Feb 03 GOP Must Go All-In on Employee Freedom

We should clone Senator Dave Thompson. At a recent meeting of the Southwest Metro Tea Party in Chanhassen, the freshman legislator joined Senator David Hann along with their House colleagues Representatives Mary Franson, Ernie Leidiger, and Doug Wardlow in previewing the Reform 2.0 initiatives proposed for this year’s legislative session. At one point, Thompson declared that he would not weigh his prospects for re-election in his decision to support employee freedom (also known as right-to-work). The line earned rousing applause, and for good reason. Thompson understands that he was not sent to St. Paul to advance his political career. He was sent to advocate for his constituents’ fundamental rights.

Unfortunately, if murmurs through the grapevine are true, there are a significant number of Republican legislators who are skittish about joining Thompson and Representative Steve Drazkowski in pursuit of employee freedom.  They worry about the effect it may have on their re-election campaigns. That concern misses a number of points, both principled and practical.

Employee freedom is not only a super-majority issue (70% of likely voters support it), it is a moral issue, a civil rights issue, and a matter of essential justice. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes and explicitly protects five freedoms. Among them are petition and association. When employees are forced to join a union as a condition of employment, their freedom to associate (or not associate) with whomever they please is violated. When employees are forced to pay dues or “fair share fees” to a union which uses those funds for political activism, their political speech is hijacked. With license to strong-arm employees, unions are able to distort the political process.

It is a moral outrage. By compelling membership, deducting money from paychecks, and representing employees without consent, unions disenfranchise those who disagree with their politics. Members who disagree are robbed of their voice, and non-members who disagree face inflated political opposition.

Consider, in states where employees have been set free to choose whether to fund their union leadership’s political priorities, contributions by those unions have dropped over 50 percent. That indicates that many union members are not getting value out of their affiliation. Otherwise, they would gladly pay.

That is why a broad coalition of grassroots activists have called upon the legislative majority in St. Paul to prioritize employee freedom along with voter photo ID. These initiatives are critical to correcting systematic injustice in our economic and political system. Minnesota lawmakers seem to understand the importance of voter photo ID, having passed comprehensive legislation to modernize and secure the state’s electoral process last year, a bill which Governor Dayton vetoed. It is clear that eligible voters are disenfranchised whenever ballots are counted without verifying the identity and eligibility of everyone who casts a ballot. It should be just as apparent that citizens are disenfranchised whenever a union coerces political activity from its membership.

Why then are legislators reluctant to pursue employee freedom? There are a number of reasons. There is the aforementioned concern over losing an election. There is concern over the number of constitutional amendments which may end up on the ballot. There is debate over whether legislating through constitutional amendment violates some principle of proper government. And there is an impression among few that employee freedom is somehow anti-union.

Unions as such are welcome in a free market. The ability to collectively bargain should be available to free associations of consenting employees dealing with consenting employers. Consent is the crux of the matter. To the extent association is coerced, union activity is an illegitimate encroachment which disenfranchises both employees and voters. We constitute government to protect us from such coercion. Employee freedom is no more anti-union than religious freedom is anti-church.

Concern over the proper use of the constitutional amendment process is a case-study in conservative self-immolation. Only conservatives are capable of holding themselves accountable to rules which don’t exist. The constitutional amendment process is what it is. If there is a proposal for changing that process, it should be presented, debated, and voted upon. As it stands, this is the process we have to work within, and we are justified in using it to protect fundamental rights. Initiatives like securing our electoral process or restoring economic and political freedom to employees are properly addressed through the amendment process. In the final analysis, the people are empowered to determine what is appropriate.

Addressing the number of amendments proposed on the ballot, I deffer to a 2004 analysis by the non-partisan House Research Department which concluded that “the highest ratification rates occur with two, three or four questions on the ballot.” Specifically, the ratification rate increases from just 43 percent with one question to well into the 60th and 70th percentile with two, three, or four questions. Currently, the Marriage Protection Amendment stands alone for a vote this November. Adding questions for employee freedom and voter photo ID will increase the chances of all three being ratified by the voters, and would constitute a laudable achievement by those involved.

Politics occurs in the real world. Obviously, no amount of principle absent the power to implement it is worth much in real terms. Maintaining majorities in the legislature is a worthy goal for Republicans. However, there comes a point where political calculation produces diminishing returns. When you compromise beyond that point, maintaining power is no longer of any practical use. What’s the point of being there if you’re not going to do what you came to do?

More fundamentally, no one is elected to position themselves for the next election. That’s not the job description. The role of legislator is the protection of rights through the craft of appropriate law. Restoring employee freedom stands right alongside voter photo ID as a proper fulfillment of that role.

Here is the message to GOP legislators. The grassroots have spoken. We want employee freedom. Organizations large and small, old and new, have come together to make our expectation clear. You know who we are. We know who you are. If your political future is your first and greatest value, you simply must deliver. If you don’t, your problem won’t be the opponents you face. Your problem will be no one standing behind you.

That’s the vinegar. Here’s the honey. Placing these questions on the ballot will divert funds from races for office toward attempts at defeating super-majority issues. We’re going to be outspent. The good news is that it takes far more money to change someone’s mind than it does to get them to vote their conscience, and all that spending will come with an opportunity cost for the Left. We can weather the storm and win across the board.

What a win it will be! The state’s entire political landscape will have been reformed, leveled out from its current craggy injustice to allow forthright contests where Minnesota’s true values prevail. That’s a legacy worth any price, an achievement of lasting significance.

Get it done.

Cross-posted at Fightin Words, where comments are welcome.