Labor not always anti-business
The bill is called “Fair Share Health Care” and it would require companies with more than 1,000 workers to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health insurance. It’s part of a national wave of state-level efforts to crack down on employers such as Wal-Mart.
A modernized health plan: Supporting cost management and the employee experience.
The Surest health plan came from a group of innovators wondering: What if health care…
Learn More
And when Rhode Island for Health Care, a project of the Service Employees International Union, unveiled the proposal this month, it shared the podium not only with the AFL-CIO and the United Food and Commercial Workers, but with Lt. Gov. Charles J. Fogarty.
Democrats such as Fogarty, who is challenging Gov. Donald L. Carcieri in the upcoming election, have long been close with labor, and not just in Rhode Island. Unions are a key part of their base; they share a stated goal to stand up for working people.
But at the State House, many say, unions aren’t just team players – they call the shots. Or they have, historically, called the shots, securing generous contracts for public-sector workers and pushing for minimum-wage hikes and other “anti-taxpayer” and “anti-business” measures.
Asked about this view, George Nee, secretary-treasurer of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, laughed. “If I were running the state, I should be impeached,” he said, “because it should look very different.” In fact, he argued, unions are just doing their part in the democratic process.
“We have always believed that when state policies are discussed, or when governmental issues are under review, that there should be a voice for the working people of the state of Rhode Island at the table,” Nee said. “We take our role very seriously.”
“Having said that, we win some, and we lose some,” Nee added. But overall, “if you look at our state versus others, labor has had a strong voice in shaping public policy, and that’s a positive thing, because the agenda we put forth is in the best interest of the majority of people.”
So what has labor stood for in recent years?
Some causes fall within the categories that, for good or bad, the public associates with labor: raising the minimum wage; allowing child care workers paid through state subsidies to unionize and negotiate benefits; preventing outsourcing of state agencies’ work.
Others involve controls on business in the name of safety: requiring hospitals and nursing homes to report their staffing levels, and/or setting minimums; barring mandatory overtime for nurses; setting standards for apprenticeship programs at public works sites.
But then there’s a host of other issues on which unions align themselves with small business – as they’d say the “Fair Share” bill does – and even with big business.
They were deeply involved in the workers’ compensation overhaul of the early 1990s and the creation of The Beacon Mutual Insurance Co. Last year, they helped draft reforms to the temporary disability insurance (TDI) system that allowed injured workers to return to their jobs on a limited basis without being penalized – a goal shared by labor and businesses.
And with Providence Place mall and the Almond administration’s effort to turn Quonset Point into a megaport, the Rhode Island Building Trades stood side by side with development interests, knowing those projects would create jobs. (Now, for the same reason, they support the Narragansett Indians’ and Harrah’s casino proposal for West Warwick.)
“You know what the crazy thing is? I would say, going back to 1990, to keep it in relatively contemporary terms, the labor movement and the business community … have cooperated on some of the great projects that have moved the state forward,” Nee said.
He cited the mall, the construction of The Westin Providence and the Rhode Island Convention Center, the overhaul of T.F. Green Airport – even tax reforms.
Matthew M. Bodah, of the University of Rhode Island’s Labor Research Center, said even though unions’ share of the labor force has dropped (from about 19.4 percent in 1995, to 16.3 percent in 2004, according to state data), they’re “still quite powerful,” so they have to be at the table to get things done, but they’re willing to get collaborative when they’re invited.
The TDI overhaul is an example, Bodah said: Early in the process, with no labor participation, reform efforts got nowhere. But after “some very good input” from unions, reform passed.
Edward J. Quinlan, president of the Hospital Association of Rhode Island, which has found itself at odds with unions on such things as staffing mandates and oversight, said organized labor’s political power “is a fact of life,” but “I don’t think it needs to be antagonistic.”
Health care “may be unique,” Quinlan said, in that it’s crucial for management and labor to work together, “because you’re all working in common cause, for the betterment of patient care.” Ultimately, he said, “that will supersede issues of disagreement every time.”
Darrell West, a professor of political science at Brown University and longtime observer of Rhode Island politics, said unions “remain very strong in the General Assembly,” and can still get bills introduced and often passed – as with the minimum-wage hike.
Yet as union membership has declined, West said, the public is “less enamored” with labor, and resents union workers’ wages and benefits. “That explains why someone like Carcieri or [Cranston Mayor] Stephen Laffey can be very popular … in doing things unions don’t like.”
Ironically, West noted, “I think unions represent the public interest on broad social issues. … In states that don’t have vocal unions, there’s not as much attention to working conditions and safety issues. You can see that in a number of Southern states. They’re not nearly as progressive in how they handle work force issues.”
So, for good or bad, can unions still get their way? Will the coalition they’ve formed, “Working Rhode Island,” make them even more powerful?
“We’ll see how the 2006 elections turn out,” West said. “It’s generally a smart strategy to coordinate resources and work together, but there are some risks as well when there’s one organization. You become a big, fat target for the opposition.”
