Search Results for ‘quad city times’
David Yepsen was singing the praises of Chet Culver today for undermining efforts to allow teachers and other public employees the same rights as private sector employees. Apparently if this happens, there’s a chance that teachers may negotiate for smaller class sizes as part of collective bargaining and why would any Iowa school want smaller class sizes? Except, of course, that there is a definitive link between class size and academic performance among students. Yepsen also brings up the scary fact that the collective bargaining bill would mean more binding arbitration which Yepsen is sure means higher costs to government. However, Ed Tibbets in an exhaustive piece for the Quad City Times shows that binding arbitration only happens rarely. In fact, it only occurs in 1% of all contract disputes in Iowa. In fact, binding arbitration may work against teachers and other public employees union. While opponents of the bills claim that in arbitration cases involving school districts, teachers prevail against management 57% of the time (although includes a mere 63 cases that occurred over the past 5 years), the Quad City Times’ review of arbitration cases in Scott County shows the contrary and management prevailing over public employees almost 60% of the time.
However, this isn’t stopping the fearmongering. Far-right organizations like Iowans for Tax Relief are claiming (without any data to back up their claims, of course) this could lead to disastrous rises in property taxes, leading Iowa to become more like such states as Maryland, Kansas and Maine and less like such states as Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico (which incidentally not only have the lowest property taxes in the nation but rank in the bottom for household income, percentage of those living in poverty, employment and just about every other indicator of economic and social health available). So why is Chet going against fairness for teachers and other public employees (along with virtually every Democrat in the legislature) to bathe in the good graces of Iowans for Tax Relief and David Yepsen?
One assumes this is political posturing, designed to strengthen Culver’s hand in his dealings with the legislature. After all, as the Sioux City Journal notes “Culver raised no objections with the substance of the bill, just the process by which it passed. Spokesman Brad Anderson said Culver was ‘not pleased’ that he wasn’t notified earlier, and felt the public should have been included in the debate.” This isn’t politics, it’s personal pique.
As a result, Culver’s annoyance with Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy, he’s fanned the flames of this issue in a way that has energized Republicans and hurt working people. Iowa Democrats have waited 40 years to pass progressive legislation and for Culver to show such pettiness by standing in the way is disgraceful and sullies an otherwise admirable record as Governor. As Jack Kibbie notes, one imagines that Culver will support the collective bargaining bill “because of his future. He’s running on the Democratic ticket, I presume.” But if Culver continues to stand against guaranteeing public employees the same rights as their private sector counterparts, he’ll be as good a fit on the Republican ticket as on the Democratic one.
March 30th, 2008
The Quad City Times is reporting that the Fair Share proposal for non-union employees to pay their fair share of the benefits they receive due to working in union shops might be dead for the legislative session. The Republican Party has been solid in their opposition to this measure. It’s part of their anti-labor and anti-working families agenda. One hopes that enough votes can be mustered up in the next few days to pass Fair Share and to help puncture the myth that weak labor unions are somehow correlated with a strong business environment. After all, aren’t “right to work” states like Mississippi and Wyoming centers of economic growth? If Iowa wants to attract new businesses, emulating Mississippi is not the wisest way to do so.
And frankly, the opposition to Fair Share has nothing to do with attracting businesses to the state. As a University of Iowa economist pointed out recently, “why would a unionized company care how many of its workers paid how much to the union?” The opposition to fair share isn’t about making sure that people can avoid paying for benefits they receive or about attracting business to Iowa, it’s about Republicans who want to hurt organized labor and working families in the state of Iowa. It’s a shame that even with a Democratic legislature, the Republicans may still be able to impede such an important piece of legislation.
February 28th, 2007
As the Quad-City Times reports the consensus in the State Legislature seems to be moving towards allowing counties to ban smoking in the workplace. This is probably the best first step towards gradually banning smoking in every workplace in Iowa. Places ranging from the United Kingdom to New York City have already passed comprehensive workplace smoking ban with no negative consequences and the bill would allow Iowa counties and municipalities the opportunity to do so as well. Smoking causes a variety of health problems and workplace bans help to spare workers and customers from being exposed to second hand smoke. The government does everything possible to protect coal miners from suffering serious health problems on the job, shouldn’t bartenders and waitresses deserve the same protection? It is also clear that smoking bans have no negative economic consequences.
An interesting issue is from what quarters will support for the legislation come from. It is legislation that cuts across traditional party lines. Some Democrats may be too libertarian to support it, while some Republicans feel that this is an area where government should intervene. It’s an issue that has not been calcified to the point where you can expect every member of one party to support it and every member of the other to be against it. One hopes that there can be bipartisan support for allowing county and local governments to ban smoking in workplaces. It is a good first step and it is one that will save a lot of lives at almost no cost.
February 19th, 2007
The Quad City Times reported today that Republican attempts to smear Bruce Braley in the 2006 election did not work at all. Although Braley’s 12 point win provided strong circumstantial evidence to this effect, a recent poll showed that two thirds of all voters who had heard a lot about Bruce Braley being a “greedy trial lawyer” still supported him over Mike Whalen on issues like the economy and health care. The same percentage thought that the attack ads against Braley that claimed his “ ‘lawsuit abuse’ made things worse for expectant mothers” were unfair as well. The Republicans slung a lot of mud during the last election and it’s reassuring to know that all their smears directed against Bruce Braley, as well as Leonard Boswell and other Democratic candidates across the country, didn’t work.
January 26th, 2007
Apparently Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold gave Ed Fallon a ring to congratulate him on a well-run race and “say hello.” This article at the Quad-City Times says Culver has also reached out to Fallon, meeting with him for over two hours on Friday about how to attract his supporters. My first reaction to the party unity spiel was to roll my eyes, but it seems Democrats really are making an effort to create a unified front against Nussle. (Happy sigh.)
Fallon said he didn’t want to think about running for another office “immediately,” but it sounds like we haven’t seen the last of him.
June 12th, 2006
Drew does a nice job of explaining why dragging Mike Mauro into CIETC is silly and why Yepson stanks.
The Register goes over Ed Fallon’s latest ads. They have some cute ideas, but I’m not sure cute is what one looks for in a successful gubernatorial tv ad. Also, why are they only running on cable tv? That seems a little anti-Fallon to me.
The Quad-City Times reports on fifth-graders learning about death the hard way: “Feathery down flew as the hawk scarfed down the first duckling and supplemented its feast with two more.”
There’s some good news at least. 81% of this year’s corn is in the ground. (How on earth do they know that?)
May 9th, 2006
The Quad City Times has the story that the House voted to ban TouchPlay 80-18:
Rep. Danny Carroll, R-Grinnell, who led TouchPlay opposition during the House debate, said the ban was a critical vote for lawmakers.
He said it demonstrates “the will of the Legislature and, more importantly, the people of Iowa that we do not want an expansion of gambling in this state.”
“This is not the Iowa that we envisioned,” he added.
Well, at least Danny Carroll knows he needs his name in print as much as possible if he’s going to survive another election campaign. The story also mentions another measure before the House right now to extend the deadline for removing the slot machines until September 1. Time for a five-month TouchPlay binge!
And in case you’re wondering what’s next, Tom Vilsack has to decide if he’ll sign it. He previously said he’d sign what the legislature sends him, so things are looking good for Iowa casinos and bad for that back wall at Kum & Go right by the bathroom.
March 14th, 2006
