Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/02/2000 08:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 2, 2000
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Hal Smalley
Representative Scott Ogan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative James, Chair
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 309
"An Act relating to the relationship between employees and labor
organizations; and prohibiting collective bargaining contracts
that require employees to join a labor or employee organization;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 292
"An Act adopting the National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact; making criminal justice information available to
interested persons and criminal history record information
available to the public; providing for the use of criminal
justice information and records by the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board; making certain conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 324
"An Act requiring written consent by the person who is the
subject of the information before releasing personal information
contained in motor vehicle records, to comply with 18 U.S.C.
2721; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 367
"An Act providing for the revocation of driving privileges by a
court for a driver convicted of a violation of traffic laws in
connection with a fatal motor vehicle or commercial motor vehicle
accident; and amending Rules 43 and 43.1, Alaska Rules of
Administration."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 309
SHORT TITLE: RIGHT TO WORK
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/00 1973 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/21/00 1973 (H) STA, L&C, FIN
1/21/00 1973 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
3/02/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher
to Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 309.
STEPHEN GOODRICK, Vice President
National Right to Work Committee
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 309.
ED FLANAGAN, Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position regarding HB
309.
DON ETHERIDGE
AFL-CIO
710 W 9th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Director of
Legislative and Governmental Affairs
Teamsters Local 959
520 G Street and 34th Street
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 309.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
DARRYL TSEU, Regional Director
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific
231 South Franklin, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
HEIDI KELLEY
19242 Cherni Circle
Eagle River, Alaska 99694
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 309.
BOB CONGDON, President
Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 309.
DON VALESKO
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
DAVID FORD, Business Manager
Ironworker's Local
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
WILLIE ANDERSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 309.
WALLY STUART, President
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1496
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
HARRY CRAWFORD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
JOHN BROWN
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 309.
ANDREW HODNIK
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
JOHN JOHNSON
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 309.
DAN RAUTIO
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
ROBERT HUBLER
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 309.
CLAUDE STANLEY
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
STEVEN JOSWIAK
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1496
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
FRED KUYKENDALL
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
MILT BEAR, District Representative
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 309.
MR. DAUGHERTY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 309.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Green, Whitaker, Kerttula and
Smalley. Representatives Hudson and Ogan arrived as the meeting
was in progress. Representative James, Chair, was excused.
HB 309-RIGHT TO WORK
Number 0060
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN announced the first order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 309, "An Act relating to the relationship between
employees and labor organizations; and prohibiting collective
bargaining contracts that require employees to join a labor or
employee organization; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0148
RANDY LORENZ, Researcher to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, said HB 309 basically makes it illegal to
force Alaskan workers to join a union or pay union dues as a
condition of employment. Alaskan workers retain the right to
join a union or support a union, only now it would be an
individual's choice. He noted that Stephen Goodrick would
explain the intricacies of HB 309 and how it will improve the
Alaskan employment scene.
Number 0286
STEPHEN GOODRICK, Vice President, National Right to Work
Committee, read the following testimony about HB 309:
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak before you today.
My name is Stephen Goodrick, and I am Vice President of
the National Right to Work Committee, a two-million-
member association dedicated to the principle that
every worker must have the right - but no worker should
ever be compelled - to join or support a labor union as
a condition of employment.
With this in mind, the National Right to Work Committee
enthusiastically endorses HB 309 and SB 230, the Alaska
Right to Work Act, and would like to commend
Representatives Kohring and Green in taking the first
step toward freeing Alaskan workers from the tyranny of
compulsory unionism.
The bill is simple. It makes it illegal to force
workers to join a union or pay union dues as a
condition of employment, to get or keep a job. It does
nothing to diminish the right of individual workers to
join and participate freely in a labor union of their
own choice. What could be more basic or more fair?
Unfortunately, today in Alaska thousands of working men
and women have no choice. The message to these
independent-minded workers is unmistakable: join the
union and pay union dues or don't work.
There is no natural right in a free society for any
private association to compel representation or
financial tribute. The true role of government in a
free society is to protect the individual's ability to
exercise his or her right without harassment or
interference.
Passing right to work would let Alaska's workers say to
the union "persuade me - don't force me." That's the
American way!
Unions operate the same in right-to-work states as they
do now in a forced-unionism state like Alaska. Under a
right-to-work law, the only thing that changes is that
union officials can no longer negotiate for a union
security clause - a contract that forces workers to pay
union dues.
Despite misinformation from union officials, Right to
Work has no effect on nominal wages.
According to the Union Membership and Earnings Data
Book, published by the Bureau of National Affairs, the
average weekly earnings of private-sector union members
in a right-to-work state is $600, while union members
earn $594 in non-right-to-work states.
But Alaska's failure to pass a right-to-work law has
costs far above the injustice to individual workers:
every Alaskan pays the price in lost jobs, higher taxes
and a lower standard of living.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) own numbers show
right-to-work states have higher real income. The AFL-
CIO's information comes from U.S. Department of Labor
data, which does not adjust for cost of living, state
by state. After adjusting for cost of living, the
benefits of right to work are crystal clear:
Average Hourly Earnings in Manufacturing
8 percent higher in right-to-work states
Average Weekly Earnings in Manufacturing
7.6 percent higher in right-to-work states
Average Per Capita Personal Income
$1,100 higher in right-to-work states
Average Annual Pay
$900 higher in right-to-work states
Number 0721
These numbers confirm the right-to-work advantage
reported by Nobel prize-winning economist James Bennett
of George Mason University. Indeed, the gap is even
wider, Dr. Bennett found, as a result of adjusting for
state-by-state differences in taxation.
MR. GOODRICK noted that organized labor collects - according to
their own figures that they file with the federal government, in
the private sector alone - $13 billion annually. Of that, $5
billion comes from workers like those in Alaska who would be
fired if they stopped paying union dues. Then, he said,
organized labor spends their forced-dues, vicious-cycle money on
placing their political puppets in Congress and in state
legislatures. He pointed out that unions have a big impact on
the political process, and one of the corollary impacts of their
political effort is a rise in local/state taxes. He continued to
read his testimony:
A typical urban family in a right-to-work state has
$2,852 more after-tax purchasing power than the same
family would have in a non-right-to-work state,"
according to Dr. Bennett in his report, "A Higher
Standard of Living in Right-to-work States."
Dr. Bennett showed that much of the reason families are
so much better off in right-to-work states is because
they pay nearly 25 percent less for food, housing,
health care, transportation, utilities, property taxes
and college tuition than families in forced-unionism
states.
Since 1980, per-capita income has grown in right-to-
work states by 11 percent more than non-right-to-work
states.
Total economic growth in right-to-work states has
outpaced non-right-to-work states by 25 percent since
1991 and is projected to do the same until 2001 by 9
percent, according to Financial World magazine.
The importance which businesses attribute to a state's
policy encouraging cooperative and voluntary relations
between labor and management has been clear for many
years. According to M. Elizabeth Morris, president and
chief economist of Insight Research Corporation, one of
the country's dominant competitors in corporate
relocation research, 90 percent of companies use forced
collective bargaining as a first "kick out" criteria
and choose to locate only in right-to-work states when
their overall operating requirements give them any
latitude on this issue. Put simply, all other things
being equal, 90 percent of companies will automatically
eliminate non-right-to-work states when relocating.
The results of this thinking can be clearly seen.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, between 1960
and 1993 right-to-work states created nearly 2.7
million new, high-paying manufacturing jobs, while
during the same period forced-unionism states lost
about 1.4 million jobs. The evidence is clear:
employee freedom and prosperity go hand in hand.
As I have shown, the case for right-to-work legislation
in Alaska is compelling from any legitimate perspective
- moral, political or economic - but union officials
who want to keep coercing union dues from unwilling
workers will say or do anything to keep the forced-dues
money rolling into their coffers.
By fighting against right to work, union officials are
telling you the only way they can stay in business is
by forcing their members to pay dues. That's
outrageous. Right-to-work supporters know that when
workers see a union truly representing them, they won't
need to be compelled to pay tribute - they will gladly
join.
A good labor union has no need for a compulsory system
to attract members, and a bad union doesn't deserve
them. In the interest of the rights of working men and
women in Alaska, of sound public policy, and of basic
fairness, I urge you to support HB 309 and SB 230.
Number 1192
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked for a copy of Mr. Goodrick's
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked who is bringing HB 309 forward.
MR. GOODRICK replied that the National Right to Work Committee
had been notified by their members in Alaska. He believes there
are between five and ten thousand members in Alaska who are the
impetus behind HB 309. The National Right to Work Committee
applauds the sponsors in their effort to bring HB 309 forward and
publish the facts.
Number 1309
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there are thousands of employees
in Alaska who have come to Representative Kohring and suggested
this language.
MR. GOODRICK answered that over the years thousands of
individuals from Alaska have contacted the state legislature in
favor of a right-to-work policy.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON specified that he just wanted to know how
many employees in Alaska have come to Representative Kohring and
suggested this language.
Number 1321
MR. LORENZ replied that about six or seven constituents had
requested that Representative Kohring draft HB 309, and the main
spokesperson for that group was Tuckerman Babcock. In response,
he added, Representative Kohring had asked Mr. Lorenz to research
the right-to-work issue, and Mr. Lorenz found that there was
credible evidence worth investigating. He explained that in
researching the issue he had contacted the National Right to Work
Committee and was helped by that committee to draft HB 309.
Number 1371
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Mr. Lorenz could "guesstimate"
whether the statement that Mr. Goodrick had made regarding
thousands of members was correct. He also asked whether Mr.
Lorenz knew how many union members have contacted Representative
Kohring.
MR. LORENZ replied that he did not know any personal contacts,
but the general flavor of the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Valley
is against forced union [labor]. He said a large following of
people in the area would like to see Alaska become a right-to-
work state, and he had spoken to about 50 of them who wanted to
do something about unions.
Number 1419
MR. GOODRICK said that he does not know of a recent poll in
Alaska regarding popularity in Alaska of the right-to-work
proposal, but across the nation eight out of ten Americans think
it is unfair and improper to require a worker to pay union dues
as a condition of employment. He offered his opinion that the
numbers would be higher in Alaska given the Alaskan population's
"independent streak," and it would be good for someone to get a
poll done on the subject. He noted that in the national poll
already cited, 56 percent of all union households supported right
to work, for the simple reason that they know the problem. He
indicated many union households are being forced to pay.
Number 1491
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON informed the committee that a lion's share
of employees who work in Juneau are affiliated with organized
labor in one form or another, but many employees do not belong to
a union. He indicated not one person has come to him asking that
the legislature support the elimination of the right to bargain
freely, although he has not heard from people who work in the
mines or in construction and so forth. People do have individual
labor problems that he tries to solve for them, but not that the
laws on the books are unfair. He said he is trying to gauge
where support for HB 309 is coming from, and six or seven people
in the Mat-Su Valley does not sound like a tremendous band-led
march.
Number 1596
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked where Mr. Goodrick had come from.
MR. GOODRICK replied that he had come from Washington, D.C.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said that he understood Mr. Lorenz to say
that Tuckerman Babcock from the Mat-Su had spearheaded HB 309.
MR. LORENZ answered that he was not sure, but Tuckerman Babcock
seemed to be one of the focal points of HB 309. He noted that
other individuals had approached Representative Kohring about
doing something with the forced-union concept.
Number 1656
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Lorenz knew where Mr. Babcock
works and to which union Mr. Babcock pays dues.
MR. LORENZ replied that Mr. Babcock is with the Matanuska
Electric Association (MEA).
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Babcock belongs to the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
MR. LORENZ said he did not know whether Mr. Babcock had union
ties.
Number 1669
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Mr. Goodrick if the committee is
discussing the right to work at a union job and not belong to
that union, or does that mean a right to work at a union job and
belong to the union and not pay dues.
MR. GOODRICK replied that HB 309 would abolish the practice of
requiring workers to pay any union dues whatsoever in order to
find or keep a job in any company in the private sector. It
would eliminate the concept of the union-only job, which he
characterized as a creation of federal law. Mr. Goodrick said he
envisions that with passage of HB 309 it would be illegal to
discriminate against any worker on the basis of whether or not
he/she is a union member. Currently, under federal law, it is a
very serious unfair labor practice if an employer discriminates
against a prospective employee in hiring or firing him/her based
on union affiliation. However, if the employer and the union
collaborate to fire a worker because he/she is not a union
member, that is encouraged under federal policy. Now the
committee has the opportunity to correct that.
Number 1767
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS reiterated that the object of HB 309 is to
not pay dues.
MR. GOODRICK replied that the object of HB 309 is for workers to
have the choice of where their money should go. If workers want
to pay union dues, they can do so, but if not, HB 309 would give
workers freedom to make that choice themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if people would stop paying dues and
still accept advantages that the union has brought them over the
years, human nature being what it is.
Number 1807
MR. GOODRICK answered that it is ironic that organized labor has
a low opinion of the low caliber of the workforce in this
country. He said he believes workers will join organizations
that do the workers good if they see that as being in their
interest. He quoted Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL-CIO, as
saying that "the workers of America will adhere voluntarily to
organizations rather than those that compel them to pay."
Number 1838
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS maintained that it is human nature not to
pay this week for something that was fought for last year or ten
years ago.
MR. GOODRICK noted that a very corrupt system develops, human
nature being what it is, when someone has the ability to extract
money from people against the people's will. He added that such
a situation also results in lack of accountability between the
head of a union and membership if the member does not have any
choice regarding payment of dues to the union. He suggested the
"free riders" in this system are not the working people but are
those who force other people to pay the salaries of the free
riders, whether working people want to pay or not.
Number 1905
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked if the sponsor of HB 309 and his
supporters in the Mat-Su understood labor laws regarding the
collective bargaining process in view of the [sponsor] statement,
which says: "Simply put, HB 309 makes it illegal to force
Alaskan workers to join a union or pay union dues as a condition
of employment." He voiced his understanding that workers are
not forced to pay union dues, and if they do not wish to be union
members, they do not pay union dues but do pay what is called a
representation fee, which is determined by independent
arbitration based on the cost of representing workers in the
working environment.
Number 1963
MR. LORENZ replied that Representative Smalley's statement is not
entirely true because Mr. Lorenz remembers that when he was a
member of a union he was required to pay full dues even though he
did not want representation.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said he wanted to see the statistical data
of the five to ten thousand members in Alaska because it is
surprising to him.
Number 1976
MR. GOODRICK agreed to supply a list of the five to ten thousand
members by zip code.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Goodrick if members of his
organization paid dues.
MR. GOODRICK answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Goodrick if he would represent
his members if they did not pay dues.
Number 2046
MR. GOODRICK noted that his organization represents many
independent businesses and employees that do not pay dues, but
the organization is not obligated to represent people who do not
pay dues.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked which states are right-to-work
states.
Number 2077
MR. GOODRICK replied that there are 21 right-to-work states,
mostly located in the south and west of the United States,
including Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Utah and Nevada.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how negotiation works in those
states if, for example, everybody opts out of unions.
MR. GOODRICK answered that then the union would not have any role
between employees and employers; employers would have to deal
directly with their own employees.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Goodrick if he had studied any
of those situations to see what kind of negotiations workers came
up with.
Number 2135
MR. GOODRICK replied that anecdotally his organization has found
naive employers who were willing to provide good health benefits
and wages to their employees, but union business managers had
refused to negotiate anything until the union security clause was
signed.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that was not her question. She
asked how workers negotiate when there are no unions and whether
Mr. Goodrick had studied what happens in those situations.
MR. GOODRICK replied that in 80 percent of companies in America,
there are no unions. The employer talks to the employee, and
they negotiate between themselves what the employee wants to work
for and what the employer is willing to pay.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether Mr. Goodrick had compared
what those companies and employees earn with companies that have
unions, to see what the differences are.
MR. GOODRICK replied that he is sure that there are studies by
other organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if Mr. Goodrick had that
information.
MR. GOODRICK answered no because he does not take a position on
that issue.
Number 2224
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said Mr. Goodrick had provided some
statistical information regarding wages in right-to-work states
versus the collective bargaining union process. Representative
Smalley asked if those figures include wages, medical plans,
working conditions, safe working environment, hours and
retirement security benefits.
MR. GOODRICK replied that all wages and benefits are included.
Number 2253
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY inquired if Mr. Goodrick had a breakdown
of wages and benefits comparable to those paid by union
activities.
MR. GOODRICK answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the 21 right-to-work states are
fairly recent or have been right-to-work states for a few years.
MR. GOODRICK emphasized that with the support of $13 billion,
there exists much organized opposition in each state where right-
to-work laws are trying to succeed.
Number 2325
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN repeated his question, then asked when Texas
became a right-to-work state.
MR. GOODRICK answered that he thinks it was in the '40s.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had asked because he was interested
in knowing if perhaps they had been union states previously, and
once they got wages up to par, then the states opted out; he
suggested that if that were the case, then Mr. Goodrick's
statistics could be out of kilter. However, since right-to-work
states have been right-to-work for quite a while, then he thinks
that Mr. Goodrick's statement that right-to-work states generally
have higher wages than those that are union states is a valid
statistic.
Number 2362
MR. GOODRICK replied that over the last 30 years it has been
getting better and better. Although some states have passed
right-to-work laws recently, the majority passed them right after
Congress gave them authorization to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if Mr. Goodrick's organization
contributes to political campaigns.
MR. GOODRICK answered absolutely not.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if Mr. Goodrick's organization
collected dues.
MR. GOODRICK replied in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON inquired as to the organization's annual
gross collection.
MR. GOODRICK answered $10 million annually.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how Mr. Goodrick uses that money.
Number 2401
MR. GOODRICK replied that the money is used to communicate with
members, and he is going to advise supporters to contact their
legislators regarding HB 309.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if Mr. Goodrick makes a contribution
to anyone in Congress, anyone in the other states, or anyone in
the right-to-work states.
MR. GOODRICK answered that his organization does not endorse,
support or oppose any candidate for any office - local, state or
federal.
Number 2429
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that he admired Mr. Goodrick's
courage and asked if Mr. Goodrick had ever been threatened.
MR. GOODRICK replied that $13 billion in the hands of
unaccountable officials often does result in violence and
coercion.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how many states have rescinded the
right-to-work law.
MR. GOODRICK answered that not one state has rescinded the right-
to-work law; however, one right-to-work law (not his version) was
struck down by the courts in Colorado. He said he wanted to
point out that fact and be very clear. When Representative
Hudson urged him to be honest, Mr. Goodrick also noted that the
right-to-work law was repealed in Louisiana in the late '70s,
then reenacted four years later.
Number 2577
ED FLANAGAN, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, said he appreciated the sponsor bringing the
gentleman from Virginia to tell Alaska what is good for Alaska
and its workers. He explained that there are a number of
protections for a union member who is either a conscientious
objector or who objects to the political or non-bargaining unit
activities of his/her union. First of all, unions face a
tremendous uphill battle to even organize and then retain a
majority status. The national labor relations law has really
been vitiated by a number of decisions, court actions and
practices by some employers - by large employer groups,
particularly since the '80s - so that the [United States]
probably has the weakest collective bargaining law, in terms of
the unfettered right to organize, in the Free World. He
acknowledged that workers still have the right to organize and
courageously manage to get together to form a collective voice as
a union in order to deal on some kind of parity with their
employers. He indicated that this right has been a supported,
stated policy of the United States, and the only statement in
Alaska Statute is in the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA),
but the state is on record in support of collective bargaining.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN emphasized that so-called right-to-work
bills are just an attempt to break unions. Very clearly, that is
their effect, as demonstrated by unionization rates before and
after right-to-work laws are passed by states. He emphasized
that there have only been two passed in the last 25 years, in
Louisiana and Idaho, the most recent in 1986. He remarked that
[right-to-work bills] are an exception to the federal labor law
from the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act that was vetoed by President
Truman; the veto was overridden, and then most of the states that
have a right-to-work [law] opted out the next year.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN reminded the committee that workers are the
union. Throughout the country there may be problems in various
places, but Alaskan unions are very democratic. He added that he
has been a winner and loser in union elections, and if the
committee thinks it is tough losing an election, wait until union
brothers and sisters turn a fellow union member out by election;
that is tough but that is democracy, and that is the way the
system works. He recognized that even if a union member is not
able to convince 30 percent of his/her co-workers to at least
hold a de-certification election to end a union, a union member
has other avenues open. He observed that a union member can try
a de-authorization vote to end the union security clause, and he
wants to be clear that unions do not impose union security
clauses.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN noted that although unions negotiate union
security clauses with employers, nothing requires an employer to
sign a union security clause. A union must obviously have the
support of a majority of members in the bargaining unit in order
to ratify the contract, and must convince the employer that the
members are enough behind that desire to, in effect, tax
themselves, just as do many other groups in Alaska in order to
pay for collective bargaining expenses. He noted that there is a
de-authorization process whereby without de-certifying the union,
union members can de-authorize or end the union security clause.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN explained that for three years after the
enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) conducted de-authorization elections, and
the NLRB suspended doing any more elections in 1950 because in
thousands of previous [de-authorization] elections, 91 percent of
the affected union members had voted to retain their union
security clause. However, there still is a process for de-
authorization, and beyond that there are U.S. Supreme Court
decisions. He mentioned the General Motors case dating back to
1963 in which if a union member refused to join the union, the
individual had an option of becoming what is called a financial
core member. He indicated that the individual paid a fee that
was just an equivalent amount of his/her fair share of the
union's representation grievance handling costs, not including
any political or even organizing activities costs.
Number 2882
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN related that there are even provisions for
political objectors to be rebated the amount charged by the union
for its political activities under the CWA vs. Beck [U.S.]
Supreme Court decision. He emphasized that although he might
personally think that it is not inappropriate for a
representative of working people to advance issues such as the
minimum wage and overtime laws in trying to influence the
legislature, those union fees are exempted [for a political
objector]. He also pointed out that the union security clause is
not imposed but is negotiated.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN strongly disagreed with the assertion that
there are 10,000 dues-paying members of the Right to Work
Committee in this state; he said that really goes to the
credibility of everything said here earlier. He emphasized that
he is referring to dues paid by members, not paid by their
employers or their employers' association on their behalf.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN maintained that the National Right to Work
Committee has never enlisted worker members and worker support.
He reiterated that a lot of the larger support for the Right to
Work Committee has come from employers and employer associations;
barred by law from contributing to campaigns against their
employees' unions, they go to the Right to Work Committee. The
case in point here in Alaska is typical. Mr. [Tuckerman] Babcock
is a management employee of Matanuska Electric, and it is well
known that Matanuska Electric has a very contentious relationship
with its union. He noted that just to mention Mr. Babcock and
Matanuska Electric says it all about where HB 309 is coming from.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN said he is confident that a majority
members on both sides of the aisle will see HB 309 for what it
is, and he does not expect HB 309 to get to Governor Knowles.
Unfortunately, HB 309 is another issue that drives a wedge in
Alaska's family. He explained that he very rarely brings up the
"V" [veto] word because he always leaves open the possibility
that some compromise or some acceptable accommodation can be made
on a bill; he has surprised himself on some of the things the
administration has been able to work out and eventually get
signed. However, he added, if HB 309 gets to Governor Knowles,
it will be vetoed so fast that it will make Mr. Goodrick's head
spin.
TAPE 00-14, SIDE B
Number 2904
DON ETHERIDGE testified that he is representing the AFL-CIO. He
acknowledged that there have been many changes in labor laws over
the years, and, as Commissioner Flanagan pointed out, nobody is
required to join the union; however, people do have to pay the
fees for service. He remarked that in the political climate of
today, user fees are utilized more, and he believes they are
fair. He reminded the committee that unions cannot buy political
influence because the legislature passed the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC) law a few years ago, which prohibits
use of union dues for any political purpose whatsoever. The only
dues used for political purposes are those so designated by
members of the union.
MR. ETHERIDGE stated that the Alaska AFL-CIO has 60,000 members.
The AFL-CIO conferences are open for anyone to make comments, and
they have not had one member object to paying union dues or
object to being a member of the union. If anyone did have a
problem with his/her local union, the local union worked out
payment fees with the member and has used auditors to figure out
exactly what the service fee is so that the member is not paying
for anything that he/she is not receiving.
MR. ETHERIDGE noted that in information that the AFL-CIO has,
they found that four states have repealed right-to-work laws.
The AFL-CIO also has a list of states that have placed right-to-
work laws on ballot referendums so as to try to vote down those
laws. He commented that right-to-work laws are not a popular
subject or as good as they are reported to be.
Number 2774
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for names of the four states.
MR. ETHERIDGE answered that the states are Delaware, Indiana,
Maine and New Hampshire. He mentioned that the referendum states
are California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico,
Ohio, Oklahoma and Washington, all of which have defeated right-
to-work laws on initiatives in their ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reiterated that he was looking for factual
information so as to get a better understanding. He apologized
if his [request for honesty from Mr. Goodrick] was offensive
because that was not his intention.
Number 2710
BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Director of Legislative and Governmental
Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, testified strongly against HB 309
on behalf of the 7,000 members of Teamsters Local 959 represented
throughout Alaska. She read her testimony as follows:
Some here today and around the state may ask, "what is
right to work?" and "why would we, the people who
represent workers and fight for this right, be opposed
to this bill?"
Let me begin at the beginning. The name itself "right
to work" is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with
individual rights. What this bill will do is weaken
all Alaskan unions, reduce wages, and cripple labor-
management relations.
This is a very complicated piece of legislation, and I
will briefly walk the committee through our major
concerns with this bill. To do this, I would like to
discuss some history.
In this country, right-to-work laws [sprang] up from
the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which was passed over
President Truman's veto. In President Truman's veto
message, he stated: "Taft-Hartley is completely
contrary to our national policy of economic freedom.
It would require government to become an unwanted
participant at every bargaining table."
To further understand, we must look at several sections
of Taft-Hartley because it is the real right-to-work
culprit.
Section 14(b). The authority to pass legislation that
prohibits unions from negotiating contracts which
require as a condition of employment membership in the
union.
Section 9(a) requires local unions to give equal
representation to both members and nonmembers in the
bargaining unit.
Section 9(e)(1) provides for elections to de-authorize
the union shop if 30 percent of the workers in the
bargaining unit request such an election. If a
majority votes against the union shop, it cannot be
part of the contract. It is the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) that conducts these elections.
Section 9(a)(1) provides for an election to decertify
the union as a bargaining agent if 30 percent of the
workers in the bargaining unit request such an
election. If a majority votes against the union, it is
no longer the bargaining representative. The NLRB
conducts this election as well.
Section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) protects workers from
discharge through union action for any reason except
nonpayment of dues. A worker expelled from the union
who continues to pay the equivalent of dues may not be
expelled from his or her job.
Section 9(c)(e) provides that in the event of an
economic strike, all employees, strikers and
replacements, are entitled to vote in an NLRB conducted
de-authorization election. If the election is held one
year after the strike started, striking employees are
not permitted to vote.
Section 9(d)(2). This section of Taft-Hartley was
repealed in 1951 in an effort led by Senator Taft. It
required government-conducted secret ballot elections
among workers to approve union shop clauses where they
were negotiated by the unions. I would note that
during the time that this section was still applicable
(4 years), there were 46,119 elections and 97.1 percent
resulted in approval of the union shop provision. In
Idaho in 1948, over 92 percent of the workers voted for
the union security clause (Taft's state).
Number 2222
Currently, the law does not require a person to be a
member of a union. Congress has provided protection
for religious objectors. They do not have to pay dues
to a union; instead they donate an equivalent sum to a
charity. An employee may choose to fulfill his/her
obligation under the union security clause by opting to
pay a "service fee" instead. Under the Beck's right
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the service fee
concept. The Beck decision found that the employee
would pay a fee related to the servicing of the
collective bargaining agreement.
Under the Beck decision, if the employee does not agree
with the amount of the service fee, then a third party
arbitrator is called in to determine the validity of
the numbers. We pay for those costs.
This bill, as it is written, allows for "free riders."
As a union organization, we are required to provide
services for all the employees in the bargaining unit.
All employees benefit equally from union
representation. They all receive the same wages,
fringes, working conditions, seniority rights, and
protection against arbitrary firing. Why shouldn't all
workers share in the costs of those services?
Let's talk about the opposition to union security. The
National Right To Work Committee often says that the
union security clause is undemocratic. In actuality,
the union shop is one of the best examples of the
democratic concept of majority rule.
In most cases, before a union can even represent the
employees of a company, a majority of those employees
must vote by secret ballot in an NLRB supervised
election for union representation. The majority of the
employees must vote again to accept a negotiated
collective bargaining agreement, which may include a
union security clause. Management also must agree to
negotiate such a provision in the agreement. Again, it
is all conducted by majority vote.
How many legislators would be willing to accept, after
they were elected, a vote by the people on what issues
they may or may not consider, after acting on those
issues, and another vote by the people on whether they
approve of what those elected officials did? Although
ultimately each of you [is] faced with that each
election year.
What about the moral question? The National Right To
Work Committee argues that morally, no individual
should have to join any organization to hold a job.
This freedom of choice argument espoused by the
National Right to Work Committee has a great surface
appeal because it involves a cherished right of
Americans to freely associate with organizations of
their own choosing.
It should be noted that under existing federal law, an
employee does not have to be a member of a union.
All things considered, the union shop is morally sound.
A right-to-work law bars the exercising of one of the
most fundamental freedoms of a democratic nation; the
freedom of contract. It prohibits an employer and a
union who agree to a union security clause from placing
such an agreement into a collective bargaining
agreement. It clearly is government interference in
our free enterprise system; government telling
management and labor what they can and cannot put into
a contract.
In conclusion, the right-to-work laws and the arguments
used to promote them are full of myths. Truly, the
biggest is its name; you do not need to pass a law to
give any of the employees that we represent a right to
work--that is something that all of us currently enjoy.
What this bill would do if passed is give all of us the
right to work for less by destroying the union that our
members have depended on to negotiate good wages,
benefits, and protected working conditions through the
collective bargaining process.
I request that all the committee members vote against
HB 309.
Number 1881
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked how the 7,000 members of Teamsters
Local 959 became members.
MS. TUCKNESS answered that they signed bargaining cards.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked what new members do to become union
members.
MS. TUCKNESS answered that people can walk into the union hiring
hall and sign up.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said [the union process] did not sound
like coercion to him. He asked Ms. Tuckness if it sounded like
coercion to her.
MS. TUCKNESS replied that all Teamster 959 members are not
necessarily referred through the hiring hall but can be hired by
management and get a connection to the union at the time of hire.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER noted that he seldom gets angry at
hearings of this nature, but to hear rhetorical misnomers such as
"right to work" and "individual right" and then take it to the
next step of "tyranny" and "coercion" is amazingly offensive. He
related that he has worked in a right-to-work state and the
[result] was a denigration of the workforce: wages were less
than in other states, the workforce itself was not nearly as
productive, and it was not nearly as safe. He said there is no
grassroots appeal for HB 309; rather, this is an outside group
working for its own benefit to come into Alaska for whatever
reason. However, there is no place for HB 309 in Alaska.
Number 1695
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education
Association-Alaska (NEA), said he too has lived and worked in a
state that he would characterize as right-to-work, which is
Arkansas. There, people had the opportunity to "collectively
beg," whereas here in Alaska people have the right to
"collectively bargain." There is a significant difference
between the two. He understands what it is like for an employee
to go to an employer, he said, but having that right carries with
it many manifestations; unfortunately, the result often is "you
can either take this job or you can take this condition; you have
a choice, you go one way or the other."
MR. MARSHALL pointed out that the great thing about collective
bargaining is it levels the playing field. He mentioned that
NEA-Alaska has 70 locals in 52 school districts, and has 16
locals that negotiated on union security provisions or agency
fees. He indicated it is a local decision, so in those 16
districts a school employee has an opportunity to join the union,
to pay a fee, or to request that an arbitration be conducted, at
which time an arbiter will hear objections raised by a nonmember.
He emphasized that the arbiter weighs input from a nonmember and
makes a decision relative to the fee that the individual would
pay as a result of the arbitration. He acknowledged that
nonmembers do challenge fees calculated by the local union, the
state union, NEA-Alaska and the National Education Association.
MR. MARSHALL reminded the committee that the nonmember has an
opportunity to choose religious objection and can simply pay a
fee instead of union dues; the fee is paid to the union and then
the union passes the fee on to a charity of the nonmember's
choice as prescribed by state law. He observed that NEA-Alaska
has approximately 40 districts with no fee; even in those
districts, NEA-Alaska has the right to bargain for the employees
in that district. Fee payers demand representation and salary
increases, and they receive benefits that are bargained through
the collective bargaining process. He does not know of one fee
payer who gave back his/her salary increase [that was] bargained
by a local union.
MR. MARSHALL noted that NEA-Alaska has the responsibility to
maintain that agreement. If a grievance is brought relative to a
fee payer or a nonmember, NEA-Alaska feels it has a
responsibility to represent that member. Of course, there are
costs associated with collective bargaining, with grievance
processing, and the administration of the union as it relates to
bargaining and grievance administration. Those costs are what
the objector pays for, but an objector does not pay for
membership campaigns or lobbying. He mentioned that a fee payer
does not pay one penny relative to political action.
MR. MARSHALL indicated he takes offense that Mr. Goodrick said
"you either pay dues or you don't work." Mr. Marshall informed
the committee that is not the case with NEA-Alaska, saying he
cannot name one person who has lost a job relative to failure to
pay dues. Yes, he remarked, NEA-Alaska does make an effort to
collect dues, and they refer a person to collections if they fail
to pay fees.
Number 1254
MR. MARSHALL referred to Mr. Goodrick's admonishment to "go
forward and recruit." He cautioned that HB 309 is fraught with
potential problems for any membership chairperson in a teacher or
school employee organization, or even the membership person
himself. He directed attention to page 3(l) of HB 309 and
quoted: "compel or attempt to compel by means of a threat,
intimidation, or ... coercion an employee to join, affiliate ...,
or financially support a labor organization or to refrain from
doing so ...." He noted that page 3, line 10, says such action
is a class B misdemeanor, and page 3, line 14, says that any
violator would have to pay "injunctive relief, damages, or both."
Mr. Marshall said it is not a large leap here to have a nonmember
simply say "you threatened me" or "you coerced me" just through
the act of asking. Therefore, although Mr. Goodrick says "go
forward and recruit," there is a crafty little clause in HB 309
that, if it does become law, would make it very difficult to even
recruit.
MR. MARSHALL said he grew up in a right-to-work state where state
teachers received the lowest compensation in the country.
Furthermore, Arkansas had the lowest per capita income. He
commented that it is refreshing to come to a state where there is
some value placed on wages, income and quality of life because,
in effect, that is the subject under discussion. He urged the
committee to protect Alaska from the "collective begging"
experience suffered by many states.
DARRYL TSEU, Regional Director, Inlandboatmen's Union of the
Pacific, said he had read U.S.A. Today a couple of weeks ago, and
it did portray figures that Mr. Goodrick had mentioned in regard
to salary and pay. He noted that Mr. Goodrick had mentioned that
in right-to-work states there was a huge amount of increase in
income, but Mr. Tseu thinks that is a little flawed. Mr. Tseu
reminded the committee that statistics can be bent any way one
chooses. He commented that the article said that people who made
at least $60,000-$100,000 a year experienced an increase in
salary over the last 15 years of about 15-20 percent. On the
other hand, people who had an average income of $25,000-$30,000 a
year experienced an increase of only about 3 percent. The
majority of employees in this state are working-class people
making the average $30,000 a year, and their wages have not
increased substantially, as Mr. Goodrick would like to suggest.
He emphasized that working-class people anywhere, in any state
including right-to-work states, have not experienced a
substantial increase in their wages.
Number 0927
HEIDI KELLEY testified via teleconference from Eagle River and
read her testimony as follows:
My name is Heidi Kelley. I am a lifelong registered
Democrat. I have been in the workforce for the last 26
years, serving the last 12 years as both an
administrative manager and as a human resources
professional. My professional and community
involvement includes membership in the Anchorage
Society of Human Resource Management, where I currently
serve on the board as the Community Service Chair and
also actively participate in the Alaska Grassroots
program. I am currently employed as a human resources
representative at Matanuska Electric Association in
Palmer, Alaska.
I am here today to present my individual viewpoint
regarding proposed HB 309, a right-to-work bill. I
base my viewpoint upon what I have seen first hand in
my significant experience as a recruiter and
interviewer. I see HB 309 as supporting the rights of
individuals to maintain their freedom of choice.
Current law does not provide for that freedom of
choice. I frequently hear comments from employees
about how unfair it is to force a certain person to
"have to belong" to a union.
While the original intent of our current laws was to
prohibit management coercion against employees desiring
to join a union shop, the pendulum has swung the other
way, and there is not a system of checks and balances
in our system. Union shops are just as much a business
as any company in the United States, and laws which
promote and continue this imbalance of power in favor
of organized labor harm the country as a whole, and
create increased costs to the consumer. The United
States Constitution guarantees citizens freedom of
choice, but Alaska state labor laws regarding union
shops do not support those individual rights.
House Bill 309 does not take away the rights of
employees to organize or to seek agency representation,
and I would not support an act to do so. My role as a
human resources professional is two fold: I represent
management policies for any company with which I am
employed, but I also am responsible for assuring that
employees are treated fairly and in accordance with
state and federal regulations. Passing HB 309 shows
that you as a representative of Alaska care about the
individual rights of employees throughout the state. I
ask that you pass HB 309 to promote the best interests
of your constituency.
MS. KELLEY mentioned that there are many things she is privy to
that individuals are not willing to testify to, in a state that
is so pro-union. She observed that things that happen behind the
scenes are not always fair to individuals.
Number 0639
BOB CONGDON, President, Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of
Teachers, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 309. He said there are a dozen other people in
the room with him all opposed to HB 309. In response to Mr.
Goodrick, Mr. Congdon said that in the Ketchikan paper on March
1, 2000, an article appeared written by the National Right To
Work Committee. In that article, many examples were given of the
"median" income level in a state being higher with self-
characterized right-to-work laws than in union states. However,
the median level is not the mean; it is the middle, and the
middle can be five if there is just a single high of ten and a
million low ones.
MR. CONGDON commented that he had looked at this issue from the
perspective of a businessman. If he were to relocate his
business to Alaska, he would want to be sure that his employees
were not forced to pay union dues. He indicated he would rather
deal with one union than a bunch of individuals; he would want to
ensure that each individual paid his/her fair share for union
representation but nothing more. He also would want to ensure
that in the rare circumstance that someone chose not to associate
with a union, that employee would be allowed that freedom, but
not at the expense of his/her colleagues. He acknowledged that
the nonmember should be treated the same way and have to
contribute to the improvement of working conditions just like
everyone else. The nonmember should be allowed to require that
his/her payment to the union be redirected to a charity if
his/her conscience so dictated. Mr. Congdon added that as a
businessman he would want to ensure that any union dues collected
were audited to make sure that they were not being used for
ideological or political purposes. He wants to support the
current law in Alaska and not replace it with HB 309.
Number 0306
DON VELASKO testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said
he resents an outsider coming up here and telling Alaska how to
do its [governing]. He suggested Mr. Goodrick's testimony was
misleading in some areas. For example, not one right-to-work-
for-less state has its average wage level above the national
average. He offered to supply that information to committee
members. He said [workers in] right-to-work-for-less states make
an average of $4,343 less per year than workers in right-to-live-
in-dignity states. He mentioned that of the 20 right-to-work
states, 11 made that decision in 1947, and only 2 made that
decision after 1959: Idaho (1986) and Louisiana (1976). He
emphasized that the Idaho's standard of living has dropped since
passage of its law in 1986.
MR. VELASKO remarked that he wanted to provide an example of
democracy. He reminded the committee that in 1959 citizens of
Alaska voted to become a state. He observed that union members
vote to form or join a union. Just as citizens elect
representatives and the state administrator, union members elect
representatives and administrators. And just as citizens allow
elected representatives to pass laws and add taxes, usually by
vote of the citizens, so must union workers vote on any dues that
they must pay. He asked what would happen if corporations and
citizens by law had the right not to pay taxes, for example,
which would lead to utter chaos in the state, and yet the state
would have to provide all services such as roads, police
protection, correctional facilities and so forth. Sooner or
later, no citizen or corporation would pay taxes. He asked,
"Would you folks consider passing a law to do that?"
TAPE 00-15, SIDE A
Number 0045
DAVID FORD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. The
business manager for the Ironworker's Local, he is originally
from Michigan, which is not a right-to-work state. He noted that
he came to work on the pipeline and worked alongside many
individuals from southern right-to-work states who had told him
horror stories about the decline of the standard of living in
their states after enacting right-to-work laws. The individuals
he had worked with - who were from Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Georgia and Florida - had come to Alaska and stayed because of
the higher standard of living and wages here. He emphasized that
the term "right to work" is not about individual rights at all
but is a direct attack on workers, their rights, their wages and
their unions.
Number 0206
MR. FORD noted that studies by the University of Utah indicate
the standard of living in those [right-to-work] states decreased
approximately 20 percent after enacting right-to-work laws.
Alaska has a high cost of living, and a 20 percent reduction in
spending for workers would have a devastating effect on the
economy. He offered to provide a copy of the Utah University
study. Mr. Ford said workers understand it is fair and
democratic for all employees to pay their fair share of the cost
associated with negotiating agreements and providing services to
those that belong to the union. Workers' rights are not the
issue in right-to-work legislation. He asked the committee to
disregard HB 309 so as not to lower Alaskan standard of living.
Number 0241
WILLIE ANDERSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
saying he represents classroom teachers and school employees. He
noted that his organization has a method to provide an
opportunity for people to object to dues and the fee structure.
Unlike state employees, his organization has no mandatory agency
fee clause in the contract; rather, it is left up to choice by
every local affiliate. Nevertheless, his organization must
represent every person in the organization, whether that person
pays the agency fee or not. Therefore, there are people in his
organization who do not pay a dime for representation. He
remarked that every person in the organization has an opportunity
to review audited records and then elect whether to pay the
agency fee. A person who objects to the agency fee can request
arbitration, and the union would pay the total cost of that
arbitration process. Mr. Anderson said HB 309 is not necessary
and would only impact state and municipal employees in Alaska.
He urged the committee to vote against HB 309 and not allow it to
move out of committee.
Number 0543
WALLY STUART testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
said he has worked in the retail grocery industry and has been
elected president of the United Food and Commercial Workers
(UFCW) Local 1496, which represents the majority of grocery
workers, pharmacy workers, and some furniture stores, hardware
stores and sporting goods stores. He noted that obviously he
represents many workers who come into the industry as first-
timers. Therefore, his organization sponsors educational new-
membership meetings and sends out literature about what the union
is doing for its membership. He emphasized that HB 309 is a
great disservice to Alaskans, particularly the workers.
Number 0756
HARRY CRAWFORD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. An
ironworker, he originally came from Louisiana, the only state
that has had a right-to-work law twice. He noted that Louisiana
had repealed the right-to-work law once, and a number of years
later a huge effort on the part of "big business" and a deal with
Edwin Edwards brought it back a second time. He was unfortunate
enough to see the effects of the right-to-work law in that it
denigrated wages and working conditions, and per capita wages
dropped like a rock. He asked the committee to imagine one of
the fifty states saying, "I still want to have the benefits of
protection and benefits that the United States provides, but I'm
not going to pay taxes to the federal government anymore because
I have a philosophic difference about how the country stands."
He emphasized that it is a terrible thing to do.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked whether the right-to-work law [in
Louisiana] just affected union wages or tended drive down all
wages in the state.
Number 0894
MR. CRAWFORD said it affected everyone's wages and working
conditions in the state. Union membership dropped by half,
resulting in lower wages for all workers, whether they belonged
to a union or not.
JOHN BROWN, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He thanked
Representative Hudson for asking who is pushing this. For the
answer, he suggested looking to the National Right To Work
Committee, which was started in 1954 as a persistent group of
business people and which continues to be run by business people.
If their source of money could be discovered - which he has tried
in vain to do - he believes it still comes from business and is
still represented by business from Virginia. He urged the
committee to oppose HB 309 as being bad for Alaska.
Number 1098
ANDREW HODNIK, International Union of Operating Engineers Local
302, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said he
does not want to see Local 302 or any fellow unions undermined by
HB 309. He was not coerced to be in the union when he joined a
few years ago. Furthermore, when he had worked non-union, he did
not have insurance; now, thanks to union benefits, he does have
insurance for himself and his son. He also likes the training
provided to advance his career at the union training school in
Palmer. He does not want to lose any of these benefits to make
Alaska a right-to-work state, and he does not want to pay for a
non-union employee to have the same benefits that he shares with
his brothers and sisters in the union. Asking who decides if
workers will be represented by a union, he answered that the
individual worker does. He reiterated that he does not want
Alaska to be another right-to-work state.
Number 1179
JOHN JOHNSON, International Union of Operating Engineers Local
302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said he
was offended by Mr. Goodrick's comments that unions send puppets
to Congress and have a low opinion of their own workforce. He
noted that there are very skilled people in the union workforce,
and the big contractors depend on skilled people to supply the
workforce when it is needed. He acknowledged that in Alaska
union wages are high and fairly good. However, many people do
not realize that if union workers were not here and did not have
[high] wages, many businesses would not thrive as they do today.
Also, many non-union people would not be receiving the wages they
do. He concluded that HB 309 is a bad bill and should be voted
down, period.
Number 1298
DAN RAUTIO, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He is offended by
HB 309, he said, and thinks "the right to work for less" is a
good name. He commented that when states vote for right to work,
employees get one right - the right to quit - and management can
shove anything it wants down the employees' throats.
Number 1352
ROBERT HUBLER, International Union of Operating Engineers Local
302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he does
not support HB 309. He has received many benefits from the
union, such as training, a good retirement to look forward to and
good health benefits. He explained that he had stood in line for
five months to get into the union. He expressed hope that the
committee would support unions in Alaska and allow union workers
to receive a good wage.
Number 1395
CLAUDE STANLEY, International Union of Operating Engineers Local
302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said he
wanted to see the names and numbers of all those people that Mr.
Goodrick had said support HB 309 because obviously those people
had never worked for a living. He noted that a person who
pursues a good union job gets a handsome return for the effort.
Number 1441
STEVEN JOSWIAK, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1496,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said HB 309 is a
bad bill. He has worked in the union process for a long time,
and the standard of living in Alaska is maintained because of the
existing laws. He concluded that HB 309 would decimate the
standard of living in Fairbanks and in Alaska.
Number 1514
FRED KUYKENDALL, International Union of Operating Engineers Local
302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. Referring to
Mr. Goodrick's assertion that HB 309 is about stopping the unions
from requiring people to join unions, Mr. Kuykendall said no one
requires anyone to join a union; rather, people join unions of
their own accord. He explained that the union has been good [for
him]; therefore, the state does not have to support him because
of the union program. If he lived in a right-to-work state,
eventually he would be dependent on the state to support him. He
quoted from George Orwell's book 1984: "Political language is
designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." He
asked who supports Mr. Goodrick and where the money comes from.
Number 1597
MILT BEAR, District Representative, International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from
Fairbanks in opposition to HB 309, which he does not think is a
fair bill. He observed that the union is required to represent
employees and the employees are not required to pay any fees
under HB 309. A union member for 30 years, he considers it a
privilege to pay dues.
MR. DAUGHERTY suggested reflecting upon Alaska history, which he
assumes the gentleman from Virginia is not familiar with. He
noted that the Alaska constitutional convention - held in
College, Alaska, in 1956 - had an outsider group come up and
promote putting the right-to-work language into the Alaska State
Constitution. He explained that our Alaskan forefathers voted 40
to 4 against right-to-work language, as reflected in the
constitutional convention minutes. He concluded that if those
people - who have guided Alaskans from the '50s forward - felt
that it was bad public policy to put right-to-work language in
the Alaska State Constitution, then people of today ought to
respect their wisdom and consider the reasons.
MR. DAUGHERTY noted that history helps in understanding why there
is such strong cooperation between labor and management in Alaska
today. For example, Nome newspapers circa 1900 indicated Nome
had strong unions that assisted workers. Mr. Daugherty cited the
oil industry as a good example of cooperation between labor and
management. He mentioned that Alaska has good employers such as
ARCO, British Petroleum (BP), and Alyeska, who do cooperate with
trade union collective bargaining agreements that provide union
security. He remarked that if those businessmen appreciate the
right of union security, he does not know why Alaskans need to
hear from the Beltway regarding a different way.
Number 1890
MR. GOODRICK responded. He suggested that hearing that all of
the reforms and window dressing were put in place by union
representatives and organized labor officials to ameliorate the
problem of freedom of association is like hearing the Ku Klux
Klan (KKK) take credit for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He added
that unions have fought every organized labor reform all the way,
and now they take credit for these solutions to the problem. For
example, unions fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
against allowing any reduction from full dues down to the core
amount, and lost the court cases.
MR. GOODRICK said he is hearing contradictions. Unions say that
no one is forced to pay union dues, and then another union group
says that if unions are stopped from forcing people to pay dues,
it will completely destroy Alaska labor unions. If there is no
problem, then simply enacting HB 309 would mean no change.
However, if union membership and fundraising ability is based
upon unions' ability to coerce people to pay, then unions should
lose those members.
Number 1992
MR. GOODRICK discussed the process for the individual who is
applying for a job or who works for a recently unionized company.
When applying for the job, he/she is informed of the need to
become a union member to even get the job. If the new employee
does not accept that statement at face value, the new employee
will ask for a copy of the contract, which will have written into
it "pay full member dues." However, it will not mention one word
about paying only the "core amount." Recently, the National
Right To Work Committee had taken a case to court, and the court
ruled that those clauses were strictly illegal as written but
would not say that it is illegal to continue to write them in the
contract. As a result, the non-attorney new employee applying
for the job looks at the contract, which clearly says that he/she
needs to pay dues. Now, assuming the new employee is a
particularly independent person and asks more questions, finally
the secret gets out that he/she is allowed to pay something less
than the full amount and can get part of his/her money back.
Consequently, the new employee has to go to court, find and pay
for a lawyer, and litigate the U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision,
which unions claim is a solution to the freedom problem. He
observed that Mr. Beck, a lineman worker for CWA, waited 12 years
to win a court decision regarding whether he had to pay for union
services that he did not want.
MR. GOODRICK illustrated the reality of federal labor policy as
follows: Suppose a committee member walked downstairs and hopped
into a cab, mistakenly getting into a cab with the NEA-Alaska
union official and the labor commissioner. All of a sudden, the
union and labor officials say, "We're going to have a vote of
where we're going to go. It's two to one, you're outvoted, and
we're going to Anchorage." Then they take the committee member
all the way to Anchorage even though he didn't want to go, kick
him out of the car, take his wallet and say they were taking $500
for the cab fee. "Remember," they say, "majority rules here, and
you owe us the money because you went to Anchorage."
MR. GOODRICK reminded the committee that under federal labor
policy an individual worker is required to accept the
representation whether he/she wants it or not. It is illegal for
an employee who does not agree with the union contract to go
straight to the employer and speak for him/herself; it is illegal
because union officials asked for that individual right to be
banned under federal law. He observed that the term used to
obtain the ban was "exclusive representation," but the National
Right To Work Committee calls it "monopoly representation." The
point is that the National Right To Work Committee has repeatedly
offered to endorse legislation along with the AFL-CIO to remove
that so-called burden of representation from organized labor's
shoulders. Unions have opposed any such move to restrict union
authority over nonmembers, and then have turned around and
proclaimed that they should be able to charge nonmembers for
representation that unions insisted on exerting in the first
place.
Number 2185
MR. GOODRICK reiterated that 83 percent of union contracts in the
private sector today contain forced-dues clauses, and that is the
number one demand of organized labor when they go to the
bargaining table the first time out. Organized labor will trade
high wages, higher benefits and whatever they have in order to
get, first and foremost, the union security clause that requires
everyone to pay.
MR. GOODRICK disagreed that Florida, a right-to-work state where
he grew up, is economically worse today than 30 years ago. He
offered his opinion that Florida is in better condition today, as
are most other right-to-work states. He indicated right-to-work
states have prospered dramatically since enacting their laws,
compared to unionized states over the last 30 years. The numbers
he has been talking about are from the Bureau of National
Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, and he has drawn from AFL-
CIO's own study that compared wages in right-to-work states with
wages in union states.
MR. GOODRICK asked if it would be legal for a school teacher in
Alaska to negotiate directly with a school district, reject
representation by the union and reject union wages; the answer is
no, he said, because of the system established by organized labor
in the first place to make organized labor the sole way to seek
justice and pay for the privilege. He asserted that those are
the facts.
Number 2343
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is concerned about the repeated wage
discrepancy. He asked Mr. Goodrick if the committee could find
unbiased, truthful figures from the Bureau of National Affairs,
U.S. Department of Labor.
MR. GOODRICK answered in the affirmative. He reminded the
committee that what matters to an employee is net pay, not gross
pay. Therefore, when the committee runs its figures they should
consider union dues, taxes and cost-of-living differentials in
arriving at a true net pay figure for an employee. He maintained
that right-to-work state employees have more discretionary income
to spend on what they choose than union state employees have.
Number 2393
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he had worked non-union jobs for 25
years in most of the states described as right-to-work. He
explained that he works as a longshoreman on the dock in
Anchorage in what is called "the gatehouse," and truck drivers go
there. Union companies there pay $18 an hour, with benefits and
retirement; on the other hand, there are also non-union companies
there that pay $12 an hour, with few or no benefits and no
retirement. In the 20 years he has worked there, the union
company has had one driver; the non-union company has had at
least 40 drivers on its truck. He indicated that Mr. Goodrick
had visited people like Tuckerman Babcock whose goal was to tear
down labor, in Mr. Sanders' opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN closed testimony on HB 309, which was held
for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:25
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|