Andy's Blog

When Platoon was in theatres, a Vietnam veteran invited me to watch the movie with him. He had already seen the movie several times; he wanted me to see the kinds of things to which he was subjected during his several tours of duty. With great emotion, he quietly narrated the movie to me. There were times he was moved to tears; at other times, he could hardly be constrained. Most memorable was a scene where a soldier went to pick up a stuffed animal. Aloud, my friend warned the solider that the toy was not what it appeared to be. Without any military experience, I had no idea that the stuffed animal was a trap. Of course, there was an explosion. From that point on in the movie, I had a new perspective regarding the perceptions and reality of danger for any soldier.

Similarly, Duluthians ought to understand that when the city council proposes something that is supposed to be beneficial to everyone, it is not always the case. Far too often, policy is passed and sold to the public as something it is not. One such policy is Councilor Stover’s proposed ordinance 06-042-0.

This ordinance, aimed at any hotel or restaurant entering into a development agreement with the city, will require the proposed business to bypass federal law regarding the process of union organizing and open its doors to the crudest form of unionization (Card Check Neutrality Agreement). This involves bypassing the ability of the employee to cast his or her vote in secret when voting whether or not to unionize. Purportedly, the ordinance’s purpose is to eliminate the ability of any business large or small to intimidate workers. According to testimony given at the city council on October 10, 2006, the federally recognized process, approved under the Democratic administration of President Truman and upheld by the
US Supreme Court Linden Lumber decision, is unfair to the worker. Labor peace, then, is the union’s mantra and helping low wager earners out of poverty is their motive. We should be aware that the actual solutions to this complicated problem most likely have less to do with union organization and more to do with improving social and economic policy.

In 1996 under President Clinton’s leadership, the process of helping the lower-wage worker was started. In the last ten years, welfare rates have fallen from five million cases to just under two million. The poverty rate of single, married, and never married working mothers has all fallen. Wage subsidies (earned income credit) and child care support has also been introduced to help lower wage workers to start ascending income levels. However, much work remains to be done, including expanding opportunities for those at the bottom of the income scale and making sure real educational opportunities are available for them to improve their skills, thereby making them employable wherever they choose to work.

Finally, Councilor Stover wants to make businesses accountable to the city for any public subsidies from which they might benefit. The Chamber agrees. However, the city council is the one who willingly enters into these agreements and they already have the ability to vote against such initiatives. If Councilor Stover and his elected colleagues want to avoid such things, all they have to do is vote – a city ordinance superseding a federal law will not help
Councilor Stover or any of his colleagues think more clearly when presented with such proposals.

Councilor Stover has been on the council for over six years. If he cannot offer more constructive ordinances than this, he should reconsider a third run for city council.

Take a moment to let the city council know what you think; the council can be emailed at council@ci.duluth.mn.us.

Despite his personal shortcomings, few can argue that Clinton was not a good president. Most notably, he balanced the budget, did a good job of managing foreign policy, and had great vision. In the face of great opposition from his own party, he forged an alliance with Republicans and passed the Welfare Reform Act. This is an amazing feat. After ten years, Clinton’s act has pushed many welfare recipients into jobs. Today, families receiving welfare have fallen from five million to just under two million. According to the Brookings Institute, a centrist think-tank, the net incomes of those now working have risen 25% in real terms. Clinton saw the future and in the face of political adversity took a risk and won.

Our city often loses out in Clintonesque vision. Not because great vision is in short supply, but because we tend to look toward short-term solutions to complex problems – solutions that end up hurting us more than having no solution at all. One such short- term solution is City Councilor Russ Stover’s plan to marry the city’s ability to attract new business, new development and new business expansion to an almost guaranteed unionization of those businesses – all in the name of helping the poorest of workers. What Councilor Stover forgets is by aiming his intentions at those businesses that might receive “public subsidies,” he could effectively kill job creation. Had Cirrus Design and United Health Care worked with the city under such agreements they would not have chosen to locate in Duluth. This is not to say that the city should not be careful when it enters into an agreement nor should it throw money at businesses just to attract jobs; but I am certain that under Councilor Stover’s plan, neither business would have located in Duluth. Under Councilor Stover’s plan, the city would have lost approximately two thousand good jobs.

Councilor Stover’s plan, then, is not visionary.

In Councilor Stover’s defense, it is safe to say that he has a heart for the less fortunate. Like the rest of us, he wants to see people receive health care, have proper housing, and get a good education. Unfortunately, his plan accomplishes these things at someone else’s expense – that of the business community’s ability to expand and provide jobs. By requiring any business that might receive any city help – including the provision of infrastructure – to allow unions free and unfettered access to organizing, he almost assuredly guarantees that employees join unions without so much as an employee’s ability to a secret ballot. What citizen in the US would tolerate such treatment when he or she employs his or her right to vote in any public election? These kinds of “open” elections are subject to inordinate union pressure and ultimately will take away the employers’ ability to shop around for the best price and best value in insurance for their employees.

Lastly, if Councilor Stover wants to help the working poor, he should be sure to fund the non-profits of our area, as they work to change social policy and provide services. This might include making sure that those who are mildly disabled, emotionally disturbed, or those addicted to drugs or alcohol get the real help and assistance they need.

In an era when the city faces great financial challenges, is a thinly disguised plan to promote union membership really the answer? We think not.

Tell Councilor Stover and the rest of the city council what you think. Let him know you don’t appreciate him serving as a voice box for union efforts. Time is short – the council reads ordinance 06-042-O tonight in preparation to vote it into law at the next council meeting. Tell them to come up with a better plan. The Council can be collectively emailed at council@ci.duluth.mn.us.

We have all heard reprehensible stories about
the “company store.” Employees work for sub par
wages and at the end of the day, they spend their
wages at the only place they can – the overpriced
company store. Essentially, employees are enslaved
to keep working in miserable conditions just to pay
for inflated groceries, clothing, and the necessities of
life.

Although company stores no longer exist, the
mentality is still present today. We see it in our own
city council.

It seems Councilor Russ Stover, in his proposed “card
check neutrality agreement,” wants every tax payer
in the City of Duluth to shop at the company store.
In return, he will gain political points from the union
he is working to help. The card check neutrality
agreement artificially raises costs, is anti-business, is
anti-development, and ultimately is designed to
increase union membership while at the same time
limit the number of options for employers, employees,
and taxpayers. In essence this proposal, if passed,
will raise your property taxes and increase your utility
rates, while at the same time sending business
scurrying for the exits.

Consider the facts. Businesses that are subject to
the inflexibility of unions do not necessarily pay
more. In fact, they often limit their operations or
limit hiring. As such, fewer people are employed,
fewer benefits are paid out, and those businesses
often look elsewhere to expand. When fewer
businesses operate in any particular area, fewer
people are employed and people pay higher taxes.
Moreover, allowing unions to easily unionize
employees only gives those employees a temporary
boost – when they leave that place of employment
they lack the essential skills to make their way in the
market place. The card check neutrality agreement
proposed by Councilor Stover is seemingly most
beneficial to him. If passed, Councilor Stover can be
assured the union will claim victory for the worker
while ignoring the negative effects it will bring to our
area. Further, Councilor Stover could be assured the
unions will work hard for him in his upcoming
election – this is political cronyism in its most obvious
form.

To be sure, the Chamber is not against unions. For
example, we openly support labor unions’ “project
labor agreements.” This is where a union builder
competitively wins an award to build a building and
then is allowed to make sure the project is staffed by
top quality and well trained union workers. In this
case, everybody wins. Workers make good wages
and continue to acquire training that makes them
employable when the job ends. Unions are good
when they help educate workers, are flexible, and
serve to make their members employable in whatever
market they so choose.

Councilor Stover ought to consider his allegiances,
motivations for, and ramifications of his proposal. His
primary allegiance is a union that proposes their
members get a thirty percent raise when our city
already uses every penny of property tax just to pay
the retiree benefits of our city workers, and a union
that is bent upon holding political leadership no
matter what the cost to the taxpayer. Moreover,
does the councilor really think that artificially inflating
the wages of those entering the job market really
help or will it just chase away business? But then
again we should not hold our collective breath that
Councilor Stover will change his mind – he has never
found a tax or a utility rate that he has not been
willing to raise.

Families with lower incomes, the elderly, and business
owners should be concerned about Councilor Stover’s
tactics – he isn’t. Tell him so by emailing your
thoughts to rstover@ci.duluth.mn.us.

For complete story see Duluth News Tribune article:
Stover Proposes Organizing Ordinance.