 9.]

So to sum up:

A minimum wage increase will raise the incomes of affected workers who continue to be employed after the increase takes effect, but it will also destroy a number of existing jobs and inhibit the creation of new jobs.

No doubt someone will point out the lack of job losses the last time the minimum wage was increased. As pointed out above, that's because our overall productivity increased and was able to pick up the slack. What if productivity doesn't increase this time?

Now here's an interesting transcript from the Iowa Press program on IPTV. Pardon the large caps, but that's the way it was printed on the website:

Sen. Mike Gronstal Show Number: 3413 Nov 24, 2006 Edition

Borg: LAST WEEK ON THIS PROGRAM, YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES LEADING IN THE IOWA HOUSE SAID THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS THE FIRST DAY IS LEGISLATION TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE. AGREED?

Gronstal: ABSOLUTELY AGREED. WE'VE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH --

Borg: TO WHAT?

Gronstal: WITH GOVERNOR-ELECT -- WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT POLICY PROCESS WHERE WE BRING OUR MEMBERS IN, BUT PROBABLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF A COUPLE BUCKS PHASED IN OVER 18 MONTHS, 24 MONTHS. I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER ON THAT, BUT WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT. BUT ABSOLUTELY, THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS, WE THINK, IS TO MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF 125,000 IOWANS THAT MAKE MINIMUM WAGE. SEVENTY PERCENT OF THEM ARE BREAD WINNERS FOR THEIR FAMILIES. IT'S NOT ALL KIDS THAT MAKE MINIMUM WAGE.

Provably untrue. It is largly kids that make up the minimum wage earners.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19. Among employed teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 3 percent.

And this.

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, fully 93% of employees in Iowa whose wages would be increased by the proposed minimum wage hike either live with their parents or another relative, live alone, or have a working spouse. Just 7% are sole earners in families with children, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through Earned Income Tax Credit.

The transcript gets better:

Gronstal: ...WILL LABOR BRING OTHER CONCERNS TO US THAT WE'LL RESPOND TO? OF COURSE THEY WILL. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE FIRST THING WE DO IS RAISE THAT MINIMUM WAGE.

Borg: WELL, THERE'S SOMETHING FOR LABOR CALLED FAIR SHARE. RATHER THAN REPEALING 14B, OR THE RIGHT TO WORK LAW, FAIR SHARE, IS THAT LIKELY TO BE ENACTED?

Gronstal: I THINK THAT'S LIKELY TO BE VISITED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE ENACTED OR NOT.

Borg: WHAT'S THE CONCEPT THERE?

Gronstal: WELL, THE CONCEPT IS IF THE THREE OF YOU ARE REPRESENTED BY A GROUP AND YOU DON'T PAY ANYTHING AND THEY PAY, YOU'RE A FREELOADER. YOU'RE GETTING ALONG -- YOU'RE GETTING A FREE RIDE FOR ALL THE SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE. YOU'RE A FREELOADER. ASKING YOU TO PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE OF THE DUES -- NOT THE ENTIRE DUES BUT YOUR FAIR SHARE FOR THE BENEFITS YOU RECEIVE --

My underlining added, but it bears repeating: You're a Freeloader

So in the same breath that Gronstol originally floated the idea of increasing the minimum wage for "family breadwinners" in Iowa, he also called those same breadwinners who happen to work in a union shop and aren't members of the union, "freeloaders."

Besides, unions don't provide any "services"...they negotiate with management on collective bargaining. Then, they take union dues and give it all to Democrats to get them elected.

And sure enough:

Iowa Democrats to consider 'fair share' laws

DES MOINES -- Governor-elect Chet Culver and Democratic leaders in the Iowa Legislature said Tuesday they will consider "fair share" laws that require non-union employees to pay for benefits they enjoy through organized labor.

"I think we need to have a debate and a discussion on that important issue and many others," Culver said

Democrats argue that unions currently are forced to represent non-union employees in contract negotiations and disputes with management, even when those employees aren't paying union dues.

Gronstal sparred with Republican House Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, over the issue Tuesday.

"If you're going to force people who don't belong to a union to pay some sort of substitute for union dues, that is an attack on Iowa's Right to Work law," Rants said.

Incoming House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, said the fair share law would not mean repealing the right to work law.

"I think that's the big problem is some people don't understand the difference," Murphy said.

Uh...I read the law and I understand it pretty well, Mr. Murphy. You only wish I didn't have the research skills to actually look up something like that. This is why the information age is so dangerous to these imbeciles.

They call it "fair share" like every other boneheaded tax policy of theirs. As one comment on the news site mentions:

If I choose not to belong to a union. I choose to "negotiate" my own contract with my employer. I choose to put forth an honest day's effort for an honest day's pay. Don't steal my money to support a union that doesn't represent me.

I don't see how this "fair share" is fair at all. It certainly isn't fair to the current law...and probably violates it:

731.5 Deducting dues from pay unlawful.

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association, labor organization or corporation to deduct labor organization dues, charges, fees, contributions, fines or assessments from an employee's earnings, wages or compensation, unless the employer has first been presented with an individual written order therefor signed by the employee, which written order shall be terminable at any time by the employee giving at least thirty days' written notice of such termination to the employer. (Enacted April 28, 1947; Amended 1959, Recodified 1977.)

Oh, well...they're the majority now - elected by the vast majority of Iowans - they can do whatever their "mandate" allows, can't they?

Labels: fair share