Posts
This point was brought by Peter Fisher, a University of Iowa economist and urban planning professor, at a public hearing last week on the proposed Fair Share law. Here is what Fisher had to say...
"Why would a unionized company care how many of its workers paid how much to the union?" he asked. "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."If the Union is already negotiating contracts for all of the workers, what does Fair Share do to change the current situation that affects businessess?
Before Fair Share...workers contracts are negotiated by Unions.
After Fair Share...workers contracts are negotiated by Unions.
The only difference is in the workers paying their fair share of the benefits and services they recieve.
Then why are business leaders complaining that the Fair Share law would harms Iowa's business climate?
Hat tip to Iowa Progress for posting the link to this story.
2 comments:
No matter how remote or peripheral, if the issue has to do with worker empowerment, business is going to be reflexively against it.
Thanks, jtl909, for writing it so I don't have to.
The business lobby has absolutely no interest in stronger unions, whether that means stronger financially or stronger in terms of membership.
Post a Comment