Does democracy belong in the workplace?

It’s been a long while since right-to-work has been debated in America. But…it’s back. I’ve always opposed right-to-work laws. Wyoming enacted one 1965. It’s the source of low wages, high rates of workplace deaths and injuries, and a generational economic stagnation interrupted only with an occasional boom. I always thought right-to-work laws were a part of a Machiavellian plot to destroy the influence of organized labor.

I surmised that union opponents wanted more than simply limiting the ability of labor leaders to bargain for their members. After all, corporations can hire effective negotiators themselves. I believed the real problem is that unions were a thorn in the side of conservatives. After all, unions led the fights for civil rights, women’s rights, environmental protection, and fair employment laws. They registered voters and got them out to vote, often for Democrats. Republicans believed that if they reduced union influence, it wouldn’t be long before only Republicans could get elected in Wyoming.

I figured those were the reasons Republicans supported right-to-work laws. I was wrong. That was just coincidence. Right-to-work proponents are just concerned about workers’ well-being…so they say.

Right-to-work supporters may be on to something. Initially it seemed unfair to allow workplace deadbeats to reap benefits of union members without contributing their dues to the common cause. The Michigan experience offers a new way of looking at these things.

Consider this debate in a larger historical context.  Organized labor assures workers have a voice in the economy. It’s called “workplace democracy,” i.e. the application of democratic practices in employee-employer relationships. In our society democratic practices include voting, debate and participation in the decision-making systems through elected representatives.  

Right-to-work supporters oppose democracy in the workplace. If what happened last month in Michigan provides any evidence, they aren’t too high on democracy in public governance and lawmaking. But I digress.

Right-to-work laws don’t ban unions. They do allow workers who benefit from the work of the union to receive those benefits without having to financially contribute to the union that negotiated them. Some call it a freeloader law. The supporters of the renewed campaign to pass right-to-work laws in the United States assure the right to freeload is actually good for workers.

They claim it’ll make unions more responsible. Apparently, the whole idea is to replace democracy in the workplace with bare-boned capitalism. Right-to-work supporters fear union leaders have become complacent and take workers for granted because dues payments are mandatory not voluntary. They are so concerned about workers’ right that they claim to encourage the enactment of laws that will improve union leadership. Under right to work, the workers can choose whether to pay dues. Thus, they argue, union leaders will be forced to be more responsive and more effective. Get it now? It’s actually capitalism without democracy.

Think about the logical extension of that argument. If the choice to pay dues to a union can improve union leadership, can you imagine how much better American government could be if the voters were given the choice of whether to pay dues, i.e. taxes? Under the current social contract, much like union contracts, all members of our democracy are required to pay dues. If payment of dues, i.e. taxes, was contingent on whether we are pleased with the performance of government, leaders such as presidents, members of congress, and state legislators would have to do much better to persuade us to pay dues.

Congress’s single digit favorability rating would have to rise quickly in order to convince members of the democracy to pay their voluntary share. I suppose there would be those who freeload no matter how well government leaders perform but the right-to-work supporters feel there wouldn’t be many.

If the workplace is better served by giving workers a choice of whether to pay or freeload, American democracy deserves nothing less. I am sure that the Koch brothers and other billionaires who currently receive gracious service from elected officials will be first to pay their fair share, unlike now. 

Senator Charlie Scott vs the uninsured

Charlie Scott has served in the Wyoming legislature since 1979. He’s a bright fellow with Bachelors and Masters degrees from Harvard. Senator Scott earned a lot of respect around the Capitol over the years. He chairs the Labor, Health and Social Services Committee. Charlie has carved a niche for himself among legislators as an “expert” on health care.

It’s a shame he’s using that credibility to carry out a political vendetta against Obamacare to the detriment of his constituents. From the earliest days of the debate on healthcare reform, Charlie made a series of predictions about the demise of the Affordable Care Act. He’s been wrong every time.

First he predicted Congress wouldn’t pass the law. They did. He then predicted the 2010 elections would result in Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and they would repeal the law. When that didn’t happen, he bet the Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional. They didn’t. He then prophesied that Mitt Romney would become president and repeal the act. That didn’t work out so well either.

His colleagues acceded to his predictions delaying and eventually abandoning the opportunity to create a health insurance exchange that had great potential to benefit small businesses and individuals throughout Wyoming. The result will be a federal takeover of this critical healthcare effort.

Legislators must now decide whether to expand Medicaid to cover the uninsured. Despite being 0 for 4, Senator Scott has another prognostication. What’s at stake if Charlie goes 0 for 5 is health insurance for 30,000 Wyoming people and multiple-millions of dollars in savings to Wyoming taxpayers.

Federal law requires the federal government to pay 100% of the costs until 2016. After that date the federal share gradually falls from 95% in 2017 to 90% in 2019 and beyond. Senator Scott’s latest prediction is the federal government won’t actually pay what they’ve promised. However, changing that formula requires Congress to pass a new law. Does anyone really believe the Republican-led House and 60 senators would go along? In nearly half-a-century of Medicaid, Congress never significantly altered the federal share.

In 34 years as a legislator, Scott has not made a similar prediction about any of the millions Wyoming accepts every year for everything from roads to education and other health programs. Yet, his crystal ball augurs not only will the feds fail to meet this obligation but that expansion will result in a “big tax increase in this state, and it’s going to threaten the other priorities of the state.” Au contraire Senator.

Wyoming hospitals lost $200 million in 2011 caring for the uninsured. Scott knows those costs are shifted to people with insurance making premiums higher and that nearly all of that could be covered under Medicaid expansion. Yet pleas of hospital officials to support the expansion fell on deaf ears. He is willing to put that money at risk for his latest bet.  Worse, Charlie is also willing to bet millions of your tax dollars as well.

The Mead administration acknowledges that unless Wyoming expands Medicaid, you’ll pay an additional 80 million dollars for mandatory extensions of the program. Those dollars and millions more can be saved if, and only if, Wyoming agrees to the optional expansion. Enough would be saved to pay that 80 million and save another 47 million in addition.

Actually there’s an opportunity to save tens of millions more if legislators carefully scrutinize all the programs that could be eliminated or reduced if Medicaid is expanded.

Charlie Scott despises Obamacare so much that he is willing to ask you to pay hundreds of millions in taxes you wouldn’t otherwise have to pay. That’s his position. Experience teaches that facts will not change Charlie’s mind. Now his colleagues will have to decide whether they are willing to go along with him on this bet. It would be an easier choice if Charlie were betting his own money. He’s not. Email him today at charles.scott@wyoleg.gov.

Tell Charlie, “Cut my taxes and insure the uninsured.”

A lot of people will tell you many things

My late father-in-law was Sid Werner, former head of what’s now called the Department of Administration and Information. He was also the assistant to two iconic Superintendents of Public Instruction, Velma Linford and Harry Roberts, and an astute observer of the legislature.  

Sid once said, “A lot of people will tell you many things.” When it comes to education accountability in Wyoming, a lot of people are telling you many things.

At a caucus of the Democratic legislators, School Superintendent Cindy Hill gave a presentation on the state of education in Wyoming. She is articulate and passionate about her job. She cited districts that have achieved successes in student performance. Hill defended the work of her office and praised the work of local educators to demonstrate that what we hear from the legislature may not be the whole story.

But, the next morning a new report card on education in Wyoming surfaced, this time from StudentsFirst, an organization whose goal is to ensure that laws, leaders, and policies make students, not adults, their top priority. StudentsFirst’s leader is Michelle Rhee, the former Chancellor of Schools in Washington, DC, recognized by education reformers as someone to whom policymakers should listen.

Wyoming and ten other states including Montana, Nebraska, and both Dakotas received failing grades. Wyoming’s schools were criticized for failure to assure “effective teachers and principals are identified, retained and rewarded by districts.”

The report argued that Wyoming policymakers too often fail to use data to make decisions about education. The conclusion is hard to avoid when too many legislative leaders act like they are department heads rather than legislators and their decisions are driven more by politics than by facts, data or research.

This is not intended as criticism of the current Superintendent. Her GOP friends in the legislature have gleefully assumed that role. Cindy Hill is in a tough position. She’s the target of influential members of the legislature. Whether deserved or otherwise, I don’t know. But I do know from personal experience that once they decide to focus on you, the truth quickly becomes irrelevant.

When the Executioner tried to take the hat of the Mad Hatter before the beheading. The Hatter resisted. "I'd like to keep it on.” The executioner said, “Suit yourself, as long as I can get at your neck.” It’s like that.

The problem isn’t the Superintendent. It’s the schizophrenia of trying to find someone to blame when the Superintendent of Public Instruction is given all the responsibility and little of the authority. It’s what happens when a lot of people tell you many things. At the heart of the schizophrenia are legislators who say one thing at home and another on the floor of the legislature.

The term “schizophrenia” is used intentionally as opposed to words like hypocrisy. Legislators actually believe in mutually inconsistent ideas quite often. One of the symptoms of schizophrenia is the ability to hold false beliefs despite the presence of invalidating evidence. It’s important to note the symptom must prevail for at least one-month before making a valid diagnosis, which is why the legislature meets for 40 days.

At home they tell their neighbors who serve on school boards that they should have the authority to make education decisions without interference from Cheyenne. When in Cheyenne, they berate the Superintendent for not making sure the local folks are accountable. Ms. Hill should know this isn’t about her so much as it is a pattern for many legislators. It’s how they keep friends back home while creating a delusion of fulfilling their responsibility as legislators.

If the legislature is sincere about accountability it should change how State Superintendents of Public Education are chosen. If this job really matters, there must be a more important qualification than simply winning the most votes in a Republican primary. The legislature should allow the governor to choose a genuine education reformer, pay him or her what they are worth, and then get out of their way.

Wyoming Fast Facts

Headlines we'd like to see from the legislature

There are some headlines you might expect to see during the next few weeks judging from the make-up of the Wyoming legislature. Headlines such as “Life-time appointments proposed for legislators who always run unopposed – savings from unnecessary elections diverted to road construction” and “Legislature decides to eliminate middleman-Wyoming Mining Association to replace DEQ and Department of Revenue.”

When our legislature convened, it officially became the most conservative, single-party, legislative body in the country. Nearly 85% are Republicans. But, applied to this tribe, the term is a misnomer. Most aren’t what you may think of as “Republicans.” Most are RINOs.

RINO (Republicans-in-name-only), a slur frequently employed by rightwing Republicans to insult their more moderate colleagues, also provides an explanation why so few are what your father and Barry Goldwater might have recognized as Republicans. Their party splinters into moderate and far-right conservative Republicans. Others are libertarians and more than a few are Theocrats.

In Goldwater’s day, Republicans believed in smaller government. They also believed in personal responsibility, social liberty and freedom of religion. “The conservative movement,” according to the man they called “Mr. Conservative,” was “founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

To them, “small government” was smart enough to know that to everything there is a season. Goldwater Republicans understood there’s a time for government to act and a time for government to refrain from acting. “I’m a great believer in the free competitive enterprise system and all that it entails,” Goldwater said. ”I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.”

Government should be small, Goldwater thought, but neither invisible nor irresponsible. If Wyoming’s legislative majority were actually traditional Republicans, you might expect to see headlines like “Legislators seek delay in fracking, pending answers about impact on people’s water supply.” Don’t hold your breath and don’t drink the water in Pavillion.

Most GOP legislators in Wyoming aren’t traditional Republicans. Many are self-described libertarians. David Boaz, of the libertarian leaning CATO Institute says, "Libertarianism is the idea that adults have the right and the responsibility to make important decisions about their own lives. You could say you learn the essence of libertarianism -- which is also the essence of civilization -- in kindergarten: don’t hit other people, don’t take their stuff, keep your promises.”

If these legislators are actually libertarians, what headlines might you expect to see?

“Conservatives reject big government efforts to control who others may marry” and “Wyoming legislators reject proposals to mandate legislatively-prescribed medical advice to pregnant women.”

Traditional Republicans and libertarians alike believe in state’s rights and fiscal responsibility. If they are true to their dogma, you’d expect to see these headlines. “Fiscal conservatives seize opportunity to save state taxpayers tens-of-millions of dollars under Medicaid expansion” and “Republican majority rejects with Mead’s proposal to turn healthcare over to feds - will create a Wyoming-specific health insurance exchange.” But pure anti-Obama politics may trump dogma.

Theocrats will do the preaching. They are neither Republicans nor libertarians. They ran as Republicans but only represent God, or at least their view of God. They want a god-sized government, big enough to make your personal choices. They didn’t learn as much as libertarians did in Kindergarten. Theocrats run for office for only one reason. They believe God has called them to “hit other people” and “take their stuff,” i.e. civil rights.

They’ll insist on writing their personal religious beliefs about marriage, education, healthcare, contraception, climate change, etc. into law. Theocrats don’t believe in state’s rights either. They want to nullify decisions of legislators from other states if legislators from those states don’t make the “right” choice.

Theocrats will consume valuable time preaching to the committees and on the floor. They’ll make a lot of headlines. We’ll see whether other members of the tribe can prevent them from converting those sermons and headlines into state law.

Voters choose religious freedom

We will look back on 2012 as the time when Americans put “freedom” back into “religious freedom.” For decades, religious freedom meant the freedom to use one’s religious beliefs to discriminate against others. Molly Worthen, a history professor at the University of North Carolina, wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “Christianity’s preferential place in our culture and civil law came under fire this year.” The damage was self-inflicted.

The Irish know how this works. When Protestants decided they alone knew the truth, they decreed Irish Catholics had to convert. First they first sent their preachers. But the English clergymen didn’t speak the language of the Irish, i.e. Gaelic. Their efforts were, therefore, unpersuasive. Having failed in the pulpit, Protestants then turned to government. Protestant politicians, eager to pander to the majority, used government to assure religious affiliation. They passed laws making it difficult to remain a Catholic. Civil rights afforded Protestants were denied to those who understood God differently.

That failed strategy proved irresistible in America. First, clergy failed to make their case on social issues in their preaching. So they hired lobbyists, formed political action committees and made an end run around their parishioners, going instead to legislators. Having lost the authority of the pulpit they moved the battlefield on same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception and other issues from the church into the political arena.

For a long while the strategy was successful. Legislators enacted laws imposing one narrow set of religious beliefs on those who did not share them. They read the Bible and understood God in one way and had the votes to force their interpretation on everyone.

That changed on November 6, 2012. On Election Day there was a seismic shift in the definition of religious freedom.  The voters decided it was time that religious freedom was not about oppression. Each American should be permitted to believe and practice her or his relationship with God, as they understand it. They chose religious freedom over religious tyranny.

For starters, one of the decisive issues in the presidential contest was the candidates’ competing views on a woman’s right to choose. Two senate candidates who were initially expected to win ended up losing when they said the government should make a woman’s decision and the voters chose personal choice. The party that made access to contraception an issue fell far short.

One of the clearest indications voters extended religious freedoms came on same-sex marriage. Devout people of all faiths find themselves on both sides. But those who oppose marriage equality turned a civil rights issue into a political circus. For a time they were able to use the ballot box and state and federal lawmakers to discriminate and oppress others.

Last month three more states joined several others in deciding to stop using a questionable Biblical interpretation to deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Voters had no problem with how some folks interpreted the Bible. But they’d had their fill of one interpretation becoming the law of the land. What Professor Worthen called,  “Christianity’s historic right to police the boundary between secular principles and religious beliefs” came to an end.

Wisconsin voters elected an openly lesbian woman to the U.S. Senate. Colorado elected a gay man to be the Speaker of the House. All of this means gay rights will never again be a wedge issue.

The most promising sign for those who believe in the freedom of religion was the fact that Romney’s Mormon faith was never an issue as Catholicism was for Kennedy. A close second was the marginalization of the “religious right.” The Republican Party is engaged in soul-searching about what went wrong on their journey to the White House. Many are coming to the realization that Americans have little or no patience for using the political process as a religious hammer.

Rightwing religionists will play the victim, feeling martyred and claiming the nation will be judged. But fewer Americans are willing to listen and that’s a victory for religious freedom.