Our state has a rich and deep labor history. Individuals began joining together to collectively advocate for themselves and their workplaces years before Montana even became a state. That’s right, Montana unions and the spirit of collective action has been “Montana” even before Montana was Montana.
Fast forward to present, and Montana and its citizens are still heavily steeped in labor tradition and philosophy, even for our non-unionized neighbors. Montana is the ONLY state in the union with worker protections enshrined in our laws- one of the biggest being Montana’s wrongful termination law. Montana is the only non at-will state in the U S of A, meaning that outside of a designated probationary period, law requires the employer to have just cause for terminating an employee. Montana is truly unique and has always valued the labor and contributions of its sons and daughters through worker protections like just cause laws and the right to unionize and collectively bargain. Even after Federal and State lawmakers over the decades have made it their mission to diminish the strength of unions and therefore effectively stifle the voices of the working citizens of Montana (ya know, the people they work for), the labor movement perseveres.
OUR RIGHTS UNDER ATTACK
The 2021 Legislature saw many an anti-labor bill, but like a true David and Goliath story, Montanans came out in droves to demonstrate our love for our fellow citizens, their labor, and the best vehicle workers have to maintain a proverbial and sometimes literal seat at the table- unions. Now, make no mistake, no one thought the detractors who put millions of dollars into stifling the voices of the average worker were just going to go away. Much like a mosquito, they continue to annoy and look for any opportunistic moment to swoop in and feed on the lifeblood of our state. Oh, and by the way, they dont always play fair.
On Tuesday January 16th, 2023, the house judiciary committee will hear HB 216 (Mercer- R- HD 46). Some of the things in the bill are redundant and have already been secured at the federal level with the Janus decision, and at the state level with last sessions HB 289 (generally revise labor laws relating to employee associations- passed), others are just reintroductions of parts and pieces of bills that failed in the last session. Let’s start with the redundancies and a little back story. Section 2(2) states “A public employee may not be required to become or remain a member of, or financially support, a labor organization as a condition of obtaining or retaining public employment.” Prior to the Janus v AFSME decision issued by the US Supreme Court in 2018, unions were able to collect an agency fee from non members, which was essentially a small fee the union could charge non-members to help cover the costs of the work that they are still required to do whether the individual working in the respective collective bargaining unit chose to be a member or not. These were not dues, and the fee payer was not a member or required to be, the individual was simply paying a fair share fee for the services rendered. The Supreme Court found this to be unconstitutional (it’s not, but that’s for another day) and ordered all public service unions still charging this agency fee to stop. The TL;DR here is that Montana’s public employees were never required to join. Post Janus, they can also get a free ride on the backs of their coworkers. This was further codified last session in HB 289.
Lets now go to Section 2(3) which states “A public employee may cancel the public employee’s membership and cease financial support of a labor organization at any time”. With a superficial glance, this seems like a non-issue to some, but let’s dive into this line from a purely financial and budgetary point of view and remove the union of it all momentarily. We all have a budget to which we adhere to. We know roughly how much income we have coming in per month, and roughly how much goes out to pay for our shelter, food, etc. You rely on the income to pay your bills. If you lost a portion of your income at random intervals throughout the year, that would throw a major wrench in your short term and long term plans, goals, or simply what you need to keep your head above the proverbial water. Now let’s put this back into a union frame. Any person, business, organization, etc cannot effectively function with that amount of budgetary uncertainty. This is why unions have designated drop periods, usually based on the calendar year, but sometimes based on other things like the date you joined, etc. It’s not shady, it’s common sense.
Now on to Section 2(4), as well as several line items in Section 3:
‘A public employer may not collect dues from compensation paid to a public employee on behalf of a labor organization without the annual affirmative consent of the public employee”. I think it’s obvious by now how the process works, but for the sake of information, let’s be very clear. An employee is hired, they are given the choice to become a member, and if for whatever reason they chose to drop, they typically have a window each year in which to do so. This line and basically ALL of section 3 aim to cripple union membership by imposing unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the freedom to choose to associate. In the most simplistic terms, this would require an individual to OPT IN every year, rather than ongoing membership with a yearly OPT OUT period. Essentially, each collective bargaining unit in every public employees union would need to recertify and defend their right to exist every year. It also inserts the employer in questionable and potentially federally illegal positions by requiring them by law to insert themselves in the union-membership business and relationship.
PLAYING FAIR
HB 216 is scheduled to be heard by the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday January 17th. If there is any confusion on why the Judiciary Committee is hearing a labor bill, let me break that down. First, per page 37 of the House Rules, this bill is undoubtedly in the wrong committee. Page 37 states, in part, the following:
…legislation dealing with an enumerated subject must be referred to a standing committee as follows:
Business and Labor: Alcohol regulation other than taxation… labor unions; … workers’ compensation.
State Administration: Administrative rules; … state employees; state employee benefits; … voting.
So why is it being heard in the wrong committee? Well, because it’s more likely to pass in Judiciary than either of the appropriate committees. Slick, right?
TAKE ACTION
So what can we do to hold our legislators accountable to follow the rules and take the proper channels to do their legislating? Tomorrow, Monday January 16th, 2023 during the 1 PM house floor session, there will be a motion to refer HB 216 to the appropriate committee. Make your voice heard by contacting your legislator and asking them to support the motion to refer BEFORE 1 PM on Monday January 16th.
It’s too bad the Great Falls Tribune doesn’t print guest editorials. It means here in Great Falls we miss editorials like this one written by a local resident and WTF406 occasional contributor published by the Billings Gazette, the Helena Independent Record and the Missoula Current dealing with important issues in MT.
“If the government would just get out of the way and free the power of the competitive market, we would have a much better economy.” It’s good political rhetoric. The current Republican administration and their pals in the Republican legislature are repeating it over and over as a part of Governor Gianforte’s “Red Tape Reduction Initiative.” The problem is, what Republicans get when they push to eliminate regulations is often not what anybody wants.
The last time we heard this kind of rhetoric was during the 1997 Legislature and passage of the bill that deregulated the Montana Power Company. The result was the bankruptcy of the state’s largest utility and years of chaos and steadily increasing power rates in Montana. The dams on Montana rivers were sold, the natural gas reserves, which had been dedicated to Montana citizens, were sold, and businesses were closed across the state. Our power rates went from some of the lowest in the country to the highest in the Pacific Northwest. It was the biggest economic disaster in the history of Montana.
The effort to deregulate was driven by the greed of the Montana Power Company combined with ideological blinders worn by the Racicot administration and the Republican legislature. No one in the rooms at the Capitol had any idea what the bill to deregulate Montana Power would do. They voted for it because it was presented as promoting competition and, therefore, would lead to lower prices. For the politicians involved it was as simple as, free markets are good and regulation is bad. We are still paying for their simplistic view of how the world (and the economy) work.
So here we are, almost 30 years later with a conservative Republican in the governor’s office and a Legislature composed of some of the most extreme right wing legislators we have seen in decades. Once again we are being treated to a lot of rhetoric about the power of the free market being hampered by regulations.
But the irony in all of this is that a “free market” cannot work without regulation by the government. Private enterprise needs a level playing field for competition to occur. Bad actors need to be policed (yes folks, there are greedy people out there who are willing to cheat to get ahead). If you go to an architect or a CPA, you want to know that person has the qualifications to do what he or she promises.
Someone needs to be sure that businesses are following the rules, or bad actors will have a huge advantage in the marketplace.
The Republicans apparently think businesses should be free to pursue their self interest without regard for the public. They forget that big business, left to its own devices, has a long history of abusing the public trust and the community at large. From the Copper Kings, to Enron, to Martha Stewart’s insider trading, to the subprime mortgage collapse, the examples of greed over ethics in the world of private enterprise are many and consistent.
Most of us realize that our economy is far more complex than simple free-market capitalism. It is baffling that big business is now viewed as more virtuous than our public institutions. Economist John Maynard Keynes said it best: “Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.” The Republicans in Helena would do well to heed these words before they set about dismantling regulations which protect the public.”
See the editorial here: https://billingsgazette.com/opinion/columnists/ken-toole-beware-republican-deregulation/article_0beb2c38-905c-11ed-a2f9-033f13bf82bf.html
On January 2, 2023, the 68th legislative session made its debut swearing in the newest batch of Montana legislators. This also marked the first time that one party formed a supermajority since Montana’s constitution was adopted 50 years ago. Speaking of which, this Republican supermajority is champing at the bit to introduce a slew of amendments to the constitution. They’ve proposed 54 such amendments already. Some of the topics they want to legislate on are: the way elections are handled, the way judges are selected, redistricting rules (read: gerrymandering) amendments defining gender, banning abortions, and enshrining school choice and a parental bill of rights.Their plans are clear. They want Big Government to control Montanan’s personal lives and public institutions. Confusingly, Sen Steve Fitzpatrick has proposed a constitutional amendment on proposing constitutional amendments. If Republicans have their way, Montana’s constitution will be unrecognizable before the session is through.
Concerned about Republican’s extremist agenda, a group of activists from Great Falls organized an event – Occupy MT Leg. We were joined by concerned citizens from around the state. Why occupy space on the first day of the session? To let these legislators know that we will hold them accountable for everything they do during this session. Our sizeable group from Great Falls, Helena, Belgrade, Conrad, and more, first gathered in the rotunda to protest Superintendent of Public School’s Elsie Artnzen, who had brought in a slate of far-right speakers (an abuse of the office) to mount yet another unfounded attack on our public school teachers and administrators. Artnzen’s “event” was small, disorganized, and met with Boo’s from protestors in the crowd.
We then moved to the Old Supreme Court Chamber, where the public reception was to be held for the newly-sworn lawmakers. Cakes were there, ready to be served, doubtless alongside much back-slapping and self-congratulations. We had aimed to speak with our legislators and make sure they know what we expect of them, but it turns out that they didn’t want to face the public. Not to be deterred, we gathered around the balcony of the rotunda, displayed our signs, and filled the space. We are here, and we will not be ignored.
Finally, following the swearing-in, we marched around the capitol building. The group was comprised of people from different generations, different parts of Montana, with different advocacy issues. But we experienced a solidarity that we believe we share with a large portion of Montanans. Far-right extremism is not representative of most of us, and this “super majority” does not represent us. They are not some aristocracy, and we are not some peasantry. We can and will raise our voice when they eat their cake and throw us the crumbs. We’ll be keeping a close eye on their votes, and the bills they sponsor. With this supermajority, they feel emboldened to show their true colors. And we are committed to rejecting fascist ideology wherever we see it.
with Rev. Dawn Skerritt and First United Methodist Church:
As members of the clergy, we know that words have power. Power to heal or to harm, to build up or to tear down. We know that for those in positions of leadership, that power is magnified, and thus should not be taken lightly. Carelessness with words—particularly from those who have been vested with authority and charged with responsibility—is dangerous, even in the absence of any malice.
We do not know if Sheriff Jesse Slaughter has malice in his heart. That is known to him and to God alone. All we have are his words and actions.
These we condemn in the strongest possible terms.
In a radio interview on October 27th, Sheriff Jesse Slaughter used his words and social capital to make misleading, and even cruel, statements against the Rev. Dawn Skerritt, the First United Methodist Church, and the local unhoused population. A few days prior, an unhoused woman died on the property of First United Methodist Church. Her name was Dianna, and she had endured a lifetime of violence and neglect, and like so many people rich and poor, she suffered from the disease of alcoholism. Dianna died, according to the report released by Sheriff Slaughter in his role as coroner, from “natural causes” related to chronic alcoholism. Dianna had sought local resources and had tried to find a way to move forward in her life. However, the resources available and the care she needed were difficult for her to obtain. The two-fold struggles of alcoholism and homelessness can be insurmountable for many individuals. In Great Falls, the local Rocky Mountain Rehab program can cost in excess of $23,000. Psychiatric care is difficult to access, and providers are often scheduled out several months, even for critical cases and for folks who have good insurance.
In the interview, Slaughter blamed Rev. Dawn Skerritt and the First United Methodist Church for Dianna’s death, saying, “People are paying for it with their lives.” He was referring to the outreach at the church even though his own report made clear that Dianna’s death, while tragic, was the result of natural causes related to chronic alcoholism.
Sheriff Slaughter spoke in a demeaning way about Rev. Dawn Skerritt several times, but more than that, he belittled her title, authority, and education. Referring to Rev. Skerritt as “preacher or whatever,” Sheriff Slaughter with his words undermined seven years of post-secondary education, an arduous process to serve in the capacity of minister within the United Methodist Church, and the many years of service she has dedicated to the church.
This is an irresponsible, reprehensible use of the platform he has been given. Whether the words were spoken in outright malice, carelessness, or dangerous ignorance, Sheriff Slaughter’s comments are baseless and unbecoming of a public official.
If the community at FUMC did not exist and Dianna had never been there, would she not have still died from the disease of alcoholism? Maybe not. It’s possible that without a community of care, her life would have been claimed sooner by the violence she regularly experienced. Or else she might have frozen to death elsewhere due to lack of shelter.
In late March of this year, the remains of another unsheltered person—who remains unidentified—were found on the First Presbyterian Church property, having lain there through the winter. That church has not been blamed for the person’s death. If one church is culpable for the death of a person on their property, are all churches responsible in the same manner? How much more is a city or county culpable for the neglect and lack of care that allows such things to happen and be summarily forgotten? Sheriff Slaughter offers no such diatribe like the one he leveled at a person and a group of people attempting to solve the problem of unsheltered people in Great Falls that so many would prefer to ignore—or rather, to displace and forget.
No one is claiming that the work of First United Methodist Church, now led by Rev. Skerritt, is an ideal solution. But an ideal solution does not exist, and as long as there are people in need, the Church will continue to try to meet those needs in spite of petty bullying by elected officials.
In this interview, Sheriff Slaughter claims that the church is not inviting folks inside and caring for them, but FUMC is still providing warm clothing and food, and has even opened their building up as a warm space to spend the cold winter hours of evening when no other shelter is available. The exact solution that Sherriff Slaughter himself mentioned is what FUMC is doing, and trying to gain partners in trying to keep all of our community members safe and alive this winter.
Sheriff Slaughter has a choice to make: a choice between embracing a spirit of collaboration in fighting the ever-worsening crisis of homelessness in our community or living into a narrative of fear and bigotry. We pray that as a servant of the people he will choose the former, rescinding his hateful comments and pledging to work with those he has a duty to serve, whether they are housed or not.
But until that time, we stand in solidarity and love with Rev. Skerritt, First United Methodist Church, and all who are victimized by a culture of neglect and fear.
Signed, the clergy of the Great Falls Ministerial Association.
Rev. Tammy Bull, New Hope Lutheran Church
Rev. Jessica Crane-Munoz, Sunrise Presbyterian Church
Rev. Barbara Gwynn, retired ELCA clergy
Rev. Scott Hedegaard, Redeemer Lutheran Church
Rev. Marcia Lauzon, Episcopal Diocese of Montana
Rev. Jessica Obrecht, Bethel Lutheran Church
Debra Oldfield, S.A.M., St. John’s Lutheran Church
Rev. John Ritchie, PCUSA clergy at-large
Rev. Lynne Spencer-Smith, First Congregational United Church of Christ
Rev. Stephen Underwood, Central Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Let’s Talk, Lola: An In-Depth Look at Lola Sheldon Galloway
Do you know Lola Sheldon Galloway? She’s a representative of local House District 22 running for re-election. Lola Sheldon Galloway certainly counts as a person in power but does she serve the People? If not, who is she serving? Let’s take a look at some of Lola’s most outrageous claims to see if we can determine who exactly she’s serving.
Let’s start with those who have been victims of crime. Rape is heinous act that traumatizes and devastates the victims, often for lifetimes. Most people involved in civic positions empathize with the victims and pursue protections and rehabilitation for them. Lola, on the other hand, is deeply misinformed on the subject. She believes that roughly 98% of victims miscarry due to that trauma, and seeks to ban abortion, even due to life threatening health issues, stating without a proper source beyond “reading this once”
In defense of her rather indefensible position on abortion, Lola once stated,
“Never once has a human ever delivered a platypus or any other kind of animal. We deliver human beings.”
Yeah, Lola, you’re right. Under no circumstances has a human woman given birth to a platypus. Perhaps in the future some kind of nightmarish clone hybrid, but right now, just human babies. I was taught around 6th grade to research and cite things before I declare them fact. A quick Google search proves that Lola’s “statistics” are in now way factual. The number of miscarriages experienced by sexual assault survivors, not platypi. Roughly 39% get carried to full term. Lola is also known to protest right outside Planned Parenthood. Rape victims, people with health issues regarding your reproduction system, people wishing to get tested and have info and resources for safe sexual health; Lola is for Lola. Not for you.
Next up, let’s look at the unhoused population in Great Falls. There’s no denying Great Falls is facing a housing crisis, and as such, there has been an increased presence of homeless people in Great Falls. She is on record for both complaining about the homeless presence at First United Methodist Church earlier this year,( a number of them using her nearby Dairy Queen restroom for basic essential hygiene) yet also stateing she does not want to provide further shelters and housing in the city because she believes it will attract further homeless people. Lola, in her selfishness, has created her own paradox. She wants the homelessness to be less visible, but she also does not want to create shelters or work against the current statewide rent increases or housing availability. Are you disabled or homeless, or know and love someone like that? Lola is not for you.
Are you an Indigenous person of Montana? Both Lola and her husband have loudly protested the incorporation of the Big Sky Country National Heritage Area, continuing a colonialist tradition of erasing the history of our indigenous people. Lola doesn’t care, Lola is not for you. Like fire for Frankenstein’s monster, Lola seems to retain a deep seated fear for people of color.
Finally, let’s get to the meat of the issue. Lola Sheldon Galloway has no shame about where her interests lie, and is using her position of power for her own financial gain. In 2022 alone, during the August 2nd and September 2nd meetings, Lola used her position to make requests of “personal favors” to ensure her business alone did not lose any money. If I tried that during a session, I’d be told to shut up, told I was a greedy idiot, and barred from the commission meeting. Check out Lola’s comments at previous meetings confirming that she is only out for herself, not our community.
If a President is not supposed to utilize their own properties and business for profit in relation to their position, why do Lola and her husband get away with it… perhaps they think they’re more important than the POTUS?
At the end of the day; Lola is for Lola and her bank account, not for us the people. If you haven’t already voted, I urge you to vote this next Tuesday, and remember this: at the end of the day; Lola is for Lola and her bank account, not for us, the people.
