ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A Minnesota Senate committee on Monday passed a bill that would let voters statewide decide if Minnesota should be a right-to-work state with voluntary union membership.
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Republican-sponsored bill on a vote of 7-6. One Republican, Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen of Alexandria, joined five committee Democrats in voting no. Hundreds of union members flooded Capitol hallways during the hearing, sometimes chanting so loudly that people testifying on the bill were difficult to hear.
If it were to pass the full House and Senate, voters in November would decide whether Minnesota's Constitution should be amended to make membership voluntary in private and public unions. Membership is not compulsory under current law, but non-union employees in unionized shops must still pay a "fair share" fee of up to 85 percent of normal dues.
Elaine Kollar, a teacher at a public high school that's part of a juvenile detention facility in Anoka County, said $700 in yearly dues are taken from her paycheck.
"I don't know where my dues go. Do I have any say in any of this? The answer is no," Kollar said.
In all, 23 U.S. states now have a right-to-work law, the most recent being Indiana, where it was approved earlier this year by Republican legislative majorities and signed by a Republican governor. The debate over right-to-work measures has flared in state Capitols around the country in the last two years, as Republicans who gained power in numerous statehouses have pushed to weaken union strength. Minnesota supporters say right-to-work legislation would improve the state's business climate and improve the economy.
Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton is a strong union supporter, but he would have no power to veto a statewide vote, which is what Republicans are pursuing. Some Republicans have been tentative about the massive fight with unions assured by pursuing the amendment, and the bill's chief supporter — Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville — said he has no promise from the Senate majority leader that it would get a full Senate vote.
Ursula Tuttle, a registered nurse at Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, said she lived in Oklahoma in 2001 when voters there approved a right-to-work measure. She told the committee she voted in favor and later regretted it.
"I believed it would create jobs. It didn't," Tuttle said. "It didn't create jobs, and we stayed poor."
State Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, questioned why the amendment is needed in Minnesota, where the unemployment rate has consistently been among the lowest in the country.
"Where is the problem we are trying to fix?" Latz said.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (25)
Add commentAP
"Ursula Tuttle, a registered nurse at Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, said she lived in Oklahoma in 2001 when voters there approved a right-to-work measure. She told the committee she voted in favor and later regretted it."
Okay, that's one...
Why don't Unions Allow Workers to Choose Where to Spend Money?
Let's let Minnesota workers decide on where to spend their money. Why is this so threatening? Could it end some of the Union's "thuggery"?
Why does the Union leaders only seem to support and give money to socialist community organizing malcontents?
What if the smart Union workers wanted to support and give their money to Tea Party candidates seeing that the Tea Party represents 70% of mainstream Americans?
Just a thought.
IN my case -- I got a job in which I signed a contract
That contract was negotiated by the union. I chose to not join that union... but instead, joined a rival union that was not in majority at my work place. I still benefited by the contract negotiated by the original union. I benefited from its conditions as far as schedules, work conditions, and the like. Should I have the right to join or not join? Yeah, maybe, but if I choose not to join but STILL benefit from the work of the union, I should pay my fair share. That system worked for my 34 years on the job. Does it need tweeking? Probably. Does it require a state amendment? Probably not. Tweek away, folks, but let it include thoughtful change with full participation from the legislature, from management and from the labor force... and maybe even from the community in which the employer is located....
can't wait
i just hope the gunions don't do $7 million to our capital like wisconson! 73% of our citizens support right to work-lets do it.long overdue. they sure looked dumb yesterday with the phoney chants.
Which one are you.
There are three kind of union workers:
1: The lazy
2: The incompetent
3: The combination of the two.
I just sent $720.00 to the Red Cross in lieu of my dues, because I'm not anyone of them.
Watching the video on the union supporters yesterday, I'm not far off with the three. Thanks
How many
of the protesters were state employees that called in sick to be there?
What's In A Name?
They should rename this the pro-choice-to-work bill. Besides, according to the Constitution, no one has a "right" to work. Only Liberty and freedom granted by the Constitution provides the "choice" to work.
Also, what business is it of the state to mandate employers withhold union dues. If dues are owed, then union employees should have to pay that obligation on their own. It is not the employers responsibility.
Now that I am thinking about it, employers should not be forced to withhold payroll taxes either, bearing a tremendous burden as tax collector and the added accounting expenses. That too should be the direct responsibility of the people being taxed by the government .
I asked a fair question
and the gunion folks don't answer. I knew they wouldn't.
Fair Question? Representation within an industry or more...
I was reminded of a simple item the other day.
Business owners in the State of Minnesota are not required become a union shop.
However, if a voting of the employees of the Business owners shop does occur, according to NLRB (National Labor Relations Board), it does become a labor contract.
I have a unique perspective.
* Teamster from 1979 to 1981 for United Parcel Service (UPS).
* There was a scandal in the Teamsters - Not good.
* College/University Graduate who is not presently a Union Member
When you are part of those organizations, it's a different element.
One of my majors in University was Industrial Relations.
Now why does a person get 3 Majors and 1 Minor in University?
It was the early 1980s, and you had to get education to as pursue as many opportunities as you could.
I have a Majors from a University in Computer Science, Business in Management and Industrial Relations, and an Economics Minor.
Remember folks, that was coming out of the Carter years and into the Reagan years.
Call is Defensive Education and trying to provide for your family. I should be a Classic Republican. I was with my father who was a very Moderate Republican for years, as was my Grandparents, on both sides!
However, this current GOP generation is an amazement.
The GOP platform should be about employment and jobs, and not Social Agendas.
Why I have spoken out against Paul Gazelka and Rick Santorum is they have lost the way to helping folks keep the Economic Engine of this country operational and doing the Easy on Social Issues. You can show your Social Issues on how you live life day in and day out. However, DON'T mandate that! Live by example, not by mandate!
We should not be concentrating on those Social Agenda Issues. When Rick Santorum a few weeks ago discounted President John F. Kennedy, that was the straw that broke my camels back. He was only a few years old when President Kennedy made that Separation of Church and State speech that is the most powerful the Nation since President Jefferson spoke it years ago. Rick Santorum forgot how his father endured Catholic rejection when he came to this country with his family. That's tragic...
This is why I speak out and remember.
Religious Freedom is a right in this United States, and I'm an absolute protectionist of this principal. Yes, it's not specifically written into the United States Constitution, but with folks in the 1970s as old as Rick Santorum and Paul Gazelka and I am, we were schooled in the same foundation of respect and admiration of our fellow Citizens.
Respect the principal of Separation of Church and State. That's a foundation of the First Amendment of this United States Constitution.
I call this gut check time, and let's vote this fall on what it really means.
- Mike
My fair question was
How many of the protesters were state employees that called in sick to be there? How does your gasbag response answer my question? As a taxpayer, I want to know if some of my employees commited fraud to attend that protest. Did your university major include comprehension of a simple question?
fnb
You should try a little tact if you want an answer which you don't want because you know the answer you want and you want someone to disagree with you so you can jump all over them. Is this correct? I thought so.
Pretty please,
someone tell me how many state workers called in sick so they could join the protest at the Capitol. How's that lakelander?
F&B I will research that
F&B I will research that question when you have provided me with the number of state workers who used a VACATION DAY so they could join the protest at the Capitol. And I would also like you to tell me how many state workers took a day off without pay so they could attend as well.
Of course, while you are searching the payroll history of each attendee and checking their union status, you could probably find the answer about your sick leave question too.
And how many people there were NOT state workers, but instead were smart people in the private sector (either union or non-union) who realize that being a Right to Work state would lower wages across all levels of employment?
Isn't that amazing that employees would feel strongly enough about an issue that they would use their VACATION to protest it? Perhaps they are tired of legislators getting model language from the American Legislative Exchange Council and they see the danger in allowing Corporate America to run our Government.
Ha Ha, 0 is the number!
If the union thugs used sick days to help out in Madison why would they not do the same in St. Paul? I am amazed at how a couple hundred thugs gets called a thousand by the liberal press.
FNB
We used to have neighbor named Rose. Her nickname was "Hose Nose Rose", because all she did was worry about what other people were doing....get a life
What're you doing
right now, dithers?
thumbs up, itterditter
IMHO, fnb is a paid media employee. He doesn't want your opinion, he wants to slander those who disagree with him to get more posts here. Why? Ask him.
lake, you lose
that is so funny. you'd better tune in Bill Mahr for a few hours.
Lake wins
Hit it right on the head
OK Boss
That was pathetic.
Interesting
I'm amused by the way the left constantly screams about things like 'freedom of choice' and 'individual rights' yet somehow neither factor in when talking about unions.
So let me get this straight....you should be able to marry whomever you want, regardless of gender, be able to legally terminate a human life, but have no choice when it comes to unions?
Seriously? How is anyone able to rationalize this? How many can't/won't, but keep touting the pro-union party line just because they don't dare go against their base?
There is a choice...
There is a choice. Either join, or go Fair Share. For going Fair Share, a person gets all the wages, benefits and other perks that the union negotiated for. What there is NOT a choice to do is to get something for nothing. I thought the GOP didn't like people who wanted to get something for nothing? But yet, here they are wanting people to be able to get the pay and benefits secured by a collective bargaining unit for free. Hmmm...
and another choice
Oh...the other choice (if you are against unions) is to not apply for or take a union job. You already have the Right to Work...at a non-union job.
But if you make that choice, then you also forfeit your right to complain about union counterparts who just might get something you don't have. If you want what collective bargaining gets, then pay the dues. If you don't want to pay for the strength of collective bargaining, then don't be mad if they happen to get more than you.
Choices?
Fair Share is a joke along with unions. They were relevent before current laws mandaded the things they claim to advocate for. You speak like the union benefits everyone which is common among the dregs that choke the system. The union is regarded as a life support system, and without we would all work for minimum wage. That’s a pretty weak assumption. I would argue that without the union I could substantiate a better compensation package based on MY performance, not everyone as a whole. Using your logic,, I NEED the collective bargaining process to work for my advancement since my merit alone is not enough. There is no point in arguing this since you have already consumed the Jonestown flavor aid. Unions have broken the system as a whole; protect the weak and suppress the employees that want to progress.
Divide and Conquer
Nice work, lemmings.