Why should you care about the Fair Share debate in the Iowa Legislature?

You probably know that Iowa is an Open Shop (so-called "Right-to-Work") state in which individuals who are represented by a union have to pay at least their Fair Share of the costs the union incurs in administering the contract.

But why is this issue one that all progressives should care about?  Well, Politics 101 tells us that states where organized labor is strong tend to elect many more Democrats than states where organized labor is weak.  The 22 Open Shop states consist of the Old Confederacy, Plains and Mountain West states.  These states typically have the lowest rates of union membership in the country.  All 22 voted for George W. Bush in 2004; only Iowa voted for Al Gore in 2000.

So, stronger labor unions in Iowa translate into a stronger Iowa Democratic arty, but that is not the whole story.  There is a direct correlation between the strength of organized labor and the rise of progressive politics.  As Washington Post columnist David Broder said, in September, 2004:  "When labor lobbied powerfully on Capitol Hill, it did not confine itself to bread-and-butter issues for its own members.  It was at the forefront of battles for aid to education, civil rights, housing programs and a host of other social causes important to the whole community.  And because it was muscular, it was heard and heeded."

The battle for Fair Share in Iowa is the front line of not just the fight for better paying jobs, or for a stronger Democratic Party.  It is the fight to rekindle a progressive brand of politics that has been missing for far too long. 

Unfortunately, not enough Democrats in the Legislature currently support organized labor and the Fair Share proposal.  Of the 53 House Democrats (one is presently serving in Iraq), there are not 51 votes to pass Fair Share.  Despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars organized labor contributed to House Democrats, and the hours that have been spent explaining Fair Share to candidates and legislators, and why it is the top priority of organized labor, a few House Democrats felt free to accept money from labor and withhold their support from Fair Share.

Reflecting this political reality, the House leadership has watered down the Fair Share proposal so that it only covers public sector, not private sector, employees.  According to a March 16th Des Moines Register article, after meeting in private for four hours, House Democrats could not muster 51 votes even for a public sector only version of Fair Share. 

According to the Register, Democrat Dawn Pettengill, "who has told Republicans she opposes the Fair Share proposal, had tears on her face when she left the room..."  It causes one to wonder, were those tears caused by guilt for taking $6,500 from 16 different Iowa labor unions in her campaign and then responding by turning her back on labor over the most crucial labor-related issue in a generation?

The Register said that Democrat McKinley Bailey "walked out in frustration, got in his car, and drove out of the Capitol parking lot....Bailey came back awhile later and said he'd left the meeting because it was 'pointless.'"  One wonders, were the $7,750 of contributions from 11 Iowa labor unions that he accepted in his campaign also "pointless?"

There are only two possible conclusions to draw:  either labor unions gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Iowa House Truman fund and individual legislative campaigns without asking these then-candidates how they would vote on Fair Share, or, once in office, some of these House Democrats are perfectly willing to renege on promises they made during the campaign. 

Pettengill and Bailey are not alone in holding up Fair Share.  Labor has identified 9 or 10 House Democrats who have expressed unwillingness to vote for Fair Share.

Please do not misunderstand.  I am not suggesting that any elected official should blindly do the bidding of their supporters.  As Senator Vinick (Alan Alda) said, "If you can't drink their booze, take their money, and then vote against them, you don't belong in this business."  In this instance, though, labor campaign contributions represent promises made to working Iowans, and, regrettably, the breaking of that promise by a few.

There do not appear to be any easy solutions out of this situation.  Even if the Legislature manages to pass a Fair Share bill for public sector employees, what happens to private sector unions?  Do they continue to be taken for granted and support Democrats unwilling to support them?  Or do they cut off campaign contributions and consider finding primary challengers for House Democrats who have adopted House Republican Leader Chris Rants' talking points on Fair Share? 

All of this will play itself out in the coming months.  For the time being, there will continue to be a lot of anxiety, frustration, and anger shared by legislators and labor leaders. 

Nobody ever said that being in the majority would be easy.

- Nate willems lives in Mt. Vernon

From the Spring 2007 issue of the Prairie Progressive, Iowa's oldest progressive newsletter, available only in hard copy for $12/yr. to PP, Box 1945, Iowa City 52244.  Co-editors of The Prairie Progressive are Jeff Cox and Dave Leshtz.

  Click here to sign up for action alerts from  RapidResponse - Iowa.