Published: February 13, 2007 12:10 pm            

Fair Share capable of derailing entire legislative session

Perhaps the words Fair Share don’t scare you yet — but they should. Not because of what the bill floating around the Iowa Statehouse could mean to non-union workers covered by union contracts, but because of what Fair Share could do to the entire legislative session.

The topic surfaced locally at Saturday’s legislative forum at the Clinton Area Chamber Commerce, with some people strongly opposing the proposal, legislators stating the bill is misunderstood and no one getting anywhere near a consensus. This has all the hallmarks of an issue that could completely derail lawmakers from their primary task — adopting a sound budget that addresses the concerns of a majority of Iowans.

Not that we’re surprised. It seems every legislative session starts out with good intentions before a hot button issue completely dominates attention. Whether it’s eminent domain, sex offender residency or Fair Share, nearly every spring has an issue of some importance that manages to take not just center stage, but force nearly everything else to the background delaying crucial budget decisions until the 100-day deadline — when lawmakers no longer receive daily living expenses — is imminent.

Is the Fair Share debate an argument worth having? Certainly. A Des Moines Register poll revealed adult Iowans to be fairly well split on the issue, with 40 percent supporting, 50 opposing and 10 undecided. The Clinton Regional Development Corp. is strongly opposing the legislation, yet Sen. Roger Stewart says it’s so infantile that he hasn’t even seen a copy of the bill. Rep. Tom Schueller says it would affect just 1 percent of the Iowa workforce, but the CRDC maintains it already is causing business to look outside of Iowa when siting new developments.

At the heart of the matter is what impact Fair Share would have on Iowa’s “right to work” law, which stipulates people do not have to join a labor union in order to have a job. Though more working Americans than ever are either not union members or not working in professions where union membership is even an option, those who are union members or supervise organized laborers have deep, strong feelings about both Fair Share and right to work, and those people will demand their voices be heard.

We certainly don’t want to see that debate squashed. Yet we have a hard time seeing how this is something that absolutely must be addressed before our lawmakers roll up their sleeves and get into the budget. It seems much more logical to deal with the agenda stated in January, adopt a budget and then concern ourselves with larger, topical issues.

With Iowa’s legislative calendar, multi-tasking is simply not practical. Lawmakers are in session less than a third of each calendar year and routinely are unable to complete the tasks they create within the allotted time. That special sessions are either convened or considered on such a regular basis ought to send a very strong message that we are asking too much of our lawmakers in too little time and that the entire calendar ought to be scrutinized and modernized.

Of course, there’s never any time to have that discussion, either, since we’re always busy chasing the biggest news of the day. We’d all benefit from a more clear focus, but who knows when that dream will become reality?

What is it?

According to The Associated Press, Fair Share legislation would require workers covered by a union contract — but who are not union members — to pay a fee for union services.

A bill containing the union fee collection proposal is under study by members of the Senate Labor and Business Relations Committee. A companion bill was introduced last week in the House. The legislation would apply to both private and public employees.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.