JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Once again, the Missouri House of Representatives has passed a bill dealing with how unions spend money in the political arena, but it did so with a smaller margin – losing 7 votes in the same General Assembly.
If passed by both chambers, Missouri voters will be given a chance to weigh in on labor issues during this year’s election cycle. HB1617, touted as “paycheck protection” by supporters, would require public employee union members to annually authorize their unions to spend their voluntary contributions on political activity. Under current law, union members may choose to opt-in or opt-out of contributing to a union’s political fund. The new legislation, sponsored by Rep. Holly Rehder, R-Sikeston, would require members to re-authorization of member’s contributions annually.
Supporters say individual employees shouldn’t be forced to contribute and subscribe to their union’s political positions. Opponents say that any worker in Missouri has the option of not contributing to a political fund and that the bill’s purpose is to make it harder for unions to raise funds.
“Members of a union that are contributing – they’ve signed up. When they joined the unions, they signed up and said ‘yes, you can use these funds,’” Rep. Michael Frame, D-High Ridge, said. “To say that unions have to go out every year and get their approval again, every year – it’s meant to be an obstacle. It’s meant to make it harder. I think people on the other side of the aisle are sick of having money donated to the other side.”
For public employee unions, the matter is more complex. Public employee unions do not have political funds deducted from paychecks, but must instead contribute directly to their union. Under HB 1617, public employee unions would have to sign up for a union membership card every year.
Debate grew tense and, at times, flat out aggressive. Democrats largely accused Republicans of undermining unions in order to secure a more friendly political landscape. Republicans, scoffing at the accusation, countered that Democrats were merely protecting their own financial interests and overstating the bill’s impact.
The bill ultimately passed the House with 83 votes, just one more than the necessary 82 for simple passage. This was a blow to the Republicans, who control two-thirds of the chamber. Last year, an almost-identical measure passed with 90 votes.
While at least one of those voting in favor, former state Rep. Dennis Fowler, is no longer in the chamber, absentees aside, there were at least six lawmakers that rejected HB 1617 despite approving similar language last year in the House.
Rep. Jay Barnes, Ron Hicks, Jeanie Lauer, Nick Marshall, Jim Neely and Caleb Rowden — all Republicans — voted against Rehder’s bill.
Marshall explained his switch saying that last year’s paycheck bill, HB64, was “totally different,” from HB1617. However, he did not elaborate. Rowden, a Republican in a competitive seat, voted against the senate version of last year’s paycheck bill, saying that by the time it came up near the end of the legislative session he was “re-examining” the issue.
“I think my vote [today] represents my district well,” Rowden said. “Last year, I voted against [the senate bill] because I was beginning to have some issues with it and when it came back this year I heard from a lot of my constituents and they voiced a lot of concerns with this bill,” Rowden said. “Public employee unions have a real voice in my district and they talked a lot about this bill. I took a no on it last year and I felt like it was the right thing to do this year. Election year or not, I think that wouldn’t have made much of a difference for me.”
Collin Reischman was the Managing Editor for The Missouri Times, and a graduate of Webster University with a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism.
