RSS Feeds
 |
|
|||||||||||||
News » Politics
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
Friday, October 24, 2008 1:16 PM CDT
Experience and union dues at issue in House District 20 race
Experience and union dues at issue in House District 20 race
Supervisor candidates square off at forum
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
Experience and union dues at issue in House District 20 race
By JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD, Courier Staff Writer
One in a series of stories on upcoming legislative races.
WATERLOO --- In the race for House District 20, experience and questions over mandatory union dues have emerged as top concerns.
Republican challenger Vic Mokricky, with funding from the state Republican party, has sent out direct mail fliers criticizing Democratic incumbent Doris Kelley's votes on unnecessary spending and, in particular, not supporting Iowa's right to work status.
Several of Mokricky's ads carry a variation of the same message: "Kelley voted to kill Iowa's right to work law."
Mokricky's attacks are puzzling, Kelley says, because she has been shunned by unions for her stance on the issue.
Every Waterloo and Cedar Falls Democrat running in a contested legislative race has received at least $15,000 in union support.
But not Kelley. Reports filed this week show Kelley received only two union donations totaling $750.
"I think Iowa should be a right to work state," she says. "I don't think anybody should ever lose their job because they don't want to join a union."
Because of her stance, she says, unions "are not going to support me. They are not friends of mine."
Kelley says she voted against the amendment cited in Mokricky's ads because House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, had already tacked on a similar amendment to the original bill.
"I voted against it because that amendment was unnecessary," she says. "It was already addressed in the exact same bill."
Mokricky, who worked for 36 years as a teacher and counselor at West High School, says he would make education his number one priority as a legislator.
He said a quality educational system will help provide the state with the educated workforce needed to drive an economy based on renewable energy.
Kelley often touts the Legislature's accomplishments in education. It passed bills to increase teacher pay to 25th in the nation, expand early childhood education and keep college tuition increases in line.
"I think I'm most pleased in the steps we took in our educational system," she says.
Echoing a criticism from Republicans across the state, Mokricky says he would not outspend the state's annual revenue.
Republicans regularly point to a report from the state auditor that shows the Democratic-controlled Legislature outspent revenues by $370 million.
Mokricky also defended himself from a criticism Kelley makes. She says only she has the experience necessary to represent the district.
"I believe it's been implied my 36-year career as a teacher and counselor has been inconsequential," Mokricky says. "What is more important than being involved in interpersonal relationships and bring about solutions that help our community?"
Kelley has argued in recent public forums that her wide range of experiences in community economic development, marketing and public relations, gives her a broad knowledge base.
"You can be an expert in one area, but if you do not have both public and private experience, you're really at a disadvantage," she says. "What I found, being in the majority, there is no time for learning."
Contact Jens Manuel Krogstad at (319) 291-1580 or jens.krogstad@wcfcourier.com.
WATERLOO --- In the race for House District 20, experience and questions over mandatory union dues have emerged as top concerns.
Republican challenger Vic Mokricky, with funding from the state Republican party, has sent out direct mail fliers criticizing Democratic incumbent Doris Kelley's votes on unnecessary spending and, in particular, not supporting Iowa's right to work status.
Several of Mokricky's ads carry a variation of the same message: "Kelley voted to kill Iowa's right to work law."
Mokricky's attacks are puzzling, Kelley says, because she has been shunned by unions for her stance on the issue.
Every Waterloo and Cedar Falls Democrat running in a contested legislative race has received at least $15,000 in union support.
But not Kelley. Reports filed this week show Kelley received only two union donations totaling $750.
"I think Iowa should be a right to work state," she says. "I don't think anybody should ever lose their job because they don't want to join a union."
Because of her stance, she says, unions "are not going to support me. They are not friends of mine."
Kelley says she voted against the amendment cited in Mokricky's ads because House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, had already tacked on a similar amendment to the original bill.
"I voted against it because that amendment was unnecessary," she says. "It was already addressed in the exact same bill."
Mokricky, who worked for 36 years as a teacher and counselor at West High School, says he would make education his number one priority as a legislator.
He said a quality educational system will help provide the state with the educated workforce needed to drive an economy based on renewable energy.
Kelley often touts the Legislature's accomplishments in education. It passed bills to increase teacher pay to 25th in the nation, expand early childhood education and keep college tuition increases in line.
"I think I'm most pleased in the steps we took in our educational system," she says.
Echoing a criticism from Republicans across the state, Mokricky says he would not outspend the state's annual revenue.
Republicans regularly point to a report from the state auditor that shows the Democratic-controlled Legislature outspent revenues by $370 million.
Mokricky also defended himself from a criticism Kelley makes. She says only she has the experience necessary to represent the district.
"I believe it's been implied my 36-year career as a teacher and counselor has been inconsequential," Mokricky says. "What is more important than being involved in interpersonal relationships and bring about solutions that help our community?"
Kelley has argued in recent public forums that her wide range of experiences in community economic development, marketing and public relations, gives her a broad knowledge base.
"You can be an expert in one area, but if you do not have both public and private experience, you're really at a disadvantage," she says. "What I found, being in the majority, there is no time for learning."
Contact Jens Manuel Krogstad at (319) 291-1580 or jens.krogstad@wcfcourier.com.
 |
More Stories from News » Politics
Experience and union dues at issue in House District 20 raceSupervisor candidates square off at forum
50674 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:38 PM:
" My opinion is if you work in a union shop, get paid union wages and are supported by and denfended by a union-secured contract you should be finacially supporting that union. If you don't want the job security, higher wages and someone to advocate for you then work in a non-union shop. BTW, I am not a union employee and don't work in a union shop. If I did I would pay the union dues. "
avee wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:05 PM:
" Kelly took lot's of union money to get her elected 2 years ago. She also took big bucks from several out of state donors representing the gay lobby. The democrat's and the liberals wanted her and they got her. "
momofthree wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:05 PM:
" I'm a democrat and I think like 50674: if you work where a union represents you, you should support the union or work where you don't "need" the union. Those who don't are "free riders" and I don't work in a union job either but I have often wished I did "
gmaro wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:28 PM:
" 50674 you are lucky you don't work in a union shop because they take your dues and don't do anything for you. Ask the former employees of Sara Lee. "
truthiness wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:39 PM:
" I think you can have a mix of maintaining Iowa's right to work law and enacting a "Fair Share" bill. With Iowa's collective bargaining law, it requires that unions fairly represent the employees (different than members) under it's charter. I understand the frustration of dues-paying members watch non-dues paying members enjoy benefits not only from bargaining, but also representation in disciplinary matters that may require legal counsel. I think under those aspects, it is only Fair to collect a fee for services provided. This fee doesn't have to be in the amount of monthly/annual dues, but proportionate to the level of service provided.
While an opt-out clause for employees who wish to not join a union and therefore handle their bargaining and disciplinary processes themselves may be a topic for discussion, it does circumvent the history of the state's collective bargaining.
No matter what one thinks of a union, they can be beneficial to all. In fact, management enjoys a lot of the benefits that unions have negotiated for their members. And no matter what side of the fence you're on, chances are you've been a part of a union, either with a different name of Association or League or Chamber. "
While an opt-out clause for employees who wish to not join a union and therefore handle their bargaining and disciplinary processes themselves may be a topic for discussion, it does circumvent the history of the state's collective bargaining.
No matter what one thinks of a union, they can be beneficial to all. In fact, management enjoys a lot of the benefits that unions have negotiated for their members. And no matter what side of the fence you're on, chances are you've been a part of a union, either with a different name of Association or League or Chamber. "
conservativeme wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:54 PM:
" The Unions got what they wanted. In the 70s they lobbied congress in order to represent all the non-union employees as well. They hoped that they could convince them to join. No that never happens, so they want to force the issue. I feel if you join a union you pay the dues, but if you don't, the union should not give you any of those benefits that they fought for back then. Instead of trying to get people to pay who don't want to, why not lobby to represent the non-union workers, then everyone is happy. "
MAC wrote on Oct 25, 2008 4:50 AM:
" I work in a Union shop and was a dues paying and active member for over 20 years ...and also an employee BEFORE the union's arrival . After watching our benefits and rights erode, raises become almost non-existant, year after year of one sided negotiations...management issuing ultimatums and union acceptance without question for fear of losing jobs...I remained a loyal member.
Five years ago I had two LEGITIMATE grievances, and was told by officials they would not pursue them...I informed the union that I would be following the example of others this had happened to and resigning my membership.
The irony in ALL of this...I got better raises, benefits and had a much better working relationship with management years ago...when I negotiated my contract on my own.
I will vote against any candidate that even hints at weakening Iowa's Right to Work law. Making non members pay, especially as unions are losing more and more of their clout is in my mind nothing but legalized extortion. As unions lose more and more of their influence...or just give it up for fear of management reprisals....the employee/member becomes a slave to both management AND the union. "
Five years ago I had two LEGITIMATE grievances, and was told by officials they would not pursue them...I informed the union that I would be following the example of others this had happened to and resigning my membership.
The irony in ALL of this...I got better raises, benefits and had a much better working relationship with management years ago...when I negotiated my contract on my own.
I will vote against any candidate that even hints at weakening Iowa's Right to Work law. Making non members pay, especially as unions are losing more and more of their clout is in my mind nothing but legalized extortion. As unions lose more and more of their influence...or just give it up for fear of management reprisals....the employee/member becomes a slave to both management AND the union. "
avee wrote on Oct 25, 2008 6:27 AM:
" The lesson here is to pay attention to who you vote for. Who is going to be advising them, who are their close associates, what is their core political philosophy, etc? What you see and what you hear is not necessarily what you are going to get. This is particularly important in this election. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
conservativeme wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:40 PM:
Follow the money. It is a true test of how well they will represent our interests and not special interests. "