CONNECT
Occupy the Super Bowl: Indiana’s New Anti-Union Law Sparks Protest at Sport’s Biggest Event
Democracy Now! / Video Report
Published: Saturday 4 February 2012
“Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a so-called ‘right to work’ measure into law that critics say will result in lower wages and diminished collective bargaining rights.”
Occupy protesters in Indianapolis are gearing up to use the media spotlight on Sunday’s Super BowlXLVI to rally for union rights outside the statehouse. Earlier this week, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a so-called "right to work" measure into law that critics say will result in lower wages and diminished collective bargaining rights. Indiana workers have received the backing of the National Football League Players Association, which has called "right to work" "a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights." We’re joined from Indiana by Tithi Bhattacharya, an associate professor of South Asian History at Purdue University and a protester who is taking part in Occupy the Super Bowl. "It is absolutely shameful that the legislature passed a law that condemns unions and is now using the city to showcase Indianapolis while ordinary people in Indiana are completely opposed to this law," Bhattacharya says.
Transcript:
JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn to Super Bowl Sunday, it’s the biggest football game and biggest television show of the year. Last year, an estimated 111 million people watched it. But this year, viewers may have something more to watch than just the game. Occupy protesters in Indianapolis are gearing up to use the prime-time media spotlight to rally for union rights.
AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this week, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a so-called "right to work" measure into law, making Indiana the 23rd state to enact similar legislation. The controversial law exempts employees at unionized companies from paying union dues or fees if they so desire. Republicans claim the bill will help Indiana attract new, needed businesses and jobs. Critics say the legislation is an organized attack against labor that will result in lower wages and diminished collective bargaining rights. Following the bill’s approval Wednesday, thousands of union workers held a protest march to Lucas Oil Stadium, where the Super Bowl will be played this Sunday. The National Football League Players Association has also opposed the legislation calling right-to-work a "Political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights." DeMaurice Smith recently appeared on Dave Zirin’s radio show Edge of Sports Radio. Smith is the executive director of The National Football League Players Association.
DEMAURICE SMITH: We are in lock-step with organized labor. I’m proud to sit on the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO. Why? Because we share all of the same issues that American people share. We want decent wages, you want a fair pension, you want to be taken care of when you get hurt, you want a decent and safe working environment. So when you look at proposed legislation in a place like Indiana that wants to call it something called "Right to Work", but you realize that...
DAVE ZIRIN: A tricky phrase, "right to work".
DEMAURICE SMITH: Very tricky phrase. Let’s just put the hammer on the nail. It’s untrue. This bill has nothing to do with a right to work. If folks in Indiana and that great legislation—-and they want to pass a bill that really is something called "Right to Work", have a constitutional amendment that guarantees every citizen a right to a job. That is a right to work. What this is, instead, is a right to enforce and to ensure that ordinary working people can’t get together as a team, can’t organize, can’t stand together, and can’t fight or negotiate with management on an even playing field.
JUAN GONZALEZ: That was DeMaurice Smith, Executive Director of The National Football League Players Association. In related labor news, Arizona Republicans have just introduced legislation that would radically curb public employee’s unions in their state. A series of measures introduced this week would bar government agencies from collectively bargaining with public employees including firefighters and police. Unions would be prevented from collecting dues through automatic deductions. We go now to Indiana to speak with Tithi Bhattacharya. She is an Associate Professor of South Asian History at Purdue University. She is a leading member of Occupy Purdue and has written about Occupy in the Super bowl. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you hear us professor? Tell us about the Occupy protests that are planned.
TITHI BHATTACHARYA: Well, the first thing to say is that the protest on Sunday actually is not a one-off. It stands on the shoulder of and in solidarity with the thousands of people who came to the State House over the last two weeks to protest this bill. It is also not, I think, the end—-or I hope it’s not the end of this series of protests. Why the Super Bowl? Lucas Oil Stadium was built with 100% union labor. Every single structure that is up in the city of Indianapolis today that has been built to beautify the city has been built with union labor. So, I think it is absolutely shameful that the legislature passed a law that condemns unions and is now using the city to kind of showcase Indianapolis while ordinary people in Indiana are completely opposed to this law. The protest on Sunday also stands in solidarity with the NFL Players Union, which has come out so strongly against the legislation. I think there has been some talk of how the Occupy movement may—-there has been some fear that the Occupy movement may disrupt a Super Bowl. As far as I know and as far as I’m concerned, the Occupy movement nationally has been a non-violent movement and absolutely is committed to being non-violent on Saturday. The question of disruption absolutely is not an issue because as I said before, we stand in solidarity with the Players Union. The only thing the Occupy movement, on Sunday, hopes to disrupt is the complacency of the 1% who think that they can get away with this.
AMY GOODMAN: While The Football Players Union has expressed solidarity with the workers in Indiana, Fox Business News spoke with NFL Hall of famer Fran Tarkenton about the Super Bowl protests.
FOX REPORTER: Fran, you have been an outspoken opponent of municipal unions. What’s their beef with Indianapolis, which is staging the Super Bowl?
FRAN TARKENTON: Because they’ve got it made. They work 20 years, they could retire at 90% of their salary for the rest of their life. There’s no accountability. They don’t have to work hard. They go up by seniority. If the NFL—-if their union was like a public Union, the NFL would be broke. But, the government kind of bails them out, but now that’s getting to be problematic. This was the first right-to-work state decision in 15 years. It looks like Mitch Daniels is going to sign that into law. They’re angry about being it being a right-to-work state when we need to generate 20 million jobs?
AMY GOODMAN: NFL Hall of famer, Fran Tarkenton went on to say the protesters are going to make fools of themselves.
FRAN TARKENTON: ...disrupts the biggest American even there is and you are right, the northeastern fans are the best football fans in the world. They’ll come in there and spend tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s just such a great. It really is a positive, great event, and they’re going to make fools of themselves by going out there infringing on the rights of people who want to enjoy this great event.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Bhattacharya, your response?
TITHI BHATTACHARYA: Nine out of the ten poorest states—-states with the poorest health and safety records—-are actually right-to-work states. But, most importantly, we need to keep in mind that this is actually an effort to kill unions in the Midwest. This is part of a concerted effort that is going on to strike at the heart of labor mobilizing and labor organizing it is coming in Wisconsin, it is coming in Indiana, and it is coming in Michigan. And I think...Hello?
AMY GOODMAN: Keep speaking, go ahead.
TITHI BHATTACHARYA: So, I think that is really what’s at the heart of it. On a broader basis, I think Right to Work is one of those legislations that is a concerted effort to pass off this recession on working people by trying to lower our wages. All due respect to the Hall of famer, but he did say that people are going to be bailed out. Well actually, the institutions that got bailed out are the banks. This is an effort to say that the recession is hurting the economy, so ordinary people need to tighten their belts. Well actually, ordinary people are not responsible for the recession, and this attack on ordinary people speaking out or fighting back—-which is really what the unions are—-is a naked display of union busting, which actually needs to stop.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Professor Bhattacharya, where will you be on Sunday at the Superbowl?
TITHI BHATTACHARYA: Like the rest of the occupiers from across the state, I will be at the Indiana State House. The protest has been called at the South Lawn of the Indiana State House at 12:00 noon. That’s where I hope all people who are fighting against these kind of policies of the 1% inside the legislatures, and are fighting against the display of the power of the 1% on our streets of Indianapolis with the corporate logos, will be there to join me in a non-violent protest.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Professor Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of South Asian History at Purdue University, a leading member of the Occupy Purdue, written about Occupy Super Bowl. Speaking to us from West Lafayette, Indiana.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Amy Goodman
Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of "Breaking the Sound Barrier," recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.
FEATURE A
Connect with your friends
Find new content you might like and see what your friends are sharing!
14 comments on "Occupy the Super Bowl: Indiana’s New Anti-Union Law Sparks Protest at Sport’s Biggest Event"
February 05, 2012 9:36am
Lagibby raised the issue of Beck Rights so I thought it was necessary to add an article examining those here to explain what happens when someone decides not to join the union, and how that impacts them in the workplace, overall. Very illuminating!
Why Beck Rights Are Important To Workers
By Robert P. Hunter | May 1, 1997
Unions tend to downplay both the likely impact of educating rank-and-file members of their right to a refund of union political expenditures, and the probable effects of enforcing Beck rights in the courts and administrative agencies. Union claims in this area may be a little suspect considering that they are a primary force in suppressing and distorting knowledge of Beck rights. If the exercise of Beck rights continues to receive greater legal attention and workers receive a growing body of truthful information on the subject, a number of contemporary trends will change the face of unionism.
One of the greatest complaints of union members is that they are in the dark regarding how the union spends their money.
Widespread knowledge of Beck rights will cause union members to consider the advantages and disadvantages of exercising the right to a dues rebate and a reduced agency fee. The decision of whether to exercise Beck rights is very much a matter of individual choice.
Under the RLA and NLRA case law, a union can compel employees to resign from the union in order to exercise their Beck rights. The employees continue to remain fully covered by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and the union is bound to represent the nonmembers through its duty of fair representation. For example, a union cannot refuse to handle grievances filed by a Beck objector simply because he or she is a nonmember, and courts are willing to more closely examine duty of fair representation cases where nonmember status is an issue. In exchange for services that the union must offer to the nonmember, the employee must continue to pay "financial core" dues to the union, thus sharing in the costs of representation but avoiding those expenditures which are not germane to collective bargaining.
Given the substantial power the union has to affect an employee’s working conditions, it may be to the employee’s advantage to have a say in the way that the union exercises its authority. The only effective way to do that is to become or remain a union member and participate in its governance. Those rights of participation are almost always limited to union members. Depending on the employee’s level of interest in union affairs, union members can participate in critical decisions about negotiation strategies and goals, how the collective bargaining agreement will be enforced and which grievances should be taken to arbitration. Participating in strike votes, ratification or rejection of contract terms, and the election of union officers are important rights of union membership that many Beck objectors must forgo.
Exercising Beck rights in the workplace has other effects. Peer pressure and bullying from within union ranks often discourages members from exercising Beck rights. Exercising Beck rights by objecting to paying full union dues may create an uncomfortable working environment and tension among coworkers who support the union’s political and ideological causes. Other members may feel that the Beck objector is shirking the full payment of dues while accepting the benefits of union representation, even though this is untrue because nonmembers must pay for exactly those services the union renders according to the duty of fair representation. More often than not, the primary reason that rank-and-file union members are discouraged from exercising Beck rights is simply because they are pressured to avoid "rocking the boat."
Beck rights can be resolved only on an individual basis. Whether to become a core financial member is a personal choice—one which may stand primarily on principle. Beck rights stand for a very important principle, and the individual who exercises these rights usually does so on principle. In Beck the Supreme Court recognized that the principles of individualism and the ability to control one’s own political, social and moral choices should not be undermined by policies favoring collective bargaining and unionization.
Benefits received by nonmembers must be considered for a full appreciation of the rights recognized by Beck. Nonmembers escape the union’s ability to fine workers for violating the union’s constitution and bylaws. Escaping internal union rules and disciplinary actions may be a significant plus for some employees. Working during an authorized strike without penalty is a common example. A union member who crosses the picket line may face fines and other disciplinary proceedings, while a Beck objector is free to join strikers or work through a labor dispute based on his or her own choice and personal needs. The Supreme Court has held that an employee may resign from the union at any time in order to avoid the force of such disciplinary rules, but resignation only works prospectively and must precede the acts for which the union member may be disciplined. 49
Another major benefit to an employee who exercises Beck rights is that refunded dues money translates into an immediate pay raise. Although this may not increase each paycheck significantly, the total rebate can grow large over many years. Political and ideological expenditures out of these average union dues could presumably be as high as 79% (as in Beck) or even 90% (as in Lehnert). The union member who exercises Beck rights could save this money. For instance, an employee paying an annual union fee of $672 could, if the nonchargeable expenditures were as high as in Lehnert, receive a rebate of about $600. Likewise, an employee paying $250 annually could receive a rebate of $100 if the nonchargeable expenditures were determined to be 40%. There are many rebate variables which make precise figures difficult to estimate. (See Chart 3.) 50
The Employment Policy Foundation of Washington, D.C., estimates that the average local union member in 1995 in a non-right-to-work state pays approximately $425 in dues annually. Professor James Bennett of George Mason University calculated that the average annual dues for 1987 was $672. 51
On the other hand, the dues rebate may be smaller. The Michigan Education Association (MEA) claims that only 17.29% of its dues is allocated to nonchargeable expenditures. A full dues paying member pays $460.30 annually; the reduced fee paid by core members is $380.71 (less a $3.00 allowance for potential disputed chargeable costs). The MEA’s accounting procedures are currently under legal attack, however, and the Association has so far refused to reveal the underlying documentation to prove that its accounting procedures are legitimate. 52
A substantial benefit inuring to Beck objectors and full union members is the requirement that the union account for its expenditures and inform the represented employees of how their dues money is being spent. This has been one of the greatest complaints of union members—that they are in the dark regarding how the union spends their money. Beck rights shed light on this issue by forcing the union to account for expenditures. Full union members are aided by being able to challenge the union’s fiscal discretion and influence the direction of their union. Active union members are thereby able to more fully participate in the union’s internal proceedings, providing additional democratic oversight to the operation of their union. This is a healthy development in union affairs and is long overdue. Perhaps the entire Beck issue could have been avoided had the unions voluntarily disclosed financial information to the rank-and-file, instead of vigorously resisting full disclosure.
Many employees may exercise their Beck rights because they want the freedom to spend their own money on the political causes, issues and candidates they wish to support and not those dictated by their union. Should workers who enjoy hunting be forced to pay dues which support political candidates who oppose firearm ownership? The list of possible objections is endless. That is why it is important to leave personal political decisions to individuals and not to presume that a union (or any other group) has the right to make those decisions for workers.
The NLRA has deprived union members of their most fundamental civil liberties through compulsory dues and a lack of accountability. Beck rights are a triumph for individual rights over the political weight of union leaders and they represent a giant step toward worker political emancipation.
February 04, 2012 9:31pm
Does anyone besides me find it surreal that Fran Tarkenton is saying that public employees "have it made" if they work for 20 years and get good pensions?
F Scott Fitzgerald: "The rich are different from you and me."
February 05, 2012 6:01am
I do know a good number of fairly young folks who worked two 20-year stints at different union jobs and are now collecting two pensions and retired at 58, making more than any one full-time employee by far. Then wait for spouse's Social Security to kick in on top. That will be a nice little retirement. All of our friends who had union jobs with pensions retired before they were 60, many before age 55. Jeez, I have girlfriends retired well before age 50, living in Florida, because of union pensions. If you had two married union workers, they did tend to retire very, very young because of the two pensions coming in. I don't think you can argue with the facts. Just because the fact was being presented by someone who made a lot of money in pro ball doesn't change them. Some of those early retirees may now be concerned when their employers are now facing financial insecurity, so their pensions may be in jeopardy, but they were still able to opt out of working well before the rest of us.
February 04, 2012 5:21pm
Okay, let's level the playing field. As a society, we must learn to do the basics: share, cooperate and try being a civilized nation. Any endeavor to stifle wages or associations with unions is disgusting. Please understand the rights of humans to participate freely in a democratic society without fear of losing wages. Really, people, wake-up and march to the drummer--don't be stifled by the one percent!
February 04, 2012 9:23pm
JH: Well said.
February 04, 2012 5:01pm
So the local garden club, rotary club or chamber of commerce should allow anyone to join without paying dues and provide its services to them for free, right? And providing the services of the organization for free would not weaken any of those organizations, right? And anyone who goes to church shouldn't join as a member and shouldn't put any money in the collection plate?
February 04, 2012 8:21pm
The whole point is you don't HAVE to join. MANY union contracts already provide for this option. Do you know that? I wish some of you actually understood how unions worked if you wished to join this discussion. This law simply does not force compulsory agreements between unions and employers to FORCE all employees to belong to the unions. The union IS NOT the job. In many instances, you have long-term employees in workplaces who oppose the formation of the union. Yes, it's true. Get out in the factories and shops and talk to them. Right-to-work would not force them to join or pay dues when a union is introduced in their workplace. Each worker would have the option to decide for themselves. Nor would any worker face potential termination should they decide they did not wish to join. Everyone is still free to join, unions are free to form. If, as you are arguing, employees feel they are providing services, they will wish to join and pay dues. But in many cases, the contract provides for this already. This is simply broadening what already exists and adding an additional worker protection that an employee cannot be terminated. Yes, there may be a little less dues collected to go to the high-paid union officials at the top (you DO know how that works, right?). Pity that 1%!
February 05, 2012 6:36pm
"I wish some of you actually understood how unions worked if you wished to join this discussion."
...and you will make that judgment and allow them to join if they pass, right? What a pompous anti-union twat!
February 04, 2012 9:24pm
Gina, you are mistaken if you think "Right to Work" would make union membership voluntary. It is already voluntary. You do not have to join a union in an organized workplace. What so-called "Right to Work" laws would do is prevent a union from charging non-members the cost of representing them in bargaining and grievances. Unions are REQUIRED by federal law to represent ALL employees. Those employees who object to being members of a union are called "Beck objectors" after a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Beck objectors pay only the cost to represent them, which is usually less than dues. So-called "Right to Work" is a thinly disguised way to break unions.
February 05, 2012 9:17am
Lagibby, I'm fully aware of the structure you detail here and went over it in my reply post from last night. The only fee they do not pay is advertising and promotional fees for the union to promote themselves. When someone is representing a bargaining unit, it does not cost more to represent a non dues-paying member. I haven't seen someone argue longer for six people as opposed to five. And as far as taking up grievances to the labor board, non members are far less likely to use this. You can go to the labor board without your union.
February 04, 2012 3:04pm
This interview is all over the map. Right to Work doesn't limit the union's power, but it does protect a worker who doesn't wish to join the union. A worker cannot be fired for not joining the union at the workplace or paying dues. It doesn't limit the opportunity to form a union, and doesn't establish disincentives from joining if you wish.
February 04, 2012 9:23pm
Gina, federal law ALREADY protects workers from being fired for not joining a union. Federal law also requires unions to represent every worker in a bargaining unit, whether they are members or not. What so-called "Right to Work" laws do is prevent unions from collecting expenses for representing all those employees. It is but one tool in the union-busting belt, but combined with congressional Republicans' resistance to necessary appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and various state moves to restrict collective bargaining for public employees, it is an effective way of reducing workers' rights.
February 05, 2012 6:45pm
Don't waste your breath trying to advise and convince her. She is a shill for that "union-busting belt". She's been provided with all the rhetoric and probably has been paid to respond as a private member of the public in any forum she can find.
Normally, I'd guess her to be a troll, but she's too well-versed in all the jargon, so my bet is that she, if it even is a "she", is more likely a paid shill.
February 05, 2012 5:51am
Federal law protects workers who choose not to join for reasons such as belonging to religions like the Seventh Day Adventists who oppose belonging to organizations such as unions. Those workers must still pay 'service fees' instead of dues even if they do not belong, and they must receive a breakdown of all expenses incurred. They are only exempt from paying campaigning funds, etc on behalf of the union itself.