Once again, I have allowed myself to be interviewed for a political poll—on Right to Work: a very pushy push poll, to say the least. The polling company is American Viewpoint.  The client list posted on the company’s website includes many right-wing Congressional Republicans, corporate lobbies, and other conservative organizations. So, I wasn’t surprised to learn that the topic of this evening’s lengthy interrogation was the Right To Work [for less, of course] ballot initiative that Missourians will vote on in the state primary on  August 7.

I felt bad for the young woman tasked with getting people to stay on the line for the nearly 30 minutes it takes to get through all of the questions.  I hope she isn’t getting paid per completed survey, because I have a hard time imagining  that a lot of people  would be willing to get all the way through this tedious, repetitive exercise.

Here’s how this poll went: [As usual, I scrambled for pen and paper, and took rushed notes.]

First, the preliminaries: I’m not active in a current campaign. I’m absolutely certain that I’m going to vote in the August primary–not just somewhat certain. I’ll vote in the Democratic primary–not probably, but definitely. On an enthusiasm scale of 1 to 10 for voting in the August 7 primary, I’m a 9 [very enthusiastic]. I strongly–not somewhat–believe that Missouri is going in the wrong direction.

On the political awareness questions: I’m aware of Donald Trump and have a very [not somewhat] unfavorable view of him; I’m aware of Hillary Clinton and have a favorable [not somewhat] view of her; I’m aware of right-wing bugaboo Nancy Pelosi [a dead giveaway, right there, that this is a poll from the right]; and I’m aware of Eric Greitens and have a very unfavorable view of him. [The pollster was a day late on this one–Greitens announced his resignation as MO Governor two day ago.]

I already know, from these questions, that my opinions are not where this poll’s sponsors want them to be. I’m, essentially, a lost cause. And yet, she persisted.

Now, we get to the meat of the poll: Am I aware of the Right to Work referendum that is on the August 7 ballot? Oh, yeah. The pollster describes the referendum as [paraphrasing from my notes] “Senate Bill 19, passed by the Missouri legislature, that prohibits forced membership in labor unions, which does not apply to current union members, and which the legislature has determined has no associated costs or savings.” How do I intend to vote on this referendum?  I’m voting No.

“What is your main hesitation?” asks the pollster.  “It’s bad for workers,” I reply.

Now comes a follow-up question:  “Do you favor or oppose a law that prohibits employees from being forced to join a union?” Now we are into push-poll territory for sure. I have to think about that question, because it is a double negative. And, by the way, I have just told her–in response to the previous question–that I’m voting no. But I understand the logic behind this question: They’re trying to get beyond the blanket slogan “No on A” by stating the content of the proposal, rather than just its name. [An approach akin to asking people who hate “Obamacare” whether they’d support a law that made sure that everyone could get health insurance–to which many Obamacare opponents said, “Yes.”]

I get it. But I’m still voting no.

Now, the pollster presents a list of arguments against the referendum, and asks me how convincing each statement is: “Right to Work offers no protections for workers.” [Very convincing–not somewhat]. “Right to Work drives down wages–in Right to Work states, workers earn an average of $1,000 less per year than in non-Right-to-Work states.” [Somewhat convincing.] “Right to Work will make income inequality worse.” [I tend to believe that.] By the way, every time a rate a statement, the pollster asks me to reconfirm my answer or rating. I’m getting impatient quickly.

And now, for the push question: “Knowing what you now know, [from her statements], how would you vote on Right to Work if the election were held today?”  “No.” “Is that a definite ‘no’?”  “Yes.”

Next, the [much longer] list of arguments in favor of the referendum. I couldn’t quite keep up with this portion, but I certainly learned a lot about the pro-Right-to-Work talking points. Here’s what I was able to get into my notes:

• “Special interest union bosses who oppose Right to Work are supporting criminal immigrants taking away jobs from American workers.”
• “Special interest union bosses are dining on fine wine in expensive restaurants while middle-class workers struggle.”
• “Right to Work will create more jobs and opportunities for workers.”
• “Right to Work will give Missouri a competitive advantage over neighboring Illinois, which does not have Right to Work laws.”
• “Union dues are used as political slush funds to promote liberal candidates, like Nancy Pelosi.”
• “Right to Work will prevent jobs from moving to other states where Right to Work has already been enacted.”

Of course, I rate all of those talking points as “not at all convincing.”  So,” asks the pollster, once again re-confirming the pushiness of this push poll, “Knowing what you now know, how would you vote on Right to Work if the election were held today?”

Geez, I’ve already told you multiple times, in multiple ways, that I’m voting no. Of course, that really doesn’t matter. The poll did its job of pushing out the talking points. And I managed to waste another pollster’s time giving answers the sponsors don’t want to hear. [Of course, she managed to soak up a half-hour of my life that I’ll never get back.]

But, I’ll continue to answer these calls, because they give me an inside look into how polls actually work, and that insight helps me evaluate the meaningfulness of poll results when they are published. [Often, not very meaningful. It often depends on how the questions are phrased, as well as how the polling company jiggers its sample.]

And, I figure, if I take the call, you might not have to.

The post A very pushy push poll on Right to Work [for less] appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The political psychologist George Lakoff has long said that the right wing trumps the left when it comes to framing issues. One of the right’s best coups is titling an anti-union movement “right to work.” Essentially, what they are advocating is to give employers the power to hire employees who do not join a union. When it comes to one or two people, it sounds innocent enough. However, the net effect of permitting employees to work as free agents, rather than as part of a consolidated work force, is that workers can then bid against one another to determine who is willing to work for the least. Unenlightened employers love this situation, because the ultimate effect for them is to reduce the cost of labor. The politicians who represent businesses (primarily Republicans) have branded this idea with the partial misnomer of “right to work.” What could sound more American?

Frustrated by the Republicans’ framing of the issue, labor supporters, including most Democrats, have given a more realistic spin to the phenomena. Many on the left call it “the right to work for less.” This response is clever, and it clearly describes the situations in which many blue-collar workers find themselves when trying to find a job that will pay them a livable wage.

Is there a situation that might be a middle-ground between the “right to work” and the “right to work for less?” I think that there is, and this situation, while not occurring generally, raises interesting questions.

Suppose that your name is Albert Pujols, and you are currently a slugging designated hitter for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (does any team have a more cumbersome name?). A little more than two years ago, you signed a ten-year contract with the team. It totals $255 million; averaging over $25 million each year of the contract. You rejected a contact for less from your former team, the St. Louis Cardinals, and now you’re having regrets about the whole deal. You know that $25 million a year is far more than you need to live. And the last two years have not worked out for you. You’re not nearly as comfortable on the West Coast as you were in the Midwest, and your hitting statistics bear that out. Truth be told, you want to tell the Angels that they can keep the approximately $200 million that they still owe you. What you really want to do is to ask the Cardinals if they will sign you to a reasonable deal; something like $15 million for three years with performance incentives that could boost your annual pay up to $20 million.

The way the rules of baseball are structured, Albert Pujols couldn’t do this. There are three reasons. First, there is no precedent for a team and a player mutually agreeing to void a contract. Second, if Pujols decided to tell the Angels that he’s retiring (which would free the Angels of their financial obligations to him) he could not play for the Cardinals without sitting out a year. Third, the Players Association would strongly object to him “walking away from the contract.” They fear that a precedent could be set and it would work to the owners’ advantage. When teams think they have paid far too much for a player, they would put all kinds of pressure on that player to retire or somehow breach the contract. This would not be an idle threat; almost every team is saddled with one or two contracts that they would love to void and if that became possible the sanctity of all contracts would then be at risk. It would be a very legitimate area of concern for the Players Association (which is essentially the bargaining union for the players).

However, if an occasional exception could be made, such as in the Pujols case, it would represent a hybrid between the right wing’s “right to work” and the left’s “right to work for less.” What it would represent would be “the right to be free to work for less.” It’s not unprecedented; when Lee Iacocca became CEO of Chrysler Motors, he worked for a dollar a year. That didn’t do any harm to the wages and salaries of other Chrysler employees; in fact it probably helped them. Iacocca brought the company out of bankruptcy and back to profitability. He didn’t need the money from a salary, so it was a “win-win.”

I’m just wondering if we couldn’t address this whole issue under the umbrella of “the right to work for less.” Framed that way, workers would know the real meaning of what the right wing calls “right to work.” That would go a long way in preventing workers from being the victims of the forces that historically been on their backs; pressure to work for less. While protecting those in greatest need of financial remuneration, it would allow others to walk away from various forms of the “golden parachute” and give them more personal freedom.

The post The right to be free to work for less appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Right-to-work legislation may be making another appearance in Missouri. But with a unionized workforce of less than 11% of all Missouri workers, it’s being called  “a completely irrelevant factor” in job growth . That view may not stop a Republican majority in Missouri from presenting the issue once again, with claims of job growth and more choice for workers.

If you have ever been a part of a union, you’re no stranger to union dues. That is the crux of right-to-work laws: allowing employees to work for union-only employers without paying union dues. All of the benefits of a unionized work place and no dues?  Who wouldn’t like that? Dues-paying union members and union organizers don’t like it. They say that non-union employees undermine the power that a unified workforce has.

How right-to-work states measure up to the rest of the country

Of the 22 states with right-to-work laws, five of them [Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee] have no minimum wage requirement. Those states also have some of the highest poverty rates and lowest median incomes in the country.

Three right-to-work states [Georgia, Arkansas, and Wyoming] have a minimum wage that is less than the federal minimum [$7.25 per hour]. Georgia currently ranks 2^nd in highest poverty rates and Arkansans have the 2^nd lowest median income in the country.

Of the remaining 14 right-to-work states the low-wage, high poverty rate trend continues with few exceptions. Are there other factors? Yes. Population, household size, labor laws, cost of living, industry and the economy all play roles. Politics may also play a role: most of the right-to-work states are predominantly red states.

Missouri unions and labor laws

Union membership in America has seen a steady decline over the past few decades. Missouri is not immune. While more than a third of American workers were once represented by unions, the national average is now only about 12.3%. At 10.6%, Missouri falls short of that number. Labor laws that target unions harm unions; right-to-work states have some of the lowest numbers of unionized employees to date.

Compared to right-to-work states, Missourians fare slightly better. Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia all have percentages [of unionized workers] under 7%.

All but two right-to-work states [Nevada, Iowa] fall short of the national average. In Nevada and Iowa, the high numbers can be attributed in part to a concentration of public sector unions. Nationally, public sector unions make up half of the entire unionized workforce.

As an “employment at will” state, Missouri employers can change the status of your employment for any or no reason—including termination, work hours, and wages–so long as changes cannot be classified as discrimination. Missouri employers are not required by state law to offer benefits such as health insurance and paid vacation/medical leave. They are also not required by Missouri law to give employees periods of rest [breaks], including lunch breaks. Employers in Missouri can require employees to work any number of hours but must pay time and a half for more than 40 hours in a work week.

Along with the drop in union membership, American workers have seen wages stagnate, loss of benefits such as employer-provided health care, and the offshoring of jobs. A strong and empowered workforce seems especially important. Among other things, unions negotiate on behalf of members for higher wages, health and medical benefits, and paid leave. The collection bargaining power of union members typically results in higher wages and retirement security.

Language and framing

These and other statistics may be why some opponents of so-called “Right-to-Work” laws consider “Right-to-Exploit” a more apt description. Proponents of “right to work” call non-Right-to-Work states “forced unionism” states. On one side ,there is a group of unified workers and union leaders against the exploitation of their peers. On the other, a polished legal defense group who lobbies on behalf of employers under the guise of more rights for you, the laborer.

It goes without saying that “forced unionism” is misleading. It certainly implies there are enough people living under the heavy-handed tyranny of unions that new legislation is required to protect these oppressed workers. Given the relatively fractional number of unions today, it is unlikely that a person in a given trade can’t find employment outside of a union. In fact, there are laws against forced unionism [read Taft-Hartley Act of 1947] and federal laws disabusing federal courts and/or legislatures of the notion to limit the right of workers to form or join unions.

The last time we faced a right-to-work law in Missouri, the year was 1978. It was soundly defeated. As we take another look at this law more than 30 years later, we should consider how weak our current labor laws are and whether further degrading the union workforce is wise. Do we choose quantity over quality, as we have in decades past? Will the passage of right-to-work legislation even result in said quantity? It may be called Right-to-Work, but this so-called right could come at a steep price.

The post Right-to-work [for less] could mean fewer rights appeared first on Occasional Planet.