On Wednesday of this week, the Missouri legislature is meeting for an override session. Unique to state legislatures, this is when the legislature has a chance to override any veteos issued by the governor.
The main fight on the docket is a right-to-work bill that embattled Governor Jay Nixon vetoed in June. The vote passed with a majority in both chambers, where Republicans hold a “super majority.” Strictly along party lines, they have enough votes to override anything Nixon vetoes.
Though they have the votes, in theory, whether they can corral all their members to vote for the measure is up in the air.
And labor is fighting back. Hard. They’ve even tapped former Missouri House Speaker Steve Tilley, a Republican, to do their lobbying.
Teamsters President James P. Hoffa, KCUR reports, at a rally last week, said: “‘Some people say unions have too much power,’ Hoffa said as he raised his fists at the podium. ‘I say we need a hell of a lot more.'” Phil Gruber, General Vice President of the International Association of Machinists, said at a rally (where he was wearing camoflauge) that “he was going to war (to fight ‘right-to-work’).”
Newly a part of the SEC, Missouri is unique: North meets South, East meets West. With St. Louis called the “Gateway to the West”, the state is not easy to pigeonhole. Until recently, the state was a relaible Presidential bellweather, but since 2000, it has voted Republican in every presidential election.
The state has two major urban centers, St. Louis and Kansas City. The cities have seen their population decline over recent decades, with the outerlying suburbs growing. There are a smattering of small to mid-size cities in between, but they are the book-ends to a rural/small-town mix of cities.
Unions still have a fair amount of power in the Show-Me State, and this is mostly an urban vs. rural fight. But with the changing of Missouri’s electorate, Republicans are hoping now is the time to give unions a crippling blow by joining the 25 other right-to-work states.
Sources close to the Missouri legislature tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD the votes are there in the Senate to override the veto, but the House, which is likely to act first on the override, is where things are somewhat uncertain. Quoted in the Washington Examiner, Rep. Bill Lant said “We are very, very close.”
How close? Nobody will say on the record.
Rep. Chuck Basye told the Columbia Tribune:
Basye has heard from union members in his district that it will cost him support. “If this costs me the election, so be it,” he said.
This is what Republicans in Missouri are counting on. In recent years, Republican pushes for a partial-birth abortion ban and right-to-carry legislation have drawn warnings that they might suffer at the ballot box if they overstep their bounds. Yet, Republicans keep winning.
With incumbent Nixon on his way out, Missouri Republicans are seeking to put one of their own back in the governor’s office, and the right to work fight has consequences for the next election.
That’s the rub: Lots of the initial “no” votes from Republicans came from freshmen legislators. Others are on the fence because the unions, aided by former Speaker Tilley, are promising to give them money and endorse them.
Defeating Nixon on right to work in the veto session puts vulnerable suburban Republican legislators in a bit of a bind: Who would you like to have challenging you next election, the labor unions or the business lobby?
While the Democrats have not done much of anything to support right to work in Missouri, there is a threat of revolt from some of St. Louis’s African-American elected Democrats. Today, the Ferguson Commission came out with its report titled “Forward Through Ferguson: A Path Toward Racial Equity.”
Many factors impact an individual’s opportunity to thrive. Key among them are health and financial stability. Unfortunately, for many in the St. Louis region, these are not a given. The calls to action in this signature priority focus on creating equity in opportunity to thrive, so that all the region’s residents have a fair shot at achieving the American dream. The calls to action in this area address economic mobility, expanding Medicaid, employment, financial empowerment, housing, and transportation.
It would appear that to the Ferguson commission, expanding government programs is part of an “opportunity to thrive” but not allowing those who seek work outside of a union didn’t make the cut. Strange.
Tell that to State Rep. Courtney Curtis, an African-American Democrat who represents Ferguson in the House. He sponsored a targeted right to work bill that won passage in a House committee. (Targeted only towards the construction trades.)
The St. Louis American reports:
“It works for some, but it does not work for me,” he said. “And it doesn’t work for the people I’m fighting for.”
The unions’ “practices of legal discrimination,” he said, have recently manifested in St. Louis-area legislation that require bidders on government contracts of $25,000 or more to maintain or participate in a Department of Labor-approved apprentice program. Union contractors are often the only ones that meet that requirement, making city contracts “anticompetitive for minority contractors,” he said. And those apprentice programs also have low minority participation, he said.
St. Louis Public Radio quotes Curtis as saying his bill is “not about spilt milk. It’s about opportunities going forward.”
Could Republicans attract African American Democrats, dissatisfied with labor, to defeat Nixon’s veto? Perhaps. Republicans still have yet to get their House in order, and as the vote approaches, letters are flying to counter last-minute attempts to sway Republicans to vote no.
In a Dear Colleague letter sent by Republican Rep. Jay Barnes late last week, he asks:
Opponents of RTW legislation have several genuine arguments in opposition. I disagree with their ultimate conclusions but do not doubt their sincerity. However, claimed objections to the enforcement mechanisms are not sincere. They are a ruse. Don’t be fooled.
I also realize this is not an easy decision for many. I believe we should each make our decision on this bill based on the actual issue, and that is: do you believe Missourians should have a statutory right to freedom of association in choosing whether or not to join a union? Or, to the contrary, do you believe a union and employer should be able to force someone to join a union as a condition of a job?
If you believe they should have this right, then there has to be a way to meaningfully enforce it. You cannot logically claim you’re in favor of right-to-work but just didn’t like the enforcement mechanism. What’s the value of a law or a right that can’t be enforced? (In this case, I believe the enforcement mechanisms are actually too weak.) The enforcement argument is an excuse, not a principled objection.
If you do not believe Missourians should have this right, vote no. Stand your ground on the underlying issue.
With all of the last-minute flurry of lobbying and deal making, we should know in the next few days who wins.
