Iowa Senate Republicans Show Their Contempt For Labor
February 17th, 2007 at 07:03pm Geraldine
Throughout most of the world, Labor Day is celebrated on May 1st to commemorate the aftermath of the so-called “Haymarket Riots” when a mass strike for an eight hour working day in Chicago was crushed by the police. The police used a bomb that was thrown at a line of policemen that killed one and fatally wounded six more (thrown either by an agent provocateur or by a lone crazed anarchist) as an excuse to fire into a crowd of peaceable demonstrators. The deaths of the policemen served as a pretext to round up the city’s labor leaders who were put on trial in front of a packed jury as accessories to murder, despite the fact there was no evidence of any connecting them to the deaths of the policemen. Seven were sentenced to death, and although the sentences of two of them were commuted to life in prison, four innocent men were murdered by the State of Illinois (and a fifth committed suicide on the eve of his execution).
How do Mary Lundby and the other State Senate Republicans want to commemorate this hallowed day for the Labor Movement? They’ve introduced a bill to declare May 1 as Iowa’s Right To Work Day to remember the passage of Iowa’s anti-labor “Right To Work” Act. The resolution also praises the Taft-Hartley act, which enabled states to pass “right to work” legislation, and is the most anti-Labor legislation in American history. Taft-Hartley was described by Harry Truman as “a clear threat to the successful working of our democratic society.” As contemptuous as this resolution is, it’s just a resolution and merely a symbolic statement. However, it’s part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to undermine the Labor Movement and the rights of working people that goes back beyond Taft-Hartley. But Iowa Republicans aren’t limiting themselves to symbolic gestures.
The Republicans in the State House are also opposing the Fair Share Law in Iowa. This merely mandates that “all workers who receive union-negotiated benefits contribute to the cost of providing those benefits.” However, the Republicans claim that this will destroy business in Iowa. This is baseless assertion that was easily refuted by Peter Fisher, a University of Iowa economist, who pointed out, “Why would a unionized company care how many of its workers paid how much to the union? I can only conclude that firms who assert that they will not come to Iowa because of fair share are looking for a low-wage location and want weak labor unions to help ensure that it will remain a low-wage location.” It’s a shame that Republicans are continuing their efforts to undermine workers’ rights and thumbing their noses at those who actually work to help Iowa’s working families.
Related Posts
- Lazy Iowa House Republicans
- Fair Share Dead?
- State Senate Helps Close The Fallon Loophole
- Tom Latham Votes Against Motherhood
- Tom Latham’s Assault On Working Iowans
Entry Filed under: State Politics, Labor Issues
Related Searches:
2 Comments Add your own
1. mirage1 | February 18th, 2007 at 10:44 am
it was the unions themselves that barganed for “exclusive barganing agent” status, where they represent all workers in exchange for non-union workers not barganing on their own, and to prevent competing unions in the workplace.
unions have the right to agree to “member-only” representation, if they are worried about non-members not paying their “fair share”.
so let’s get real here. this is simply an attempt to gut our right to work laws which have been in place for years and provided a truly fair share balance between employers, employees, and unions.
is this simply Iowa Progress showing its’ own contempt for choice?
2. Iowa Progress » Tom&hellip | April 26th, 2008 at 6:08 am
[…] work” legislation, (HR 697) Many Republicans in the Iowa State House have taken similarly despicable stands. Latham has also signed on to HR 2380. This bill would permanently repeal the estate tax. […]
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed