On March 25, the Florida House of Representatives passed House Bill 1021, sponsored by Rep. Chris Dorworth (R-Lake Mary), a labor bill taking direct aim at unions in Florida.
Senate Bill 830, sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher (R-Jacksonville) and is currently on the agenda for the Budget Committee on April 13 and 14.
The two bills are companions that would comprise an important step in Florida Republicans' quest to eliminate public sector unions in the state, particularly teachers' unions, and to the extent they would still exist, silence their voices.
What exactly do the bills do?
The main function of the bills, nicknamed by opponents "union gag bills," would be to eliminate payroll deduction of union dues and to prevent unions from making contributions to political activity from dues money without the express written authorization of each member.
I was sitting in the gallery of the House on March 24 when HB 1021 was on the floor for questions. Rep. Dorworth introduced his bill by explaining that its purpose is to absolve the state from facilitating "partisan politics" through payroll deduction, and to give union members the choice over whether or not their dues money should go toward political activity that they may or may not agree with.
How much do unions spend on political contributions?
Democrats posed a series of questions grilling Dorworth about the intentions and practical applications of the bill. Dorworth readily admitted that the bill was fiscally neutral to the state, as unions currently reimburse the state for any costs associated with payroll dues deduction; he insisted that the point of the bill is that it is not the state's responsibility to assist unions in playing "partisan politics."
He was asked if he had any figures for the amount of dues money spent on political activity, to which he replied that he did not have any numbers or statistics, because it "varies."
I do have a couple of numbers for Rep. Dorworth, at least from Dade County. In 2010, United Teachers of Dade, our local teachers' union, had a total annual operating income of $5,283,030, of which $4,917,176 came from membership dues. Of that $5 million total income, exactly $73,299 were used on legislative action...in other words, 1.4% of the total operating income. The other 98.6% of the dues were used for administrative and employee expenses, legal expenses, professional services, member benefits and services, office lease, community outreach and training. Complete monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports are readily available to the general public online from January 2009 on.
I do not have the same information for every teachers' union in the state--though I am certain with a bit of time and research I could find it--but our union is one of the more politically active, so I would be very surprised if numbers in other districts with smaller total incomes were significantly higher.
To hear Rep. Dorworth defending his bill, one would imagine that teachers' unions sole purpose for existence was political activity, and that the bulk of members' dues were used for campaign contributions.
Why are insurance companies, who make much heftier political contributions than unions, allowed to continue to use payroll deduction?
Rep. Geraldine Thompson (D-Orlando), then asked Rep. Dorworth if insurance companies also lobby the government and make campaign contributions. This question is very important, as HB 1021 and its Senate counterpart, SB 830, both exclusively target unions as the only entities that would no longer be able to use payroll deduction...yet insurance companies (as well as financial institutions and charitable organizations) also use payroll deduction. There is a good reason why all of these groups, including unions, use payroll deduction: it is the easiest, most reliable way to ensure that amounts owed are paid. And this is precisely why Republicans in Tallahassee are trying to ensure that unions are excluded from that facilitation.
Rep. Dorworth argued that "insurance companies are different." Really? Last I checked, insurance companies spent small fortunes (and large fortunes) on campaign contributions and lobbying state and federal governments--if one needs any concrete examples, just look at how the federal Affordable Care Act came out to benefit private health insurance companies after sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying efforts.
But do explain, Rep. Dorworth. We're listening.
He went on to explain that corporate profits are earned from services rendered to their clients. Then, they use part of those profits to lobby for their own interests.
Well, in THAT case...funny. Hmmm...let me chew on this one for just a moment. Employees are given a very limited choice (if any choice at all) over which insurance providers they can use. Then, the insurance companies deduct their premiums--which have skyrocketed over past years and continue to rise dramatically annually--from their paychecks using payroll deduction. Then the insurance companies, after forking over millions to their CEO and upper management and then to shareholders, spend much of what is left not just on making sure that their "clients" are healthy and taken care of, but on lobbying the government and school districts to ensure that they continue being the approved provider and that they can continue charging whatever exorbitant amount they feel like to keep the profits rolling and the CEOs in private jets. The employees whose paychecks are being deducted for these premiums are scarcely given a choice over which company they may use (if they have a choice at all), let alone how those companies spend the profits they reap from the employees' paychecks. Surely if given a choice, most employees would prefer their money go to non-profit health insurance companies that did NOT spend millions lobbying the government for exclusive privileges, and that spent their money on actual health care. Yet employees do not have that choice.
In the case of unions, employees may voluntarily join a union. (Florida is a right-to-work state and no employee is forced to join a union as a condition of employment, nor are unions allowed to negotiate salaries, benefits or contracts for their own members to the exclusion of non-members...this was Florida's first step, taken long ago, in making sure that unions would never have too much power in the state. But that is not enough for the new Republicans.) Members have the option of having their dues deducted from their paychecks. They also have the option of paying by cash or check. Most choose payroll deduction for the simple reason that it is easier, and that if the money is deducted before it ever hits their account it is not missed. Although only a minute portion of dues are spent on political activity (in the case of our local UTD, 1.4%), members still have the option of asking that their dues not be spent on political activity. Rep. Dorworth claimed on the floor of the House that employees have only the option of joining a union or not joining a union, but that once members they cannot opt out of their dues money being spent on political contributions. This is not accurate. In Dade County at the very least, members can and do opt out of their dues being spent on legislative action, though very few do it, since the union supports candidates (and action) that benefit teachers and public education. In fact, many members voluntarily pay an additional $1.50 per paycheck specifically for legislative action (through TIGER-COPE), because it is a cause they believe in and find critical.
It seems to me, Rep. Dorworth, that the main difference between unions and insurance companies, when we talk about payroll deduction, is that union members actually already have a choice about where their money goes and how it gets there.
So maybe the real difference is that most political contributions from teachers' unions go to Democratic candidates, who have traditionally supported both the interests of the teachers specifically and of public education generally (the two of which are 100% compatible), and that most political contributions from insurance companies go to Republican candidates, who have traditionally supported corporate interests.
How is that for the state being involved in playing "partisan politics," Rep. Dorworth?
Can local governments or school districts make their own decision? Is this even constitutional?
Rep. Dwight Bullard (D-Miami), a teacher himself, asked Rep. Dorworth if school districts could "opt out" of the law and continue payroll deduction through mutual agreement with the unions because it had already been done that way and they did not have a problem with it.
Rep. Dorworth said that it would be a state law that no district would be able to opt out of. When asked whether this was not taking authority away from local entitites, he said that it does not violate home rule, and that they could tell counties and municipalities what to do.
Rep. Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) pointed out that very recently the Alabama supreme court found the same law unconstitutional. He said that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was based on deductions made exclusively for the sake of political activity, but that the law struck down as unconstitutional in Alabama was just like HB 1021. He asked why unions were being singled out, when other organizations using payroll deduction also made campaign contributions and lobbied the government. "Why would this pass constitutional muster?" he asked.
Dorworth's reply: "We regulate labor. We are giving members a choice. They can sign an authorization to have their dues spent on political contributions and they can revoke that authorization and have their dues refunded pro rata." When Democrats persisted asking why unions were being singled out, he quite arrogantly said, "Because I wrote the bill that way. If you want to include other groups, write your own bill." Then he smirked, satisfied in the knowledge that his team has enough votes to pass anything they like and kill anything they don't, in both houses and in the governor's seat.
(Once again, just can't help but throw in that members already have a choice--first and foremost, whether or not to become a member or remain a member, and secondly, whether or not to have a tiny portion of their dues spent on political activity. It is how insurance companies, financial institutions and other entities using payroll deduction spend their profits that those same employees have no choice about.)
Rep. Mike Weinstein (R-Orange Park) said that he had introduced an amendment to give local governments the choice of whether or not to allow payroll deduction for union dues but that, due to pressure from his party's leadership, he had withdrawn the amendment. (For the record, Rep. Weinstein was one of only two Republican representatives who voted "no" on the bill when it hit the floor the next day.)
Rep. Darryl Rouson (R-St Petersburg) introduced an amendment that would prohibit payroll deduction for all purposes other than child support; however, his amendment was ruled "out of order."
Rep. Joe Gibbons (D-Hallandale Beach) called the bill out by name: union-busting. "This only targets one group. This is union-busting. Why are you stopping at just public employee organization dues? Otherwise you would accept my amendment." Gibbons's amendment said that no state tax revenue would be used for membership fees or dues for any organization that engages in lobbying or political activity. This would have included the Chamber of Commerce and insurance companies in its elimination of payroll deduction.
Rep. Rick Kriseman (D-St Petersburg) offered an amendment that if any section of the bill was found invalid, it would invalidate the whole bill. The measure failed.
HB 1021 passes 73-40, along mostly party lines.
Despite all the obvious flaws in the bill and its clear intent to attack unions rather than all organizations engaged in "playing partisan politics," HB 1021 passed the House on Friday, March 25, along mostly party lines.
Two Republicans voted "nay" on the bill: Rep. Mike Weinstein (R-Orange Park) and Rep. Ana Rivas Logan (R-Miami).
Five other Republicans were absent for the vote (whether as silent disagreement with the bill or for other reasons should be determined on an individual basis): Rep. Michael Bileca (R-Miami), Rep. Marti Coley (R-Marianna), Rep. Dorothy Hukill (R-Port Orange), Rep. Ronald Renuart (R-Ponte Vedra) and Rep. Trudi Williams (R-Ft Myers).
Two Democrats were absent for the vote as well: Rep. Reggie Fullwood (R-Jacksonville) and Rep. Elaine Schwartz (D-Hollywood).
With those exceptions, every Republican voted "yea" on the bill and every Democrat voted "nay."
The union-busting continues.
SB 830 now inches its way along through Senate committees, after already having been removed from one committee after it was determined that it did not have the votes necessary to pass (another game being played this year to ensure that Republican priorities make it to the floor, where the supermajority will make sure they pass).
Its sponsor, Sen. John Thrasher (R-Jacksonville), is best known among teachers as the sponsor of last year's SB 6, which created enough outcry among teachers, parents and students to win Charlie Crist's veto pen. He claims that SB 830 is not about punishing teachers' unions for defeating his masterpiece of union-busting legislation last year, but just about "giving employees a choice." He claims that if he had wanted "revenge," he would have filed the bill last year.\
Mmmm-hmmm...
Of course, this bill is just one piece of the larger jigsaw puzzle that, when pieced together, will form a picture very much like the law passed in Wisconsin eliminating public employees' collective bargaining rights.
Collective bargaining is in the Florida state constitution, so Republican lawmakers trying to eliminate it have had to patch legislation together like a quilt to make sure that ultimate goal is realized. In many ways it is a smarter move as well--each individual bill attracts less attention than one large, all-encompassing bill eliminating collective bargaining.
While the retirement bill (SB 2100) and the payroll deduction bill (SB 830) would also affect other major public sector unions, like the police and firefighters' unions, teachers' unions are marked with a red bull's-eye.
SB 736, passed March 16 and signed into law on March 23 by Gov. Rick Scott, eliminates the majority of teachers' unions reasons for existence. It phases out professional service contracts, which guarantee only that teachers cannot be fired without due process (not that they have a job for life, contrary to popular opinion), in favor of annual contracts for perpetuity for all incoming teachers. Gone are the days that a teacher can teach with a certain degree of academic liberty and make sure that the course meets the objectives and the needs of the students in the way that her professional experience tell her will work the best, knowing that the union will help her defend herself (and her students) against an overzealous or micromanaging administration. All new teachers will need to be constantly on guard that they are not only following the state's prescriptive manual for classes (as their evaluations will be measured by student performance on end-of-course exams that have not yet been written), but also that they are currying the favor of their administrators...which usually consists of not rocking the boat, and going along with every dictate, no matter how ridiculous, and even when the teacher knows that it is not in the best interest of the students.
SB 736 is also a leap toward the elimination of collective bargaining processes for teachers, as it dictates that salary adjustments must be based on evaluations (which, in turn, will be based 50% on student performance on standardized tests), and that those adjustments will be based on the current salary schedule. (To wit: the raise for a teacher scoring "highly effective" under the new contract must be greater than the largest jump on the current salary scale--in Miami-Dade, that means over $10,000. Until the legislature decides to restore funding to public schools--which does not appear likely anytime soon--that means that no teacher dare dream of seeing an extra cent anytime in the near future. Further, they will see their paychecks decline as SB 2100 is implemented.)
SB 830 will make it more difficult for teachers' unions to collect dues from members and will silence their voice in government...one of the few voices speaking out for adequate education funding and smaller class sizes will be snuffed out.
And HB 1023, if it finds a companion bill in the Senate and moves forward, would decertify unions with less than 50% membership density and force unions to reorganize every year. This is aimed specifically at teachers' unions, which in the state of Florida often have less than 50% membership density due to right-to-work laws that allow non-members to enjoy the same salary and benefits as members without paying dues. Police and firefighters' unions have very high membership density, perhaps due to the higher legal liability of their work, and perhaps also due to the intrinsic team nature of their work. But just to make sure that they knew it was not directed at them, sponsor Scott Plakon (R-Longwood) included language that specifically exempted police and firefighters' unions.
Why? Police and firefighters' unions are often friendly to Republican politicians...they wouldn't want to endanger future endorsements (though they are already doing just that with their passage of the retirement bills and the payroll deduction bills).
Together, these bills form a full-frontal attack on teachers' unions...to the point that one must ask, If teachers' unions have so much power in the state of Florida that they must be eliminated altogether, then how on earth did we ever end up with a legislature and governor so able and ready to eliminate them?
The only objective must be to so effectively wipe out any vestiges of organized support for high-quality public education that the Republicans' goal of privatization of education will run into no roadblocks as they race forward, running over everyone in their path, from those pesky unionized teachers to the homeless, disabled child.
Nothing, but nothing, must stand between public money and corporate profits.
Comments