Archive for the ‘Ryan Winkler’ Category
It’s no longer debatable whether the DFL hates business. They certainly hate entrepreneurs. Rep. Ryan Winkler’s minimum wage legislation is the ultimate combination of nanny-statism and heavyhanded government:
The Minnesota House likely will approve a minimum wage increase later this week, after a committee Monday expanded the bill’s reach by doubling state-required parental leave for a new child.
Under the amended measure by Rep Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, employers would be required to grant 12-week leaves after a birth or adoption.
The House Ways and Means Committee tacked the provision onto Winkler’s bill that aims to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour in 2015 from today’s $6.15. Then the wage would automatically increase.
Why would employers do business in a state that requires 12 weeks of maternity leave? For an employer, that means an extra 6 weeks of doing without an employee. That’s almost a fourth of the year without an employee. This is nanny-statism that’d make Michael Bloomberg proud.
That’s before talking about raising the minimum wage by almost 50% in 3 years. To cover the cost of higher wages, they’ll hire fewer people. Rep. Winkler should rename his legislation the ‘Growing the Nanny State and Killing Jobs bill’ because that’s what this bill will do.
A few weeks ago, Rep. Winkler tried spinning his legislation by saying that raising the minimum wage doesn’t hurt employment. At the time, I argued that that isn’t accurate. It’s true that raising the minimum wage doesn’t always hurt employment. It’s equally true that there are times, like during a weak economy, when raising the minimum wage kills jobs.
Businesses that are having trouble making money simply won’t hire people if the cost of wages increases. When the increased minimum wage is increased dramatically, like what’s being done in Rep. Winkler’s legislation the hiring freeze is that much more dramatic.
Further, employers seeking to expand will cross Minnesota off their list of destinations when they see this level of regulation and overbearing government. Business starts will shrink. Mitch’s post shows that people are already leaving Minnesota:
Though data can deliver mixed messages, data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) point to one clear and worrisome fact: Minnesotans and their wealth are moving to Southern and Western states. Between 1995 and 2010, an average of $340 million in income—based on 2010 dollars—moved each year from Minnesota to other states—a movement totaling more than $5 billion over 15 years. The states that on net receive the most Minnesota income tend to be low tax states such as Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington.
It pains me to say this but it’s got to be said: Minnesota isn’t special anymore. The lakes are still beautiful. The woods are still picturesque. The regulatory burden is excessive. Do-gooder organizations like Conservation Minnesota are attempting to kill industry in northern Minnesota. Tax rates are confiscatory. The special interests, aka AFSCME, MAPE and ABM, run the DFL. They say jump. The DFL asks ‘off what’?
Sacred cows abound within the budget. Bills pass through this legislature because we have to ‘invest in higher education’ or all-day Pre-K or whatever else the special interests demand of the DFL.
It’s time for the DFL to wake up to the fact that they’ve reached a breaking point on excessive taxation, irresponsible spending and overregulation. These statistics prove that people are voting with their mortgages (and their feet) on what’s excessive.
These paragraphs are a stinging indictment of Rep. Winkler’s bill:
Republicans and business leaders generally said the higher wage would hurt Minnesota firms. “There is no capacity on Main Street to absorb any more expense,” Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, said.
Rep. Bud Nornes, R-Fergus Falls, said he talked to a restaurateur who makes $60,000 profit a year. The new minimum wage requirement would cost him $60,000, Nornes said. “Why should he stay in business?” Nornes asked. “We’re going to lose some.”
As damning as that information is, and it’s plenty damning, it’s nothing compared with this admission:
However, Rep. Tim Mahoney, DFL-St. Paul, added: “It is a small number of businesses that will be hurt.”
Isn’t that reassuring. It’s only a few businesses that will get hurt. I’m sure that’ll ease those businesses’ minds.
The DFL can argue all it wants but capital flight from Minnesota exists. It’s just that the delusional idiots running the DFL think it doesn’t exist. In the end, reality trumps theory.
Friday night on Almanac, Rep. Pat Garofalo exposed Rep. Ryan Winkler’s opposition to small business during their debate on Rep. Winkler’s minimum wage legislation. Here’s the transcript of the opening exchange between Rep. Garofalo and Rep. Winkler:
REP. GAROFALO: Today, I was talking with a small business owner in Apple Valley named Erin. She runs Revive Salon in Apple Valley. She was talking to me today that, as a small business owner, she pays more in taxes to the government than she takes home for her family and the Winkler proposal will increase her costs by $5,000. Now Erin knows a lot about her business. She knows how to price her products and she knows she can price it at a maximum price before people are going to stop purchasing those services. Unfortunately, this is an unfunded mandate so the question I’d have for Rep. Winkler and anyone that supports the minimum wage would be how are businesses supposed to pay for these increases?
REP. WINKLER: That’s just the same old line that businesses that oppose the minimum wage have used every single time it’s been increased. In fact, all the evidence, all the history since the minimum wage was enacted in 1938 shows that there’s been no negative impact on employment.
Apparently, Rep. Winkler thinks he knows what’s best for businesses, though there’s no history of him having run a successful small business.
What’s worse is that Rep. Winkler apparently isn’t interested in what small businesses are saying or the effect his legislation will have. The fact that he’s willing to dismiss legitimate issues without a discussion indicates that he isn’t interested in employers.
I wish I could say that I’m surprised but I’d have to ignore this post about how rudely Gov. Dayton was towards St. Cloud business leaders recently. Whether it’s Gov. Dayton or Rep. Winkler, the DFL’s hostility towards businesses isn’t difficult to find.
Thoughtful people know that it isn’t credible to first be hostile to employers, then say that you’re pro jobs.
The ‘proof’ that Rep. Winkler supposedly has that increasing the minimum wage doesn’t affect employment is ignoring reality. Anyone thinking that increasing businesses’ costs during difficult economic times simply doesn’t think staying competitive is important. Apparently, that’s the DFL’s belief, because that’s the playbook they’re following.
I’ve been a hockey fan since the mid-1960′s. In 1967, I bought a copy of the Minnesota North Stars Yearbook. That yearbook had a picture of Bill Masterton, the only hockey player to die as a direct result of an injury sustained in a hockey game. I watched the U of M, then coached by Herb Brooks, win 3 national championships. Those games weren’t broadcast on ESPN. I’m enjoying watching the Minnesota Wild play (and defeat) some of the strongest teams in the NHL.
In short, I’ve got the credentials to prove that I’m a hockey fanatic.
That said, it irritates me when a meddling legislator, in this instance Rep. Ryan Winkler, wants to spend $800,000 to continue the rivalry between the U of M and the University of North Dakota:
Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, introduced a bill on Thursday that would give the University of Minnesota the money if at least one game is scheduled against the University of North Dakota that year.
“We have to maintain that hockey tradition,” said Winkler, who grew up in a hockey family in Bemidji. “I think it’s enough to get the athletics department attention.”
Winkler said he was trying to make a statement with the bill; nothing will happen with it. The two teams faced off in their final conference game on Jan. 19. North Dakota will depart for the newly formed National Collegiate Hockey Conference, while Minnesota will join five other Big Ten teams with hockey programs.
That’s BS. If he just wanted to “make a statement” about keeping the rivalry going, a simple resolution and a press conference would’ve gotten the teams’ attention.
Attaching a dollar amount, especially $800,000, won’t just get the teams’ attention. It’ll get the teams’ hands out with the expectation of getting paid to continue the rivalry.
It’s also likely to stir up some bad blood with St. Cloud State. SCSU’s rivalry doesn’t have the lengthy history that the U of M-UND rivalry has but it’s had some memorable games in its history, starting with the 2-2 tie in the first SCSU-U of M game. Nobody gave
St. Cloud State a chance in that game, which was the first game played at the then-brand new National Hockey Center.
But I digress.
Here’s a suggestion for Rep. Winkler: Quit meddling in collegiate sports. Allegedly, you’re a legislator dealing with serious budget issues. Perhaps your time is best spent figuring out how to save money. Better yet, perhaps you could focus on not spending money this foolishly.
Apparently, Rep. Winkler’s priorities and time management need adult supervision. It’s clear he’s spending too much time focusing on trivialities and not enough time on Minnesota’s priorities.
Tags: Ryan Winkler, Hockey Rivalry, Minnesota Goldend Gophers, North Dakota Fighting Sioux, Zach Parise, Neal Broten, WCHA, SCSU, DFL
When KSTP Political Director Tom Hauser asked Gov. Dayton about Gov. Dayton’s tax increase proposal, Gov. Dayton reflexively regurgitated the ABM/DFL Chanting Point that the rich weren’t paying their fair share. It isn’t acceptable any more to have the fascists within the DFL and ABM to define fair share. It’s time to challenge their chanting points on this.
First, it’s insulting to think that the DFL thinks some members of the MAPE or AFSCME are paying their fair share. They’re sucking taxes from productive members of the private sector. In far too many instances, these people are political cronies of high-ranking officials at a university or department commissioner or do-nothing council. They often are put in do-nothing jobs like PR director of a tiny office that nobody’s heard of before. Sometimes they’re hired to be a “legislative liaison” in the MPCA or the BCA. Legislative liaison is a euphemism for taxpayer-funded pro-big-government lobbyist.
People in these position frequently draw salaries of $75,000-$150,000 but the DFL thinks that they’re actually contributing something meaningful to Minnesota’s taxpayers. I’m still waiting to hear the DFL’s/ABM’s explanation as to what these millstones contribute to Minnesota’s GDP or competitiveness.
Compare that with entrepreneurs. The first 5-10 years they’re in business, they frequently work from sunrise until midnight, sometimes later. They employ anywhere from 10-40 people if it’s a small business. If it’s a mid-size business like Quad Graphics, they employ 250+ people, all of whom have been offered quality health insurance. With Quad Graphics, the company pays a significant portion of the health insurance premium.
It’s easy to quantify these companies’ contributions towards a fiscally healthy Minnesota.
Next, the ABM/DFL definition of paying their fair share is based solely on the government’s take of these entrepreneurs’ profits. It’s never defined by anything other than contributing to bigger government. The entrepreneurs’ definition of paying their fair share is frequently measured by how families’ lives are improved through lower-priced goods and services, inventions and innovations that make like easier or through improving profits because they’re producing things of value.
If a pollster were to ask which is the more sensible definition of paying their fair share, there’s little question that the people would pick the entrepreneurs’ definition over the ABM/DFL definition of fair share.
It’s painfully obvious that the DFL should be stripped of their acronym. It’s painfully obvious that the DFL should be changed to the Progressive-PEU-Environmentalist Party.
When was the last time the DFL stood with the Iron Range mining unions? They haven’t stood with them since the Perpich Administration. He won his last gubernatorial election in 1986.
When Gov. Dayton negotiated the contract with state employees, they hid the proceedings and the details of the contract’s provisions. I’ve written these articles highlighting Gov. Dayton’s and the PEUs’ stealth in these proceedings.
It’s against this backdrop that Sen. Parry held a hearing on the contract between the PEUs and the state. Predictably, the DFL stood with their PEU ‘constituents’:
“It’s probably a blessing you’re down to your last three meetings,” said Lillie, referring to Parry’s expiring state Senate term. “I figure you’ll milk this for three days of per diem, perhaps.”
I wish I could say I’m surprised with Leon Lillie’s statements but I’m not. It’s the same BS that I’d expect to hear anytime that Rep. Thissen or Rep. Winker were talking.
Reps. Thissen and Winkler aren’t legislators. They’re the PEUs’ puppets. They always have been. Yesterday, MNGOP Chairman Shortridge issued a statement highlighting the DFL’s reliance on these PEUs. This part of Chairman Shortridge’s statement says it all:
A list of public sector union contributions to the Minnesota DFL this year alone, are listed below:
AFSCME AFL CIO $200,000.00
AFSCME Council 5 $5,000.00
Education Minnesota $229,857.22
MAPE Educational and Political Fund $87,500.00
MAPE PAC $87,500.00
Minnesota AFL-CIO $26,250.00
Mpls Federation of Teachers Local 59 $1,250.00
TOTAL $637,357.22
That’s just their contributions in 2012. They contributed a ton in 2011, too. Is it any wonder why the PEUs got such a sweetheart deal from Gov. Dayton? Here’s a few of the details of the contract:
Today AFSCME and MAPE reached a tentative deal on a two-year collective bargaining agreement with the State of Minnesota. Highlights include a 2 percent pay raise beginning January 2013, plus step increases both years, with modest cost increases to employees for health insurance effective January 2013.
Here’s their stated goals for negotiations:
The union seeks a two-year deal that looks something like this:
No changes in health insurance plan design for levels 1 and 2
Increase the maximum dental benefit from $1,000 to $1,500
Maintain steps both years
2 percent wage increase effective July 1, 2012
$500 contribution to HRA on January 1, 2013
$500 lump sum
AFSCME, the SEIU and MAPE essentially got everything they were hoping to get. Fortunately, the executive branch and the PEUs don’t have the final say in the matter. Fortunately, the legislative branch has oversight responsibility to protect the taxpayers.
That’s what yesterday’s hearing was about. It isn’t surprising that the DFL attempted to disrupt Sen. Parry:
Democrats portrayed the pay increase as restrained after 19,000 state workers lost three weeks of pay during last year’s government shutdown, caused by a political dispute over taxes and spending between Republican legislative majorities and Dayton.
“What are we doing here?” said Sen. Jim Metzen, DFL-South St. Paul.
AFSCME President Eliot Seide accused Parry of trying to boost his profile in the days leading up to the primary.
“What we saw today was a grand political stunt at the taxpayers’ expense,” Seide said.
First, there’s documented proof that Gov. Dayton shut the government down, not the GOP legislature. Second, the DFL’s dispute wasn’t just with the GOP. The DFL’s dispute was with most Minnesotans, too.
It’s clear that the DFL thinks of PEUs and militant environmentalists as their constituents. There isn’t much proof that they think of the people who vote for them as the people they’re supposed to represent.
That’s why it’s likely that the GOP will keep control of the legislature this November.
Tags: PEUs, MAPE, AFSCME, SEIU, Mark Dayton, Paul Thissen, Ryan Winkler, Leon Lillie, Eliot Seide, Contracts, Negotiations, DFL, Mike Parry, Oversight, MNGOP
The ACLU of Minnesota, the League of Women Voters-Minnesota, Common Cause MN and Jewish Community Action filed suit yesterday to keep the Photo ID constitutional amendment off of November’s ballot:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, the League of Women Voters Minnesota, Jewish Community Action and Common Cause Minnesota are petitioning the state Supreme Court to strike down the voter ID ballot question, because they claim it would create one of the most restrictive election laws in the country.
Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU Minnesota, said during a news conference at a downtown Minneapolis law office that the proposed constitutional amendment would do far more than what the question describes. Samuelson said there’s no mention of a new provisional ballot system or the potential end of same-day registration.
“We believe that the voters of Minnesota have a right to know what they’re voting on,” Samuelson said. “This petition is about ensuring that all Minnesota voters know the full extent of what this amendment could do and the impact it could have on hundreds of thousands of Minnesota voters.”
This isn’t unexpected. In fact, DFL legislators started laying the groundwork for it during floor debates this session.
Rep. Ryan Winkler and other DFL legislators insisted that the real intent of the constitutional amendment was to eliminate same day registration. That’s nothing more than the DFL’s typical fearmongering.
Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer frequently informed DFL legislators that eliminating same day registration wasn’t part of the constitutional amendment.
Eliminating same day registration isn’t planned. If it were, why would there be a need for provisional ballots? Secretary of State Mark Ritchie admitted as much during a visit to St. Cloud recently.
Pentelovitch also believes that the proposed voter ID requirement would essentially end Minnesota’s tradition of same-day registration. He said that’s because election officials will face too many complications at polling places trying to verify the identification of voters. But voter ID supporters firmly disagree.
“That is not true. That is absolutely not true,” said Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, a chief sponsor of the voter ID constitutional amendment bill.
Newman said the practice of vouching for the identity of other voters will end. But he insists eligible Minnesotans will still be able to show up at their polling place on Election Day and register to vote, even without an identification.
“If they show up on Election Day without the requisite identification, they will be allowed register,” he said. “They will be allowed to vote. But their vote will be provisional, and it will not count unless and until they come back with the necessary identification.”
It’s time to get rid of the voter fraud in Minnesota. Yes, there’s voter fraud here. It’s just that people like Mark Ritchie and Joe Mansky haven’t been looking for it.
Tags: Common Cause MN, League of Women Voters-MN, ACLU MN, Mark Ritchie, Chuck Samuelson, Ryan Winkler, Provisional Ballots, Same Day Registration, Vouching, DFL, Mary Kiffmeyer, Election Integrity
Monday night, OurFutureMN was a featured presenter at an event talking about K-12 education funding and its impact on school district operations. It’s odd that an organization that isn’t a think tank or that doesn’t specialize in public policy analysis would be invited to an event that was supposed to talk about the impact the school shift has had on school operations.
Based on this article from their website, OurFutureMN is a PR/propagandist organization. Here’s the tipoff:
The Pay Back Our Kids Act would pay back the $2.4 billion Minnesota owes to its kids and schools by closing corporate tax loopholes.
Closing corporate loopholes sounds great but the revenues from that decision will be minimal. They certainly won’t close the gap as quickly as the GOP’s legislation that Gov. Dayton vetoed. That’s the legislation that would’ve paid off $430,000,000 of the school shift.
Also included in Caitlin Rogers’ presentation was “The Community Pledge”:
I commit to supporting elected leaders who invest in Minnesota priorities – great schools, good jobs, and safe, healthy communities with balanced approach budget solutions that responsibly raise revenue. I will urge my elected leaders to adequately fund education, public safety and vital services in our communities by requiring corporations and the richest 1% to pay their fair share.
What do “public safety and vital services in our communities” have to do with education funding? Obviously, they’re important policy issues but they don’t have anything to do with education.
The importance of this pledge is to the DFL, not to education funding. This year, the DFL will run on raising taxes. This pledge was signed by DFL activists. Period. There weren’t any conservatives or independents in the room. If there would’ve been conservatives or independents in the room, they wouldn’t have signed the pledge.
This was intended to be a photo op. Clearly, they wanted to show that raising taxes is gaining support. Raising taxes isn’t gaining support by any stretch of the imagination.
If OurFutureMN wasn’t there to add policy expertise, which they weren’t, then they were there to provide propaganda cover for the DFL.
That makes it a campaign event, not a policy-centered event.
Tgs: OurFutureMN.org, Community Pledge, K-12, Education, Tax Increases, Pay Back Our Kids Act, Ryan Winkler, Caitlin Rogers, Photo Op, DFL, Election 2012
It isn’t surprising that Rep. Winkler’s tax bill is a jobkiller. What’s surprising is that he got Reps. Thissen, Hortman, Greiling, Hornstein, Anzelc and Ward to sign onto the bill as co-sponsors. This op-ed does a great job of explaining why this bill is a jobkiller:
So why is Rep. Ryan Winkler, D-Golden Valley, supporting a 900-percent increase in taxes on corporations for increasing a firm’s payroll as the chief author of H.F. 2480?
Minnesota taxes its corporations on an average of three items: sales; property value; and payroll. It has wisely relied mostly on the sales factor, and indeed had planned to use it alone in 2014. Thus, adding another worker would not add a dime to the corporation’s tax bill. Rep. Winkler’s tax increase is a job killer because it puts a firm that hires many workers at a higher effective tax rate than a corporate tax relying only on the sales factor.
A medical device firm doing additional research and development has to hire workers, but doesn’t increase its sales. Rep. Winkler’s plan would still increase the company’s tax liability.
It isn’t surprising that the DFL would support a bill that puts a tax on hiring people. Nonetheless, it’s still appalling that the DFL supports a true jobkilling tax bill.
It’s noteworthy that House Minority Leader Thissen and many senior DFL legislators are co-sponsoring HF2480. The DFL legislators co-sponsoring HF2480 are like Representatives Greiling, Hornstein, Hortman, Anzelc, Ward, Davnie, Slocum, Hausman, Falk and Loeffler.
It isn’t just House DFL legislators that support killing jobs. The Senate companion bill to HF2480 is SF2029. The DFL senators listed as co-sponsors reads as follows: Bakk, Sieben, Marty, Dibble and McGuire.
These DFL legislators should be asked why they support killing Minnesota jobs, especially jobs that are tied to manufacturing or research and development.
Most importantly, this isn’t a partisan issue. Austan Goolsbee, formerly President Obama’s economist, helped prepare this study. Here’s the important information from Goolsbee’s study:
The results suggest that the payroll weight is a significant determinant of state employment, although there may be other unobserved policy changes contributing to the result.
We find that for the average state, reducing the payroll weight from one-third to one-quarter increases manufacturing employment by approximately 1.1%. Further, we show that these significant employment effects imply that although increasing the sales weight in a state may lead to corporate income tax revenue losses (see Pomp, 1987), the increased employment generates an indirect source of additional personal income tax revenue.
This isn’t speculation. It’s verifiable.
What’s important is that Rep. Winkler, Minority Leader Thissen, Minority Leader Bakk and other senior DFL legislators support a bill that conservative and liberal economists say kills jobs.
Tags: Taxes, Tax Increases, Mark Dayton, Tom Bakk, Paul Thissen, Ryan Winkler, DFL, Tax Reform, Commission, Prosperity, Jobs, Competitiveness
Apparently, Rep. Thissen thinks that taking on longterm debt is the key to creating jobs. Apparently, most DFL politicians agree with him.
For months, DFL politicians, from Gov. Dayton to Rep. Thissen to backbench bombthrower Rep. Ryan Winkler, have talked about a “jobs bill.” In the same breath, they’ve talked about a bonding bill being their first choice of a jobs bill.
Legislation that takes away money from the private sector in terms of banks’ borrowing capability while not producing meaningful demand for new purchases create jobs? That’s what bonding bills do.
The DFL’s definition of a jobs bill is unknown in some respects. The DFL, especially Carrie Lucking, has talked plenty about Gov. Dayton’s amazing jobs bill. They just won’t explain how jobs are created. It’s as if this is their explanation for how jobs are created:
That isn’t much of an explanation. Then again, lefties like Rep. Thissen aren’t capitalists so they shouldn’t be expected to know what they’re talking about.
People should only expect them to know their machine-generated chanting points.
Tags: Chanting Points, Paul Thissen, Mark Dayton, Jobs Bill, Debt, Stimulus, Carrie Lucking, DFL
Gov. Dayton is chafing at the notion that GOP legislators will push reforms aimed at creating jobs and restoring election integrity:
The Republican rush to the ballot has drawn the ire of Dayton and legislative Democrats. Dayton can’t block lawmakers from putting proposed amendments on the ballot, and he’s been scathing as he considers the prospect of a November ballot packed with conservative aims.
“My concern about constitutional amendments except in very, very rare circumstances is that the design of our government is to have the legislative branch work in consultation and cooperation with the executive branch. There has to be a collaboration there, an agreement,” Dayton said.
That’s a joke. Rep. Thissen, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Winkler have been pictures of obstructionism. Let’s remember that Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk were the obstructionists that triggered the shutdown:
Gov. Dayton rejected the GOP’s counterproposal, saying “However, I can not agree to both a tobacco bond issuance and a school shift, neither of which are permanent revenues.”
There were no additional revenues in Gov. Dayton’s initial proposal. That means someone, possibly Sen. Bakk or Rep. Thissen, got to him. Or maybe it’s that Tina Smith, Ken Martin or Michele Kelm-Helgen got to him and forced him to break his promise and back away from his initial offer.
That isn’t all they sabotaged. They didn’t lift a finger in terms of drafting a set of redistricting maps:
Sen. Bakk once went as far as saying that he “wouldn’t know why” the DFL would make a budget proposal of their own. (Because it would show you aren’t being obstructionists, Sen. Bakk.) The DFL legislature, both in the House and Senate, refused to create redistricting maps. Instead, they offered to have hearings around the state this summer in the hopes of “putting together a bill that Gov. Dayton can sign.”
Gov. Dayton, does that sound like the type of leadership that’s interested in “consultation and cooperation”? I think not. Then again, Gov. Dayton’s veto of the legislature’s redistricting maps wasn’t a picture in bipartisanship.
The DFL, like their national brethren, call for bipartisanship and collaboration when they’re the minority party. When they’re the majority party, they’re about ignoring the GOP.
The DFL is horrified by the thought of real election integrity. Voter fraud cases are frequently reported by the alternative media, though that isn’t reported by the Agenda Media.
As for creating jobs, Sen. Dave Thompson has announced that he’ll introduce a right to work constitutional amendment. The reason why that’s a job creation amendment is because right to work states have greater job creation rates because companies like the idea of not hassling with unions.
Here’s what Sen. Thompson recently wrote:
EMPLOYEE FREEDOM
I am excited to tell you that I intend to author the employee freedom, or right to work constitutional amendment. States that allow employees to work for anyone without being compelled to join a union or pay union dues are leading the nation economically. But even more importantly, no American should be forced to join a group or pay dues to a third party in order to have a job.
Adding to what Sen. Thompson said, here’s what the NILRR wrote about job creation rates:
Moreover, the Right to Work job-growth advantage has continued to be unusually wide even since the nationwide recovery began to gather steam in 2003. Between 2003 and 2005, aggregate private-sector job growth in forced-dues states was just 2.3%. Meanwhile, private-sector jobs in Right to Work states increased by 4.9%, or roughly 120% more.
Federally-sanctioned forced union dues have predictable economic consequences. Among them are Big Labor’s use of rigid work rules and cultivation of the “hate the boss” mentality to cement its power over employees.
Right to Work laws protect the freedom of both private- and public-sector employees to keep and hold a job without forking over dues or fees to a union that is recognized as their “exclusive” (actually, monopoly) bargaining agent.
There are places where unions aren’t just good, they’re essential. I’m thinking specifically about the coal miners union. That union is essential in guaranteeing miner safety.
When unions first formed, most of them were private sector unions. Most were used to negotiate wages from large corporations who had the upper hand. The vast majority of today’s jobs are in small- and mid-size businesses.
There’s more competition between these sized businesses, both for customers and for talented personnel. That competition, not unions, creates opportunities for employees.
The reality is that DFL legislators and Gov. Dayton will be obstructionists because they’d rather talk about “Gov. Dayton’s amazing jobs bill”, aka Gov. Dayton’s bonding bill. (The quote is from Carrie Lucking from the Jan. 13 Almanac roundtable discussion.)
In the past, I’ve called bonding bills debt bills as often as I’ve called them stimulus bills. They don’t improve Minnesota’s business climate but they’re a great way of bringing the pork into downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis through new transit projects or studies.
Tags: Reforms, Photo ID, Right to Work, Dave Thompson, Mary Kiffmeyer, Job Growth, MNGOP, Mark Dayton, Paul Thissen, Tom Bakk, Ryan Winkler, DFL