St. Louis Beacon
By Jo Mannies, Beacon political reporter
6:51 am on Mon, 10.21.13
For the last decade, one of the key groups influencing legislative initiatives in Missouri, and many other states with a strong conservative presence, has been the American Legislative Exchange Council, more commonly known as ALEC.
Founded by conservative state legislators in 1973 and funded by major corporations, the nonprofit think tank focuses primarily on economic issues but also has zeroed in on public education and gun rights as well.
ALEC and its free-market approach have taken on more prominent roles in Missouri after Republicans took control of both chambers of the General Assembly in 2003.
"Our bread and butter is state and local government," said Jonathan Williams, ALEC’s director for tax and fiscal policy.
"We don’t go out and tell people what to do at the state level. But we’re certainly happy to talk about our nonpartisan research and analysis and trends and what’s going on in other states.”
Critics contend that ALEC does more than talk. Sean Nicholson, executive director of Progress Missouri, contends that ALEC uses "scholarships" and outreach to influence legislators — and what ends up before the General Assembly.
ALEC has been given credit, or blame, for various legislative proposals in Missouri to curb teacher tenure, block restrictions on energy emissions, and expand gun rights. The group also contributed to the wording of Proposition C, the 2010 ballot measure in Missouri aimed at blocking Obamacare's mandate for individuals to purchase insurance.
Williams acknowledges, "We have a strong ALEC presence in Missouri.”
He singled out MIssouri House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka; state Sen. Ed Emery, R-Lamar; state Rep. Sue Allen, R-Town and Country; and now-U.S. Rep. Jason Smith, R-Salem.
Nicholson doesn’t dispute that claim. Progress Missouri has been monitoring ALEC's activities in the state for years. "Half of our congressional delegation are former ALEC members," he said. “ALEC and its agenda are firmly integrated here in Missouri."
Progressive groups around the country also have been tracking ALEC's activities, resulting in some corporate donors to ALEC — such as St. Louis-based Express Scripts — dropping their financial support.
State pension changes high on ALEC's 2014 list
Of ALEC’s key issues heading into the coming legislative year, two could be of particular interest in Missouri:
Proposed changes in public pensions, as ALEC encourages more states to consider shifting to “defined contribution plans," such as 401Ks, and away from traditional “defined benefit plans,’’ such as those in Missouri and Illinois.
Continued focus on "right to work," which would do away with Missouri’s current law allowing unions and employers to require all workers to pay dues, if a majority agree to join a union.
Jones and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder are among the most outspoken advocates of "right to work" in Missouri, with Jones emphasizing his plan to press for the legislation next year.
Kinder has predicted that some form of right-to-work proposal will be on Missouri's 2014 ballot.
As for pensions, ALEC’s Williams says the group is focusing on the national problem of state and local governments’ unfunded pension liabilities, which some estimate total in the trillions of dollars.
For many states, such as Illinois, Williams said that shortfalls in money needed to cover their pension commitments is "the No. 1 problem.” Among other things, he said, many of those states are relying on projected interest growth in their pension investments that are unrealistically high.
Williams cited recent moves by Kansas, Rhode Island and Alaska away from defined benefit plans to 401Ks.
Pension situation in Missouri
In Missouri, the head of the Missouri State Employee’s Retirement System (commonly known as MOSERS) said that legislative changes made two years ago have put Missouri’s existing pension system on a solid financial footing.
In 2010, the General Assembly approved a measure that requires state employees hired in 2011 and after to put 4 percent of their pay into the state plan. Those hired earlier put in no money. State workers must be on the job for 10 years to be vested in the pension system, compared to only five years for pre-2011 hires.
The minimum retirement age to collect a full pension was increased to 67, from the previous 62.
Gary Findlay, MOSERS’ executive director, said that at least 20 percent of all state employees are covered by the new provisions because of the state’s high employee turnover.
MOSERS’ rate of return on investments, needed to fund the pensions, averaged 8.4 percent annually over the past 20 years — rising to 10.4 percent for the current year, Findlay said.
"We’re in good shape," he said. Missouri is in better shape than many other states, Findlay continued, because the state has made a point of annually paying its own financial contribution into the system.
Pension-troubled states like Illinois, he said, have amassed unfunded liabilities mainly because they failed to make the state’s annual contribution into the system — in effect, shortchanging the fund and hoping that good investments would bail them out.
Findlay said that such a problem "is not the common condition" for most states. Missouri’s well-funded state pension system, he added, is among the reasons why the state has received a AAA bond rating.
ALEC initially had proposed a shift to 401K-type pensions in the states about a decade ago, when the stock market was booming and then-President George W. Bush was making a similar proposal to change part of Social Security.
But now, part of ALEC's pitch is that more private-sector workers have 401Ks, and no longer have defined benefit pensions. The group argues that it's unfair for taxpayers with 401Ks to foot more generous pensions for public employees.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Bill de Blasio to Burger King: ‘This Is an Unsupportable Situation’
New York City is a long way from Mid-MO, both geographically and politically. Isn't it time that elected officials in Missouri stood up for people who are working hard and just can't make ends meet?
The mayoral hopeful is one of the most high-profile politicians to come out in support of the growing movement for low-wage workers’ rights.
Working In These Times
Lizzy Ratner October 18, 2013
Bill de Blasio, Democratic nominee for New York mayor, leans over to listen to a woman at a rally on Oct. 5, 2013, in New York. (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle)
Shortly after 11:30 on Wednesday morning, Bill de Blasio, New York City’s likely next mayor, stood just a few blocks from City Hall and did what none of his recent predecessors would have done without the help of drugs or tickle torture: he pledged his support for the city’s vast fast-food workforce and the scores of low-wage workers laboring beside them. Standing in front of a lower Manhattan Burger King, de Blasio offered praise for the campaign to organize fast-food workers and laments for the industry whose grabby, employer-take-all economics has consigned so many New Yorkers to a subsistence existence. As one initial remedy, he called for New York City to have the authority to set—and presumably raise—its own minimum wage.
“The bottom line is, this is an unsupportable situation where every day hard-working people can’t make ends meet, and the companies involved certainly can do more,” de Blasio said as a squad of fast-food workers cheered behind him, and reporters scribbled notes on steno-pads. “And it is right, it is right, for leaders in government to step up on behalf of these workers and help them organize to win their rights.”
This was not the first time de Blasio had volunteered his voice for low-wage worker rights. As public advocate, he has been a reliable supporter of the fast-food workers’ movement, appearing at labor conferences long before the media cared to follow him and pressing worker-friendly legislation like the recently passed paid sick days bill. During the dog days of the Democratic primary, he spent a week trying to live on a minimum-wage worker’s budget.
But de Blasio’s appearance Wednesday outside a downtown Burger King signaled a potentially new moment for both city politics and Fast Food Forward, the coalition behind New Yorkers fast-food worker campaign. As the mayor-apparent of New York City, de Blasio is not just some scrappy local pol offering a thumbs-up to a worthy cause; he is a rising political power with a broad mandate and potentially national platform (indeed, de Blasio is now one of the highest-ranking elected officials to embrace the fast-food workers’ movement). And, as suggested by the scrum of elected officials clamoring for turns at the mic before him, he might actually have a significant base of elected support behind him.
As Scott Stringer, the Manhattan borough president who is expected to become the city’s comptroller, observed when it was his turn at the podium, “We have a growing coalition.” Among those who put in an appearance on Wednesday were state senators, state assembly members, several city council members and Letitia James, a city council member who is almost certain to get the city’s second-highest post, public advocate.
The particular reason for their presence this Wednesday morning was the release of a startling new report titled “Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast Food Industry.” The report was published by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne, and its findings have provided some of the first hard data on the economic costs of the fast-food industry’s appalling pay practices. Needless to say the details are bracing. Between 2007 and 2011, 52 percent of all frontline fast-food workers were forced to rely on some form of public benefits, such as Medicaid, food stamps or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, because they do not earn enough money to survive on their own. The cost to taxpayers was $7 billion a year. And all the while, the fast-food business boomed, with the country’s ten largest companies raking in an eye-goggling $7.44 billion last year.
“It’s very disturbing that companies that collectively make billions upon billions of dollars refuse to pay their workers a living wage,” said Karim Camara, a New York State Assembly member from Brooklyn. Like several other speakers, Camara used his turn at the podium to call for an investigation by the state government into the $708 million New York spends each year to pick up the tab for the public benefits fast-food workers rely on since their employers won’t pay a livable wage. As many as 104,000 frontline fast-food workers rely on these benefits every year in New York State.
Tionnie Cross is one of these workers. At 29, she is at once shy, gregarious and, in her words, “poverty-stricken.” As she told her story, she began working at a Brooklyn McDonald’s six months ago, though she has spent as many as five years in the fast-food trenches over all. She had hoped to find some measure of stability in her job (she had just come out of the shelter system), but with a salary of just $7.35 an hour, or between $120 and $160 a week, she hasn’t been able to make nearly enough money to pay her $1,000 rent, buy food, pay her phone bill and cover the sundry other costs of being alive. So she relies on food stamps and welfare and tries to budget her income, though she has fallen behind on her rent and fears an eviction notice will be arriving.
“It’s not enough,” she said simply, as Burger King signs for “Satisfries” and one-dollar French-fry burgers glowed behind her. “It’s not fair when you’re in poverty, working, trying to get more money, and you not really getting enough money to do what you have to do.”
Will the dawn of a new political era make a difference for her? Will it help other workers so that they can buy MetroCards, pay their rent and still afford to put food in their refrigerators? The question is a critical one, not the least because the number of fast-food workers continues to grow rapidly in New York, jumping nearly 30 percent in the past four years alone. The city is now home to 6,600 fast-food restaurants employing 57,000 workers.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
New York’s rising political leadership has pledged to support these workers as they attempt to organize and unionize, and de Blasio’s call for Albany to give the city the authority to set its own minimum wage could, if achieved, have far-reaching consequences. But the hurdles are high. After all, corporations evade, Albany thwarts and leaders backtrack on promises.
And yet it was hard to ignore the buzz among the workers and politicians, organizers and advocates as they milled outside Burger King, surrounded by a squall of press.
Jonathan Westin, the executive director of New York Communities for Change, which has been leading the Fast Food Forward campaign, acknowledged the mood shift. “I feel like for two decades now we’ve been toiling away in the fields while not having much to show for it because whether it was Bloomberg or Giuliani or whoever, nothing was getting passed for people on the ground.”
But now, he said, the years of toil might finally bear fruit. “It generally feels like we may actually have people in office who have similar progressive values to what we’ve seen all over New York City.”
“I think we’re all excited to see it,” he said.
Lizzy Ratner October 18, 2013
The mayoral hopeful is one of the most high-profile politicians to come out in support of the growing movement for low-wage workers’ rights.
Working In These Times
Lizzy Ratner October 18, 2013
Bill de Blasio, Democratic nominee for New York mayor, leans over to listen to a woman at a rally on Oct. 5, 2013, in New York. (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle)
Shortly after 11:30 on Wednesday morning, Bill de Blasio, New York City’s likely next mayor, stood just a few blocks from City Hall and did what none of his recent predecessors would have done without the help of drugs or tickle torture: he pledged his support for the city’s vast fast-food workforce and the scores of low-wage workers laboring beside them. Standing in front of a lower Manhattan Burger King, de Blasio offered praise for the campaign to organize fast-food workers and laments for the industry whose grabby, employer-take-all economics has consigned so many New Yorkers to a subsistence existence. As one initial remedy, he called for New York City to have the authority to set—and presumably raise—its own minimum wage.
“The bottom line is, this is an unsupportable situation where every day hard-working people can’t make ends meet, and the companies involved certainly can do more,” de Blasio said as a squad of fast-food workers cheered behind him, and reporters scribbled notes on steno-pads. “And it is right, it is right, for leaders in government to step up on behalf of these workers and help them organize to win their rights.”
This was not the first time de Blasio had volunteered his voice for low-wage worker rights. As public advocate, he has been a reliable supporter of the fast-food workers’ movement, appearing at labor conferences long before the media cared to follow him and pressing worker-friendly legislation like the recently passed paid sick days bill. During the dog days of the Democratic primary, he spent a week trying to live on a minimum-wage worker’s budget.
But de Blasio’s appearance Wednesday outside a downtown Burger King signaled a potentially new moment for both city politics and Fast Food Forward, the coalition behind New Yorkers fast-food worker campaign. As the mayor-apparent of New York City, de Blasio is not just some scrappy local pol offering a thumbs-up to a worthy cause; he is a rising political power with a broad mandate and potentially national platform (indeed, de Blasio is now one of the highest-ranking elected officials to embrace the fast-food workers’ movement). And, as suggested by the scrum of elected officials clamoring for turns at the mic before him, he might actually have a significant base of elected support behind him.
As Scott Stringer, the Manhattan borough president who is expected to become the city’s comptroller, observed when it was his turn at the podium, “We have a growing coalition.” Among those who put in an appearance on Wednesday were state senators, state assembly members, several city council members and Letitia James, a city council member who is almost certain to get the city’s second-highest post, public advocate.
The particular reason for their presence this Wednesday morning was the release of a startling new report titled “Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast Food Industry.” The report was published by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne, and its findings have provided some of the first hard data on the economic costs of the fast-food industry’s appalling pay practices. Needless to say the details are bracing. Between 2007 and 2011, 52 percent of all frontline fast-food workers were forced to rely on some form of public benefits, such as Medicaid, food stamps or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, because they do not earn enough money to survive on their own. The cost to taxpayers was $7 billion a year. And all the while, the fast-food business boomed, with the country’s ten largest companies raking in an eye-goggling $7.44 billion last year.
“It’s very disturbing that companies that collectively make billions upon billions of dollars refuse to pay their workers a living wage,” said Karim Camara, a New York State Assembly member from Brooklyn. Like several other speakers, Camara used his turn at the podium to call for an investigation by the state government into the $708 million New York spends each year to pick up the tab for the public benefits fast-food workers rely on since their employers won’t pay a livable wage. As many as 104,000 frontline fast-food workers rely on these benefits every year in New York State.
Tionnie Cross is one of these workers. At 29, she is at once shy, gregarious and, in her words, “poverty-stricken.” As she told her story, she began working at a Brooklyn McDonald’s six months ago, though she has spent as many as five years in the fast-food trenches over all. She had hoped to find some measure of stability in her job (she had just come out of the shelter system), but with a salary of just $7.35 an hour, or between $120 and $160 a week, she hasn’t been able to make nearly enough money to pay her $1,000 rent, buy food, pay her phone bill and cover the sundry other costs of being alive. So she relies on food stamps and welfare and tries to budget her income, though she has fallen behind on her rent and fears an eviction notice will be arriving.
“It’s not enough,” she said simply, as Burger King signs for “Satisfries” and one-dollar French-fry burgers glowed behind her. “It’s not fair when you’re in poverty, working, trying to get more money, and you not really getting enough money to do what you have to do.”
Will the dawn of a new political era make a difference for her? Will it help other workers so that they can buy MetroCards, pay their rent and still afford to put food in their refrigerators? The question is a critical one, not the least because the number of fast-food workers continues to grow rapidly in New York, jumping nearly 30 percent in the past four years alone. The city is now home to 6,600 fast-food restaurants employing 57,000 workers.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
New York’s rising political leadership has pledged to support these workers as they attempt to organize and unionize, and de Blasio’s call for Albany to give the city the authority to set its own minimum wage could, if achieved, have far-reaching consequences. But the hurdles are high. After all, corporations evade, Albany thwarts and leaders backtrack on promises.
And yet it was hard to ignore the buzz among the workers and politicians, organizers and advocates as they milled outside Burger King, surrounded by a squall of press.
Jonathan Westin, the executive director of New York Communities for Change, which has been leading the Fast Food Forward campaign, acknowledged the mood shift. “I feel like for two decades now we’ve been toiling away in the fields while not having much to show for it because whether it was Bloomberg or Giuliani or whoever, nothing was getting passed for people on the ground.”
But now, he said, the years of toil might finally bear fruit. “It generally feels like we may actually have people in office who have similar progressive values to what we’ve seen all over New York City.”
“I think we’re all excited to see it,” he said.
Lizzy Ratner October 18, 2013
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
This Springfield News Leader editorial is well reasoned and acknowledges the constitutional rights of Missouri public employees to true collective bargaining. When will the City of Columbia realize that the once a year session they hold with their worker's unions does not pass constitutional requirements?
City, unions share interests
Common ground on collective bargaining requires common goals
Oct. 9, 2013
Unions and employers often see issues from opposite points of view, but in the case of the city and its employees, we believe there are enough shared interests that negotiations on new collective bargaining rules should be able to provide a positive vision for everyone involved.
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20131009/OPINIONS01/310090038/City-unions-share-interests?odyssey=nav%7Chead
City, unions share interests
Common ground on collective bargaining requires common goals
Oct. 9, 2013
Unions and employers often see issues from opposite points of view, but in the case of the city and its employees, we believe there are enough shared interests that negotiations on new collective bargaining rules should be able to provide a positive vision for everyone involved.
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20131009/OPINIONS01/310090038/City-unions-share-interests?odyssey=nav%7Chead
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)