Oklahomans
lost “Right to Work/Scab” Fight 9/25/01
On their side: All the media, all
the politicians, all the money. On
Our side, t-shirts, bumper stickers,
and hundreds of volunteers!
We lost
the "Right to Work" campaign in Oklahoma on September 25, 54-46%.
Various
activists told me that Oklahoma's employers have been trying to get "Right
to Work" legislation for years. It failed in 1964 by only 2% in an
election that contained several other state questions. There have been
legislative attempts just about every time the legislature met. North Texans
often go to rallies at the State Capitol to stop the legislation. But this
year, a Democratic legislator proposed putting it out on the ballot. He is from
the same district where UAW 1999 (one of the larger Oklahoma locals and by far
the largest UAW local) is located.
As the
fight developed, I heard horror stories about active and former union members
who were participating in the campaign against us by calling radio stations and
writing (or sponsoring) letters to editors. I had a friend on the Dallas
Central Labor Council who was active in organizing the fight in Oklahoma for
his union. My CLC friend told me that seniors were voting against us. Others
told me that the teachers “professional organizations” had been a particular
problem. One activist told me of a high-school teacher who was taking her
entire class into the Chamber of Commerce's “Vote Yes” phone banking during the
last days of the campaign!
Activists
told me, and newspaper articles verified, that the initiative seemed destined
to win when it was first filed.
Estimates told me were around the 65-35% range. One newspaper said 70-30%. But
union activists told me that they had narrowed the gap steadily until, by
election day, the estimated loss was within the margin of error of the poll.
My own
participation was minimal. In mid-summer, I began running articles about the
coming fight in Oklahoma in our local union paper. I also began talking about
it at meetings of the local and of the CLC. In the final month, our CLC sent a
donation.
I
discussed the strategy with our CLC member. He told me that SQ#695 would be on
the ballot by itself. Most Oklahomans wouldn't care about it one way or the
other; consequently, the AFL-CIO expected a very low turnout in an election
that could be won easily just by focusing on turning out our union members.
Approximately 7% of the workers in Texas were organized, he told me.
Several
times, in the course of the campaign, I went back to that fundamental
assumption. It didn't seem right to me for a union to be hoping for a low voter
turnout. It didn't seem right to ignore the possibilities for union-building
that could occur in a public campaign. I argued for an "external" campaign.
I often noted that the Alliance for Retired Americans, if it had been activated
in this state of retired people, would have turned the corner for the union
campaign.
As it
turned out, there were 3 campaigns: palm-pilot door-to-door, internal, and
external. The external campaign spent about $5M, according to newspaper
accounts. But their TV, radio, and mail ads were peculiar in that they never
mentioned unions, and they never explained "right to work." They
thumped on the idea that states “with laws like SQ#695” had lower wages and
insurance benefits than other states. Their ads seemed to say that Oklahomans
would see an immediate cut if SQ#695 were to pass. People complained that the
ads were deceitful. The real facts were presented in leaflets targeting union
members.
On the
other side of the battle, full use was made of the deceptive "right to
work" phrase. When they tried to argue at all, the bad guys argued that
businesses would refuse to come to the state because there was no anti-union
law. They actually said that "Right to Work" would bring in
businesses and, through competition for workers, wages would go up! This crazy
logic was the only argument actually presented, but, like Goebbel’s “Big Lie,”
it was presented over and over and over.
Some
people told me that the two advertising campaigns tended to cancel one another
out, and that voters still wouldn't know what to do. Our ads were credited with
blunting the other ads, but nobody seemed to think our ads were convincing
people. Unions had no way at all of countering the numerous editorials,
columns, and public endorsements from political figures.
The
September 11 tragedies and the big drop in America's economic outlook afterward
both drove Oklahomans to the polls. If the turnout had been light, as the union
tacticians expected, we would have won easily. But turnout was over 37%, when
it had been predicted to be around 10%!
I
encouraged a group of UAW Civil Rights Activists from my local and one other to
go up to help. Three from my local went up to help UAW Local 1999. A few from
the other UAW local also went, but I didn't. On the following Saturday,
September 22, I was able to go with a delegation consisting of 4 student
activists, 2 SEIU activists, and a state representative to go to Ardmore,
Oklahoma for a day of precinct walking. We all enjoyed it.
I then
proceeded to Ada, Oklahoma, to stay with my Mom. A friend called me there and
came down for the night. On Sunday, I went with him to his regular work in the
state capital. We walked precincts from noon until 6 PM, and I got to meet a
lot of the volunteers and full-timers. Then I returned to Ada. On Monday I went
to the Steelworkers' hall and was assigned a plant gate. After I did that, I
took about 75 names on a call-up list back to my Mom's and called from there.
Tuesday morning I went back to the same plant gate at 6:30AM. At 11AM, I
attended a short meeting and lunch with the 2 staffers and 3 volunteers active
there.
I then
set out for Dallas, but decided to make one more effort. I wore my "Vote
No" T-shirt on a 3-mile walk through Durant, Oklahoma, and talked to
everybody I could. Then I returned home to send out my story(s) and pictures.
That night, I found out that we had lost.
The public campaign:
Here is
a summary of my clippings:
Ada Evening News editorial by Lone Beasley, 9/23/01
"Vote yes Tuesday on SQ 695 for the good of Oklahoma." Contains the
gist of all their illogical arguments: "When new companies set up shop in
a state competing for workers who are in relatively short supply - Presto!
Wages go up. Benefits increase."
Daily Oklahoman brief 9/23/01, "Right to work
slips in fund raising." Says opponents had just moved ahead of proponents
in the SQ695 fight. We spent $4.9M and they spent $4.3 M according to reports
on file with the state Ethics Commission. At the end of the campaign,
newspersons estimated $10M total spent.
Daily Oklahoman front page editorial on 9/23
"Whom do you trust?" lists Demo and Repub politicians who support
SQ695 and says that all the money from the "vote no" campaign is from
labor organizations out of state. "In all, about 99 % of the contributions
to the ‘No’ effort have come from labor unions."
Daily Oklahoman article on front page by John
Griener "Voters to decide right-to-work fate on Tuesday." Says
"Right to work would prohibit requiring an employee to pay dues or a
bargaining service fee to a union as a condition of employment."
Two
page centerfold advertising spread "Who Are You Going to Trust?" on
one side lists about 200 unions from out of state who contributed to "Vote
No." On the other page is a list of Chambers of commerce, a list of
employers' organizations and the Oklahoma Christian Coalition, and in the
middle are 7 political figures. I think two are ostensibly Democrats. It's
2-color red& black. The Ada Evening
News had an identical spread without the color. I suspect that the ad ran
in every daily in the state, and I doubt that they paid full price.
On the
other side of the two-page spread is the main editorial page. Lead editorial is
"Don't be Confused. SQ 695 is About Freedom for Workers.”
An
op-ed from Patrick B McGuigan presents religious sounding arguments against
SQ695.
Under
"Your Views" there are 3 op-eds: "Freedom improves unions"
urges a "yes" vote. "Were not demons urges a "no"
vote. "Good for Teachers" urges a "yes" vote by Ginger
Tinney, Executive Director of the Association of Professional Oklahoma
Educators.
"Your
Views" letters continue on the next page. There are 10 more letters
supporting "yes" votes; none supporting "no."
Ada Evening News 9/19 "Letters to the
Editor" contains one excellent argument by Ed Allred of Ada. Another
promotes "yes" vote by Congressman Wes Watkins. Watkins was lately
considered the main Democrat in the state. Both letters were very professional.
"No vote" mailings: "Don't cut benefits. Over
112,000 Oklahomans would lose health care coverage if 695 passes"
"695
Just isn't worth the risk to Oklahoma Families" (health benefit cuts)
"With
Right to Work, More Jobs, Higher Pay" with comments from 2 leading
Republicans and 1 Democrat."
Door
Hanger "Vote Against Cutting Health Care benefits and Lowe wages"
This is what I hanged in Ardmore, OKC, and Ada.
"Drive
Right-to-Work out of Oklahoma Early!" leaflet used to urge union members
to vote early.
"Since
when does the word 'ban' mean more freedom?" vote no
"Rumor
travels faster, but it doesn't stay put as long as truth." Oklahoman and
humorist, Will Rogers. This one has facts showing that Oklahoma's manufacturing
output grew faster than the national average and that Wages are higher than in
Arkansas and Texas. ($13.17)
"You
will find some people saying they are for so-called 'right-to-work' law, but
they also believe in unions. This is absurd - it's like saying you are for
motherhood but against children!" Harry S Truman
"Vote
no on right to work" Stop this attack on union rights!" I think this
was the final leaflet and was used at plant gates. Contains good facts.
"Question
695 is confusing, poorly written.. And it will cost Oklahoma Taxpayers Millions
in Lawsuits!" 2-page slick color leaflet arguing that the ballot
initiative will be challenged by unions if it passes. Contains the actual
wording of the ballot and an opinion by a former judge that it "could
cause serious problems." Here is the wording on the ballot:
SPECIAL
ELECTION
September
25, 2001
STATE
QUESTION 695
LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM 322
The
measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds
Section
1A to Article 23. The measure defines
the term "labor
organization." "Labor organization" includes
unions. That term
also
includes committees that represent employees.
The
measure bans new employment contracts that impose certain
requirements
to get or keep a job. The measure bans
contracts that
require
joining or quitting a labor organization to get or keep a
job. The measure bans contracts that require
remaining in a labor
organization
to get or keep a job. The measure bans
contracts that
require
the payment of dues to labor organizations to get or keep a
job. The measure bans contracts that require
other payments to
labor
organizations to get or keep a job.
Employees would have to
approve
deductions from wages paid to labor organizations. The
measure
bans contracts that require labor organization approval of
an
employee to get or keep a job.
The
measure bans other employment contract requirements. Violation
of this
section is a misdemeanor.
SHALL
THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? For
the proposal -- YES
Against the proposal -- NO
**
While
In Oklahoma, I got to watch one of the several TV debates. On the
"yes" side was political consultant Larry Stein. I think he was head
of the committee for "yes." On our side was "Vote No
Committee" head Pat Hall. Both were introduced as political consultants.
Hall had been former head of State Demo Party and was once president of the
Oklahoma State Employees Union, I think. Here are some of their arguments:
Hall's
"vote no" arguments:
What
we're talking about is freedom
What
we're talking about is lower wages
SQ695
will cost 100,000 their health care benefits
"Rt
to Work" is 15th or 17th on companies' list when looking for new sites
Governor
Keating was unable to name a single company that did not
come to
Oklahoma because of this business condition.
Poor
education is the cause that business won't come to state
Both
sides are spending more on this campaign than on any in history
Keating
and the Chamber of Commerce (s) are for it
People
refuse to vote because they don't understand
Why
take a chance? Constitutional amendment very hard to reverse
SQ695
will lower wages & benefits. Firefighters, police & nurses are on our
side
Stein's
"vote yes" arguments:
Oklahoma
population falling, already lost a congressional seat
Business
won't come. No hi-tech businesses moving in.
Oklahoma
is already nearly dead last in personal income
Less
than 7% of workforce is organized in Oklahoma
State
can't compete with Texas
Texas
growing like gangbusters
Governor
Keating is for it
Your
ads are deceitful
Rt to
work "Puts out the welcome mat for business."
It's
worth a try
Keating
predicts 650,000 voters and victory
SQ695
will create higher paying jobs
It was
kind of incredible to see that Stein actually claimed that Oklahoma would raise
wages by lowering them, but that's basically what he said! He also used
"personal income" statistics instead of "wages." Hall
didn't challenge him on that! Hall came across as the most forthright and
confident. But he was clearly limited by not being able to say
"unions" or explain what "Right to Work/Scab" really is.
His implied claim of 100,000 people's health care benefits disappearing
immediately did not sound true.
The two
guys were entirely too nice to each other. They even both laughed when Hall was
talking about the high cost of the campaign and saying that it benefited nobody
except people who sell ads "and us political consultants."
I wrote
two articles, one for a win and one for a loss:
Union-Busters
Defeated in Oklahoma
Oklahoma's
battle over State Question 695, the so-called "Right to Work"
initiative, won more than the narrow working people's
<<<...........>>>>> percent victory at the polls on
September
25.
By blunting
the right-wing initiative, Oklahoma voters dealt a set-back to similar efforts
to put "Right to Work" laws into effect in the four states where
right-wingers had already begun electoral and/or legal processes to impose new
union busting laws. Further, President Bush's well-known program for a national
"Right to Work" law will take its well-deserved place in the ashbin
of history.
"But
wait, there's more!" The list of Sooner State accomplishments in the
battle goes on like the famous Gingseng Knife TV commercial, like the
indefatigable Everyready Bunny, and like the other old jewelry commercial about
"The gift that keeps on giving."
The
hard work that unions and their allies put into the battle
delivered
a statistic that is the envy of the entire labor movement: over
85% of
Oklahoma unionists are now registered to vote. Compare that to
the
estimated 50% nationwide that was estimated in the 2000 presidential race!
Labor
in Oklahoma will weigh into future electoral struggles like a sumo
wrestler!
In
1907, when Oklahomans were writing their first state constitution and
before
the oil companies took over, the state had the most progressive laws in
the
South. "Omnia Vincit Labor," "Labor Conquers All," was made
the state slogan, there was no Jim Crow, women's and children's rights were
considered, and the American Federation of Labor claimed to have initiated 70%
of the language in the constitution!
In
their eagerness to implement the union-busting SQ#695, business interests
attempted
to set back the progressive traditions of Oklahoma. However, they only
succeeded in clarifying their own anti-worker ambitions and role in the ongoing
class struggle. For a good example, consider the expensive two-page spreads that they put into Oklahoma newspapers
on Sunday, September 23, two days before the election. One page listed some of
the contributors to the "Vote No"
campaign:
205 labor locals and labor organization from other states. The
"Vote
yes" side listed 58 local Chambers of Commerce, 28 employer's organizations,
30 capitalist newspapers, and seven political "leaders." The
heading
is ungrammatical but effective: "Who Are You Going to Trust? Faceless
Out-Of-State
Strangers, Or Your Oklahoma Neighbors?" Oklahoma families who
happen
to live next door to one of the millionaire politicians shown or who
work
directly for one of the other capitalist endorsers might have been
convinced
to vote "yes," but everybody else was given an invaluable lesson in
class
struggle and "which side are you on?"
Oklahomans
learned more about who to trust from the unanimous chorus of "Vote
Yes"
editorials in Oklahoma newspapers. A typical example was published on
September
23 in the //ital// Ada Evening News. Editor Beasley presented the
same circuitous reasoning that the bosses'
side presented throughout the
campaign: "If Oklahoma adopts 'Right to
Work,' the lower wages will attract
more companies. The companies will make more
money and, thus, be able to pay
higher wages!" Beasley even adds the
magic word "Presto!" as he drives home
his insane conclusion.
Even
the simplest Oklahoman, after being subjected to the "Vote Yes"
advertising
campaign, could ask, "Yes, rich companies are able to raise wages,
but why
would they? They only came here for low wages to begin with!"
Unions
spent considerable financial and human resources in the fight. On September 23,
the newspapers reported that labor's side had reported spending $4.9 million.
They bought TV ads and did mailings
that pointed out the big
differences
between "Right to Work (for less)" states and those who haven't
incorporated
union busting into their laws.
On the
"Vote Yes" union-busting side, $4.3 million in expenditures were
reported, but commercial interests do not have to conform to the rigid
reporting laws that the government requires of labor organizations. And the
list of "Vote Yes" expenditures does not count the tremendous amount
of free publicity that big corporations command. For example, take a look at
the September 23, edition of the state's largest newspaper, the //ital// Sunday
Oklahoman: It has a front page "Vote Yes" editorial, another lead
editorial, a long "Vote Yes"
editorial
from a person claiming a religious point of view, and an "unbiased"
"selection" of nine letters to the editor with eight urgent
"Yes" appeals and one "No." Headings for the
"Yes" letters include, "Support Freedom," "Another Yes
Vote," "Politics of Fear," "Union Nepotism," and
"Union Cowards!"
Unionists
say that the owner of the state's largest paper, E.K. Gaylord, is also the
biggest contributor to the "Right to Work/Scab" campaign. The second
largest contributor is the Wall family of Wal-Mart's anti-labor notoriety. The
Walls made their first billions in "Right to Work/Cheat" Arkansas,
and have
worked
to spread the anti-union gospel ever since.
The
best news from Oklahoma may be the story of labor's mobilization for this
nationally crucial battle. Unionists from all over the state and from
surrounding states poured into organizing centers. They quickly had to re-order
the kinds of election paraphernalia that working people can use such as yard
signs
and bumper stickers. Door-to-door teams and phone banks were set up in the big
cities and the little towns. When Oklahoma workers left their jobs, there were
"Vote No" teams standing at the gates!
In
Oklahoma in September, organized labor showed its ability and
commitment;
the working people of Oklahoma got the message.
30
//I'm
sending another article based on losing the election//
Workers
Set Back in Oklahoma
When the
votes were counted in Oklahoma on September 25, working people had taken yet
another setback blamed on the terrorists who burned the World Trade Center.
Prior to the attack on
September
11, an inspiring, labor-led, campaign in Oklahoma had almost defeated State
Question 695, the so-called "Right to Work" initiative. Labor's first
polls had indicated a 65-35
percent
loss to the "Right to Work For Less" forces, but the hard work of
hundreds of volunteers had brought the race to a dead heat. After the tragedies,
however, Republican Governor Frank Keating taped a flag-waving television ad
urging Oklahomans to go to
the
polls and vote, with him, for the "Right to Work/Scab" amendment.
All
American working people are now bracing for more anti-labor laws. Four states
had already initiated "Right to Work/Scab" efforts, and President
Bush has consistently advocated a
national
anti-union law.
Not all
the news from the Oklahoma fight is bad. The hard work that unions and their
allies put into the battle delivered a statistic
that is the envy of the entire labor movement: over
85% of
Oklahoma unionists are now registered to vote. Compare that to the estimated
50% nationwide that was estimated in the 2000 presidential race! Labor in Oklahoma will weigh into future electoral
struggles like a sumo wrestler!
In
1907, when Oklahomans were writing their first state constitution and before
the oil companies took over, the state had the most progressive laws in the South.
"Omnia Vincit Labor,"
"Labor Conquers All," was made the state slogan, there was no Jim
Crow, women's and
children's
rights were considered, and the American Federation of Labor claimed to have
initiated
70% of the language in the constitution!
In
winning implementation of the new union-busting amendment, business interests
dealt another setback to the progressive traditions of Oklahoma, but not
without costs. Oklahomans also
received
an invaluable lesson in class struggle and "which side are you on?".
The "Vote Yes" campaign was led by the state's best known
millionaires and their organizations such as the
Chamber
of Commerce. The Christian Coalition added its name to the endorsers. Major
employers such as the Wall Family of "Right to Work" Arkansas were
big contributors.
Oklahomans
learned that they could not believe the commercial media because it is led by
the state's largest newspaper, whose owner was the largest contributor to the
"Right to Work/Scab"
campaign
and whose presentation of the issues was openly biased. The Sunday paper two
days before the election, for example, carried a lot more than the two-page
center spread advertisement for "Right to Work/Cheat." It also
carried a front page editorial, another
lead
editorial, a long "Vote Yes" column from a person claiming a
religious point of view, and a "selection" of nine letters to the
editor with eight urgent "Yes" appeals and one "No."
Headings
for the "Yes" letters included, "Support Freedom," "Another
Yes Vote," "Politics of Fear," "Union Nepotism," and "Union
Cowards!"
The
best news from Oklahoma may be the story of labor's mobilization for this
nationally crucial battle. Unionists from all over the state and from
surrounding states poured into
organizing
centers. They quickly had to re-order the kinds of election paraphernalia that
working people can use such as yard signs and bumper stickers. Door-to-door
teams and phone banks were set up in the big cities and the little towns. When Oklahoma
workers left their jobs, there were "Vote No" teams standing at the
gates!
In
Oklahoma in September, organized labor showed its ability and commitment; many
of the working people of Oklahoma got the message.
30
When I went into the Steelworkers
Hall outside Ada on the afternoon of 9/23, an older man was just leaving. The
woman in charge thanked him for his repeated volunteering. He asked her, quite
sincerely, “I get off at 11:35 tonight. If I don’t have to work overtime, I
could come back?”
Harvey Gray is his name. I started
to think at that moment, “If we have volunteers like this on our side, we might
win yet!”
Summary:
The union campaign was based on
several assumptions:
1. Most
Oklahomans don't know about the issue and don't care.
2. Most
Oklahomans tend to vote "no" if they vote at all on state questions
3.
Given low turnout, the AFL-CIO can win by energizing their members
They
began in July with their own polls showing 65-35% against them. Their very
commendable expenditures of people and money were a credit to the union
movement. The response from the rest of the labor movement was inspiring! But
it was a little questionable to begin with for working people's organizations
to hope for low voter turnout. Because of their assumptions, the union avoided
explaining the real issues and even using the word "union." Because
of their assumptions, the union movement realized very few gains that might
have been possible with this kind of an effort: new organizing opportunities,
new electoral allies, and new organizations and coalitions. A good example of a
great benefit that might have been possible would have been organizing the
Alliance for Retired Americans among the many older Oklahomans. Just about the
only big benefit that the AFL-CIO did realize from their campaign was the
remarkable level of voter registration among union members - over 85%!
Criticisms
aside, we would probably have won had it not been for the September 11
tragedies and the dramatic economic downturn afterward. Voter turnout was more
than 37% instead of the 10% anticipated earlier!
The
truth was indeed “the first victim of war!”