Alternative agenda for Idaho’s reconvened session: How they could really help workers
The Idaho Legislature will reconvene Monday, set on passing legislation to push back against requirements by the federal government and private employers that employees get the COVID-19 vaccine.
There is a kernel of truth in opposition to the vaccine mandate that we should concede: Employers are not simply private sector actors like employees. There is a power asymmetry between workers and their bosses.
This principle was expressed well by Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin at a press conference a few months ago held to protest the announcement that many hospitals would require their staff to get vaccinated.
“We will not be successful without our employees,” McGeachin said. “We must, as employers, provide the right environment for them, including good pay, good benefits, motivation, incentives, so that they can provide for their families and then, in turn, also give back to the community.”
These sentiments are wrong in the case of vaccine mandates, but for a very specific reason. If COVID-19 were a common cold, Republicans would be right in saying that conditioning employment on vaccination is an abuse of employers’ power. The only justification for the vaccine mandate is that COVID-19 is a horribly dangerous, deadly and disabling disease that requires extraordinary measures, as the U.S. lurches ever-closer to a million dead.
Having newly discovered the idea that workers are at a structural disadvantage vis-a-vis employers, lawmakers are surely open to other ideas that would improve the lives of workers.
Here are a few they could take up on reconvening:
Repeal Right to Work
Right to Work in Idaho was passed with the backing of a major disinformation campaign so successful that, to this day, most people don’t know what the law does.
Most people still believe that Right to Work bans forcing a worker to join a union as a condition of employment. But a situation like that, called a “closed shop,” has been illegal everywhere in the country since the 1947 Taft Hartley Act.
So what does Right to Work actually do? It is a method of creating what economists call a “free-rider problem” for unions.
Imagine a city that has a bus service that charges $1.50 for a ride to cover the costs of the system. One way to get rid of the bus service would be to ban it. Another way would be to pass a law that says anyone can ride for free. Nobody pays bus fares, and the service goes bankrupt.
In non-Right to Work states, employees covered by a union contract who opt out of union membership pay the union a small agency fee to cover the costs associated with collective bargaining. This agency fee is what Right to Work bans. Workers in a shop with a union contract get the same benefit whether or not they pay dues, so why pay dues?
And unions wind up emaciated and unable to bargain effectively, as intended. (In 1985, the year Right to Work passed, GOP Chairman Dennis Olsen declared that it would “make unions get out and scratch for members.”)
Lawmakers could offer workers a lifeline by floating a referendum to repeal the Right to Work law. It would mean more workers get better pay, better benefits, better working conditions and a say in their workplace.
Pass Add the Words
Immutable characteristics like race, age and disability should not be subject to discrimination. Neither should matters of closely held beliefs, such as religion, that do not have negative effects on others. These categories are already covered by Idaho’s anti-discrimination law.
Whether or not to get vaccinated is a choice, and choosing not to get vaccinated means an employee places their coworkers and customers at elevated risk of infection, in many workplaces.
So vaccination does not match either of these criteria. But sexual orientation and gender identity do.
So if lawmakers are really worried about workers’ rights, they should ban firing LGBT people because of who they are. It is long past time.
Raise the minimum wage
Idaho continues to use the federal minimum wage, the bottom of the legal basement for national minimum wage laws.
Republican lawmakers will often point out that very few people make Idaho’s minimum wage. That does not demonstrate what they think it does.
The purpose of the minimum wage is not only to raise the wage of those who would be paid below the minimum wage level, but also of those who are paid more than minimum wage. Right now, someone paid $17 per hour may have worked for several years. If they are dissatisfied with their working conditions, they face a large wage penalty by trading in their years at one company for a new job with better conditions.
If the minimum wage were $15 per hour, then that worker would be guaranteed a comparable wage if they left. So the company would have to try harder — pay them more, offer them better benefits, or improve their working conditions — in order to keep them.
If the minimum wage had grown in proportion to economic productivity, it would be well over $20 today. The cost of living has risen immensely in much of Idaho. If lawmakers want to help workers, they can ensure they receive a fair level of pay.
If Republican lawmakers are serious about workers’ rights, they will consider policies like these. If they consider none of them, then you know this session has nothing to do with looking out for workers. Rather, they are simply playing to the anti-vaxxers in their base ahead of the primary election.