Making Indiana a Right To Work State

HARBESON: Labor intensive


> SOUTHERN INDIANA — How sad to see the waste of human labor, unionized and not unionized, that’s being expended on the political fight in Indiana concerning the right-to-work issue.

Removed from government, unions are simply people united for common goals in their workplace — a marvelous concept. Removed from government, businesses are simply people trying to meet a demand in the market and hiring people to help — a marvelous concept. Removed from government, when there is a need for conflict resolution, the parties involved work to negotiate a mutually satisfying agreement, understanding compromise may be necessary — a marvelous concept.

However, when unions and corporations use government to gain an advantage over the other party, well, that’s not so marvelous.

It’s also not very smart. When government interferes in what should be voluntary interactions, even when one group thinks they benefited and “won” the fight, they still lose because now they are prisoners, handcuffed to the unpredictability of the political process.

We have clear evidence of this in regards to this issue because a right-to-work law was successfully passed in Indiana back in 1957. Then it was repealed in the mid 1960s. Now here it is again, casting a huge shadow over the people in Indiana. And if the legislation passes, it could be repealed at some future point.

What’s worse, all of this action is only a tiny part of a continuing response to previous government actions, much of it on the federal level. On and on we go. And yet we still believe government solves problems.

The only people who really benefit are the politicians because their interference solidifies and intensifies the rift, ensuring their continuing involvement. This interference between these two groups in particular has helped create the huge funding funnels that are essential in maintaining the two major political party machines we see today.

Indiana Republicans are either dense or being completely disingenuous about the right-to-work proposal. The Democrats have it right — this law, if passed, would not make Indiana a right-to-work state.

Yes, it’s true that this law would prohibit contracts between employers and unions that require all employees to pay union representation fees. But that does not mean Indiana residents would then be living in a state where no fees were charged in order to work. It would only mean the fees that are paid would be lowered for some individuals.

Indiana cannot be a right-to-work state as long as it continues to charge its own fees for the so-called right to work, otherwise known as the income tax. And even if the politicians pushing for this right-to-work law decide to be consistent and amend this bill to include repeal of the state income tax, Indiana still wouldn’t be able to completely unshackle hard working individuals because the federal government also charges fees for working.

They don’t call those annual speeches the state of the union for nothing you know.

Business owners/management, unionized workers and nonunionized workers are experiencing the exact same labor struggle — being hindered in their desire to gain higher wages when forced to hand over fees to the state. Unfortunately, as long as these groups focus on fighting each other through the political process, they can’t see this one grievance they actually have in common — the one grievance that can unite them.

And the politicians certainly aren’t going to point it out.

Although it’s now complicated due to previous actions, the root of the right-to-work issue is as simple as any other issue — government should not be interfering in the voluntary interactions between individuals and it’s a mistake for either side in this conflict, business or union, to use it to do so.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is currently searching for a huge funding funnel of her very own.

Does fitness matter for police?

HARBESON: Is this a stronger union?

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Note to readers: I’m about to discuss the Jeffersonville Police Union’s contract battle with the city concerning minimum physical standard requirements. I know I’m going to be tempted to mention doughnuts but I want to meet a higher standard for this job. That’s why I’ve imposed the following physical requirement: When I’m tempted to mention doughnuts, I’ll stop writing and run laps around my yard until the feeling goes away.

Why are Jeffersonville police officers so uptight about minimum physical standard requirements in their union contract? Prior to following this controversy, I thought that meeting physical standards on a periodic basis was just a logical part of a police officer’s job.

As I understand the main disagreement, the police union does not want failure to meet these minimum physical standards to be grounds for termination. They think this requirement is punitive and they apparently don’t believe punitive measures work well to motivate and direct human behavior, or at least police officer behavior. They obviously have no problem with punitive measures as an effective means of controlling and directing behavior for the rest of society.

At one point in the negotiations, it was agreed that police officers would not immediately be let go if they failed to meet the minimum physical requirements. Instead, union members would be given three chances to pass and meet the age-graded standards.

In other words, police officers were going to be held to a three strikes and you’re out standard and they didn’t like that at all.

So even though various changes have been proposed about meeting fitness standards, the union has remained firm in its position and it wants any physical standard requirement to be incentive-based. Union members would like a specific reward, such as a monetary bonus, for meeting the minimum standards.

But the purpose of incentives is to spur action and motivate someone to perform at a level significantly above and beyond minimum standards; not for maintaining the basic minimum for the job.

It seems so odd to me that the police union members would balk at demonstrating a minimum standard of physical ability. Where is the sense of pride in themselves and respect for the community that pays their salaries?

I know police officers don’t necessarily think this way because they are used to dealing with those who pay them from a monopoly-based standpoint. I can imagine how different this all might be if they actually had to persuade people to purchase their services in the voluntary market.

Think about it. Instead of being coerced to fund city police, what if you had the freedom to choose from a variety of protection services? (Assuming you wanted to hire one at all.)

Do you think minimum physical standards would be on your list of criteria to consider as you made your decision?

Even when we only consider activities where police officers actually assist peaceful citizens who may be in need, and ignore possible dealings with dangerous (and fit) criminals, it still seems wise to make sure that police maintain minimum physical condition. No one wants to see police officers become part of the story because they let themselves go so much that they were physically incapable of performing the job.

Rather than fighting minimum physical fitness standards as a contractual job requirement, what if the police officers had spent their time and energy for the past two years working to ensure that they and their fellow union members reached their minimum age-graded physical standards? Would any of them really need to worry about holding on to their jobs? If so, then I guess that’s all anyone needs to know.

Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson ran around her yard about 500 times while composing this column. Which means she now deserves a doughnut.