In 2011, GOP politicians took over both Wisconsin and Ohio as part of a national wave election. The Republican governors and legislatures soon let their newly-gained power go to their heads. Both states quickly enacted laws to destroy the right of public employees to bargain. Both states saw huge public anger at this gross abuse of power. Hundreds of thousands of outraged citizens descended on Madison and Columbus for weeks of protest.
But the way that the people were able to deal with the crisis was very different between Wisconsin and Ohio. In Wisconsin, nine State Senators faced recall elections in 2011. Scott Walker, along with four more State Senators faced recall in 2012. After all of the dust settled, three Republican State Senators had been replaced by Democratic challengers.
The actions taken in Wisconsin required a great deal of activity by people in the state. Signatures were collected and verified. Candidates were recruited. Expensive primary and general elections were conducted.
The political climate in the state was poisoned during this time, and has never fully recovered. Neighbor turned on neighbor. Friend turned on friend. Kin turned on kin. Political witch-hunts took place in which judges, reporters, office holders, and candidates who signed recall petitions were called-out for public shaming. "Wisconsin Nice" died a tragic death.
But after all of that effort and energy, we are still stuck with the unpopular Act 10. Even today, we are burdened with the poorer schools, lower wages, and residual employee resentment that the Republican law forced on us.
By contrast, Ohio was able to handle the same union-destroying power-grab quite differently. Unlike Wisconsinites, Ohio citizens are able to call a referendum on laws that don't reflect the will of the people. Citizens actually have veto power over unpopular legislation.
Ohio's anti-worker bill, SB 5, was signed into law by John Kasich on March 31, 2011. Ohio citizens have 90 days after a law is signed to submit petition signatures to force a veto referendum onto the ballot. Valid signatures totaling 6% of the vote in the state's prior gubernatorial election are required (amounting to 231,149 names in 2011). At the end of June, over five and a half times that many signatures were proudly submitted to the Ohio Secretary of State.
The referendum was placed on the ballot in November. The good guys won. The anti-worker law was defeated by an overwhelming 62-38% vote. The law was "recalled". It was vetoed by the people. But no politicians lost their jobs. This was a much less divisive, and much more effective, way of overturning the GOP's unpopular scheme.
Wisconsin does have referendums, but they are of very weak types. The people approve any changes to the state Constitution through referendums. We can have an advisory referendum on an issue if the state legislature requests one. We are also allowed to initiate non-binding advisory referendums to voice public opinion on an issue (such as all of the recent local referendums on overturning Citizens United).
Twenty three states have the sort of strong veto referendums used so effectively in Ohio in 2011. People in these states can overturn bad laws and counteract partisan power-grabs. They have much more of a voice in the way they are governed than we do.
Twenty four states have a process by which the people can circumvent a do-nothing legislature or obstinate Governor to enact a new law or constitutional amendment. This sort of referendum was successful in Maine just last week , when voters overruled the five vetoes of Medicaid expansion by crazy Governor Paul LePage. Seventy thousand additional Maine residents will now have access to Medicaid coverage.
The people of Wisconsin need to have a more active and democratic participation in our state government. We should have the chance to over-rule bad laws from our gerrymandered legislature. We should have the opportunity to initiate new laws through binding citizen referendums. We should join with half of the states in the country. We should have meaningful referendum provisions in our state Constitution.
The destruction of labor unions has long been a goal of the extreme right. In almost every GOP-controlled state, legislation has been passed that weaken unions through Right-to-Freeload (RTF) rules.
While no employee can be forced to join a union in any state, unions must represent all workers in a unit. RTF laws allow some to refuse to pay for that representation. It allows some to freeload on the backs of their co-workers who diligently pay their dues.
RTF laws certainly weaken unions. The unionization rates in RTF states average only 8.1%, compared to 15.3% in states where workers pay the cost of their representation. Without strong unions, all workers in RTF states suffer, not just the unionized ones. Wages are lower, poverty is higher, and worker safety is poorer. For obvious reasons, these laws are often called "Right-to-Work-For-Less".
Workers in states that have not imposed RTF average 19% higher income than those in RTF states. Of the ten highest income states, not a single one has an RTF law on the books. Of the 12 states with the lowest average pay, 10 are RTF states.
But, it's not just pay. The weaker unions in RTF states cannot push as strongly for workplace safety. RTF states have a horrendous 50% higher rate of workplace-related deaths.
There are currently 28 states with RTF laws. The most recent states to impose these laws are Wisconsin (2015), West Virginia (2016), Kentucky (2017), and Missouri (2017, delayed for referendum). However, not content to bring economic ruin to just the red states, the extreme right is trying to cripple unions nationwide through the court system.
On Thursday, the US Supreme Court* agreed to hear a case brought by Mark Janus, an AFSCME-represented public employee in Illinois. Janus evidently feels put upon by the union and thinks that he is entitled to union protections without paying for them. The case is being bankrolled by the National Right-to-Work Foundation, as well as Liberty Justice Center, part of the Koch network.
The case will be heard early next year. A decision will be handed-down in late Spring or early Summer. If the case is decided broadly in Janus' favor, it will impose Right-to-Freeload on public-sector employees across the country. Such a decision will greatly weaken the labor movement and workers' rights in America.
The Court* is closely divided along ideological lines on the issue. A similar case was argued in early 2016, involving an employee and the California Teacher's Association. After the death of conservative demigod Anton Scalia, the Court* split 4-4 on the case. The death of Scalia, who would likely have decided against the union, brought a temporary break in the effort to implement RTF through the courts.
All last year, President Obama was denied his Constitutional right to name Scalia's replacement. In one of the most heinous and blatant power grabs in US history, the Republican Senate refused to even consider the President's moderate replacement nominee, Merrick Garland. This outright GOP theft of a Supreme Court seat leaves the legitimacy of the Court* in question for years.
However, Senate Republicans such as Mich McConnell and Ron Johnson wasted little time in breaking previous Senate rules to allow the new Republican president to confirm a nominee with only 51 votes. Getting his marching orders from the Federalist Society, Trump nominated a far-right ideologue, Neil Gorsuch for the post.
Based on his past record, there is little doubt that Gorsuch will join with the far-right majority to cast his stolen vote against worker's rights. There is no doubt that he will side with his corporate masters to weaken unions. There is no doubt that he will legislate a nation-wide RTF law from the bench.
One of my Facebook friends is an Illinois public sector worker. She has the conflicted position of being strongly pro-union, but voted for Trump. She is very worried about the pending case and how a negative decision will affect her future job security.
It never crossed her mind (or crossed the minds of the 37% of other union members who voted for Trump) that her candidate would act to weaken her voice in the workplace. It never occurred to her that her President would install the deciding Court* vote to kill her union.
