While Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed job cuts and wage freezes grab the headlines and undermine the livelihoods of teachers, firefighters and other public employees, his fellow Republican leaders are working to gut pay, benefits and other standards in the construction trades.
One piece of legislation attacks unions directly - introducing so-called "right to work" language to ban any state-financed project from including agreements that require construction workers to join unions or pay union fees. A hearing is scheduled March 26 at 2:30 p.m. before the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee, in Room 200 of the State Office Building.
Brad Lehto, legislative director for the Minnesota AFL-CIO, says he suspects the language is a backdoor way to float the idea of turning Minnesota into a "right to work" state altogether.
"I'm trying to figure out how wide-sweeping it is," Lehto said, "but it's bad no matter how you look at."
Undercutting wages
"Right to work" laws weaken unions by allowing freeloaders - workers who get the benefits of a contract or union wages without having to pay dues or "fair share" fees. The laws strengthen employers while eroding the ability of unions to negotiate strong contracts and enforce them.
Statistics show that wages are 25 percent lower in states that have "right to work" laws - primarily in the South and West
The "right to work" language is tacked onto legislation introduced March 17 that would prevent public construction projects from utilizing project labor agreements. That legislation (HF931) is sponsored by House speaker Steve Sviggum, majority leader Erik Paulsen, assistant majority leader Barb Sykora, and Reps. Chris Gerlach and Alice Seagren.
Legislation introduced March 13 by House speaker pro tempore Mark Olson, majority whip Marty Seifert and Rep. Phil Krinkie (HF832) would eliminate requirements that contractors pay prevailing local wages and benefits on construction projects financed in whole or in part by state taxpayer dollars.
Whatever way you look at it, Lehto said, the legislation will "drive down wages on construction and repair of such public projects as roads, bridges, schools and prisons - even a new baseball park, if one is built.
The prevailing-wage legislation would allow firms - especially nonunion and out-of-state contractors - to undercut local wage rates, he said. A prevailing wage in a given location "doesn't always equate to a union wage," Lehto said, "but it is a higher wage."
Similar legislation (HF365 and SF564) would limit the ban on prevailing-wage requirements to K-12 school building construction projects. The House version, sponsored by assistant majority leader Jeff Johnson, already has advanced to the floor.
Written for the March 27, 2003, issue of The Union Advocate newspaper. Used by permission. The Union Advocate is the official publication of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. E-mail The Advocate at: advocate@mtn.org
While Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s proposed job cuts and wage freezes grab the headlines and undermine the livelihoods of teachers, firefighters and other public employees, his fellow Republican leaders are working to gut pay, benefits and other standards in the construction trades.
One piece of legislation attacks unions directly – introducing so-called “right to work” language to ban any state-financed project from including agreements that require construction workers to join unions or pay union fees. A hearing is scheduled March 26 at 2:30 p.m. before the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee, in Room 200 of the State Office Building.
Brad Lehto, legislative director for the Minnesota AFL-CIO, says he suspects the language is a backdoor way to float the idea of turning Minnesota into a “right to work” state altogether.
“I’m trying to figure out how wide-sweeping it is,” Lehto said, “but it’s bad no matter how you look at.”
Undercutting wages
“Right to work” laws weaken unions by allowing freeloaders – workers who get the benefits of a contract or union wages without having to pay dues or “fair share” fees. The laws strengthen employers while eroding the ability of unions to negotiate strong contracts and enforce them.
Statistics show that wages are 25 percent lower in states that have “right to work” laws – primarily in the South and West
The “right to work” language is tacked onto legislation introduced March 17 that would prevent public construction projects from utilizing project labor agreements. That legislation (HF931) is sponsored by House speaker Steve Sviggum, majority leader Erik Paulsen, assistant majority leader Barb Sykora, and Reps. Chris Gerlach and Alice Seagren.
Legislation introduced March 13 by House speaker pro tempore Mark Olson, majority whip Marty Seifert and Rep. Phil Krinkie (HF832) would eliminate requirements that contractors pay prevailing local wages and benefits on construction projects financed in whole or in part by state taxpayer dollars.
Whatever way you look at it, Lehto said, the legislation will “drive down wages on construction and repair of such public projects as roads, bridges, schools and prisons – even a new baseball park, if one is built.
The prevailing-wage legislation would allow firms – especially nonunion and out-of-state contractors – to undercut local wage rates, he said. A prevailing wage in a given location “doesn’t always equate to a union wage,” Lehto said, “but it is a higher wage.”
Similar legislation (HF365 and SF564) would limit the ban on prevailing-wage requirements to K-12 school building construction projects. The House version, sponsored by assistant majority leader Jeff Johnson, already has advanced to the floor.
Written for the March 27, 2003, issue of The Union Advocate newspaper. Used by permission. The Union Advocate is the official publication of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. E-mail The Advocate at: advocate@mtn.org