Oregon Legislators Raised the Minimum Wage; Students Lose Their Jobs

Oregon’s three-tiered minimum wage law was just signed by Governor Kate Brown last week, but it’s already set to cost Oregon university students their campus jobs. The Oregonian reports that Oregon’s public universities are now calculating how the wage increases will affect their budgets for student workers.

Most college jobs paying the current minimum wage are not part of the federally funded work-study program; student workers are hired by the universities, which pay them hourly. According to The Oregonian, “Oregon’s new minimum could put more money in some students’ pockets, but it will more likely lead administrations to either cut back on the number of students they hire or the number of hours they’re allowed to work.”

The new wage law goes into full effect over six years, and Oregon is divided into three wage regions, so the cost increases will compound over time and affect colleges differently depending on where they are located. A spokesman for Oregon State University says OSU may need to cut up to 700 student worker positions by 2019, which is about a nine-percent reduction in student employment.

Until legislators understand that income cannot be generated by state mandate, minimum wage increases will continue to hurt workers they’re thought to help, including first-time job-seekers, workers with less experience, and college students just trying to get a part-time campus job.

Oregon’s Minimum Wage Law Perverts Compassion into Coercion

Picture two Oregon workers. One, a highly skilled and educated woman named Kate, earns well over $40 per hour based on a 40-hour work week. The other—a younger, less skilled, and less educated woman also named Kate—has a job that pays her Oregon’s minimum wage rate of $9.25 per hour.

The first Kate happens to be the Governor of Oregon. She, along with some of her colleagues in the legislature and activists on the campaign trail, believe that the second Kate should be paid as much as $15.00 per hour by law, depending on where she lives.

Wanting our second Kate to earn more is commendable; but forcing Kate’s employer to pay her more than he or she can afford, or more than Kate may be worth to their business, is not commendable.

Some politicians may feel good by “giving” more money to the Kates of Oregon, but how should they feel for “taking” that money from someone else?

I join many policy analysts, economists, and business owners in pointing out the negative effects of raising Oregon’s minimum wage. Younger, less educated and lower-skilled workers may lose their jobs, or not gain jobs in the first place, if the law prices them out of the labor market. Some employers will be forced to hire fewer workers, let some workers go, and/or raise their prices to all the Kates of Oregon who will blame them, not the politicians, for their suddenly higher cost of living.

But, the practical effects of raising the minimum wage, good or bad, should not cause us to forget the moral aspects of a state policy that dictates what one adult is required to pay another. Voluntary transactions between workers and employers are moral; imposing wage floors from Salem or any other layer of government is not.

I have no illusions that Oregon’s Governor, legislature, and activists will now see the light and abandon their plans to impose yet another burden on employers while helping some workers at the expense of others. I simply want it on the record that I agree with the author who wrote:

“The minimum wage is the modern perversion of compassion into coercion: I believe there is a moral imperative for you to earn more, so I force someone else to pay more. I feel moral while sticking someone else with the bill.”*

So, rather than raise Oregon’s minimum wage rate, the legislature should do the moral thing and end the policy altogether. Then we can all work together with Oregon Governor Kate Brown to find better, moral ways to help all the other Kates of Oregon earn more money without perverting our compassion into coercion.

* Doug Bandow, Cato Institute, January 14, 2014, The Minimum Wage: Immoral and Inefficient.


Steve Buckstein is Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Today Hears Teachers’ Case to Be Free from All Union Dues

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEMedia Contact:
Steve Buckstein
503-242-0900
steven@cascadepolicy.org

PORTLAND, Ore. – The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments this morning in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case aimed at protecting the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association for public employees nationwide, including Oregon.

Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other California public school teachers argue that their Constitutional rights are being violated by the collection of so-called “fair share” or “agency” fees from their paychecks to pay for services the teachers don’t want, from a union whose political goals they oppose.

The Court has long allowed both public and private sector employees to opt out of union membership and the political portion of union dues, but has allowed unions to collect fees for bargaining and representation purposes. Now, Rebecca Friedrichs and her colleagues are arguing that in the public sector, everything their union does is inherently political and therefore they should not be compelled to support that organization with their money.

Organizations and individuals across the country have filed Amicus Briefs with the Court in this case, including two Oregon public employees who have opted out of membership in the labor union that represents them, but are still “…required to make ‘payments-in-lieu-of-dues’ to SEIU….” Their brief was submitted by local attorneys Jill Gibson and James Huffman. Mr. Huffman is Dean Emeritus of Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland and an Academic Advisor to Cascade Policy Institute.

Cascade Policy Institute founder and Senior Policy Analyst Steve Buckstein notes that,

“In bringing her case to the U.S. Supreme Court Rebecca Friedrichs may become the most well-known public school teacher in America—and the most controversial. She is taking this action because, in her own words, ‘It’s time to set aside this union name-calling and all this fear mongering, and let’s put America and her children first, and let’s put the rights of individuals above the rights of these powerful unions.’”

Buckstein adds,

“Cascade Policy Institute stands with Rebecca Friedrichs and her colleagues in this important First Amendment struggle. We look forward to the Court ruling in favor of individual rights above the rights of what Rebecca calls ‘these powerful unions’.”

The Court is expected to announce its ruling near the end of June.

Cascade Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research and educational organization that focuses on state and local issues in Oregon. Cascade’s mission is to develop and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity.

###

How Washington Is Disinheriting American Kids

By Jared Meyer and Kathryn Hickok

Is Washington, D.C. disinheriting America’s kids? You bet. Achieving the American Dream will be more difficult for the next generation because policies and programs created by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington restrict economic opportunity for the young.

The expansion of entitlement benefits and government services places a major future financial burden on the young. The federal government’s $18 trillion debt is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfunded liabilities driven by Social Security and Medicare push the total federal fiscal shortfall to more than $200 trillion.

The Affordable Care Act has raised health insurance premiums for younger adults. While people under 30 only spend an average of $600 a year on health care, young people cannot pay less than one-third of what older people pay.

And these are only two examples of the financial burden our government is placing on the next generation.

Many think a larger government, and higher taxes to pay for it, would benefit young people. This isn’t true. The key to restoring Millennials’ lost economic opportunity is for government to get out of people’s way.

Washington is robbing America’s young. Our country is facing a crisis, and change is essential for young people to achieve the kind of future their parents and grandparents worked hard to build. Otherwise, the bill will eventually come due, and the next generation will pick up the tab.

Jared Meyer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and the coauthor with Diana Furchtgott-Roth of Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young (Encounter Books, May 2015). Cascade Policy Institute will host Meyer to speak on this topic in Portland on October 22, 2015. Kathryn Hickok is Publications Director at Cascade Policy Institute.

Washington’s War on Millennials

By Jared Meyer

Tens of millions of Americans are between the ages of 18 and 30, and achieving success will be more difficult for these so-called Millennials than it was for young people in the past. This is because politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have put in place policies that restrict economic opportunity for the young.

It does not have to be this way.

Washington’s expansion of entitlement benefits and other government services places a major future financial burden on the young—one that many did not even vote for. The federal government has a debt of $18 trillion, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfunded liabilities driven by Social Security and Medicare push the total federal fiscal shortfall to more than $200 trillion.

As if this were not enough, the Affordable Care Act has raised health insurance premiums for the young in an effort to pay for older Americans’ health care. Now, even though people under 30 only spend an average of $600 a year on health care, young people cannot pay less than one-third of what older people pay.

In elementary and secondary school, ineffective teachers are protected from being fired. This serves the interests of older teachers and their unions, but it harms those who would benefit from high-quality teachers. Common-sense reforms to improve education outcomes such as vouchers and charter schools are consistently opposed by teachers unions.

In their college years, young people are encouraged to attend a university even though four in ten college freshmen fail to graduate within six years. The current system of excessive federal student aid raises the cost of college tuition, which forces students to take on mountains of debt.

As if this were not enough, after high school or college graduation, Washington and state governments prevent young people from entering the job market. Occupational licensing requirements are meant to protect public safety, but often they mostly protect established businesses and workers. This comes at the expense of everyday consumers, entrepreneurs, and young workers, as unnecessary licensing makes many promising career paths too prohibitively expensive or time-consuming to enter.

Minimum wage laws, though they may seem well intentioned, make it more difficult for young and low-skilled workers to acquire valuable experience. Again, the government is telling young people that they are not free to work. Destructive labor-market laws need to be scaled back so that the first step on the career ladder can again be within reach.

Some think that if government were larger and gave more handouts, and taxes were raised to pay for these programs, then young people would do better. However, this would only make matters worse. Government tends to pick winners and losers, and the politically unorganized young are ineffective at lobbying for their interests. The key to restoring Millennials’ lost economic opportunity is for government to get out of their way.

Washington is robbing America’s young. Our country is facing a crisis, and change is essential for young people to achieve the future they deserve.

Jared Meyer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and the coauthor with Diana Furchtgott-Roth of Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young (Encounter Books, May 2015). Cascade Policy Institute will host Meyer to speak on this topic in Portland on Thursday evening, October 22. This article was originally published by The Salem Statesman Journal.

Event Video – Ending the Public Employee Union Stranglehold on State Politics

The Executive Club and Cascade Policy Institute were pleased to welcome David Nott, president of Reason Foundation, at the Executive Club’s September 2, 2015 dinner event. Introduction by Cascade founder Steve Buckstein.

David Nott is president of Reason Foundation, a non-profit think tank advancing free minds and free markets. The foundation also publishes the award-winning and critically acclaimed national magazine, Reason. Reason Foundation hosts the annual Reason Media Awards featuring the Bastiat Prize. David created Reason.tv and the Drew Carey Project to produce and distribute internet video journalism, whose home page has reached over 200 million hits since its launch as well as the Reason.com news, which receives over 3 million hits a month. He is executive producer of the Reason Foundation 2013 film, “America’s Longest War: A Film About Drug Prohibition.”

David is an engineer by training. He received his Bachelor of Arts and Sciences with Distinction, in economics and engineering, from Stanford University. He has three children and resides in El Segundo.

Most Teachers Oppose Mandatory Union Fees

A national education journal, EducationNext, has just released results of its annual poll asking a number of education-related questions. One question has particular relevance now because this happens to be National Employee Freedom Week, a nationwide campaign offering an unparalleled focus on the freedoms union employees have to opt out of union membership.

The EducationNext poll asked people in general, parents, and teachers, among other demographic groups, how they feel about mandatory union fees. Here is the exact question asked in the poll:

Some say that all teachers should have to contribute to the union because they all get the pay and benefits the union negotiates with the school board. Others say teachers should have the freedom to choose whether or not to pay the union. Do you support or oppose requiring all teachers to pay these fees even if they do not join the union?

Only 34 percent of the general public supports such mandatory union fees, while 43 percent oppose them.

Only 31 percent of parents support such fees, while 47 percent oppose them.

Most surprising of all, only 38 percent of public school teachers support mandatory union fees, while 50 percent oppose them. As a Reason.com “Hit & Run” blog post notes, “It’s not just non-unionized teachers who think this; unionized teachers made up almost half the sample, and only 52 percent of them said agency fees should be mandatory.”

One public school teacher who opposes mandatory fees could be instrumental in seeing them banned not only for all teachers, but for all public employees across America. California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs has filed a lawsuit against the California Teachers Association, arguing that mandatory fees violate her Constitutional First Amendment rights of free speech and free association. The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear her case, with a decision likely by next June.

While the Court ruled in 1988 that no one must join a union or pay the political portion of union dues, many workers are still required to pay so-called “fair share” non-political union fees for services such as collective bargaining. Now the Court will take up the argument that at least in the public employment setting, all union activities can legitimately be considered political.

Rebecca Friedrichs says, “It’s time to set aside this union name calling and all this fear mongering and let’s put America and her children first, and let’s put the rights of individuals above the rights of these powerful unions.”

It is clearly time to put individual rights above those of the powerful unions, and now we know that even most teachers agree.

Employee Freedom Respects Workers’ Choice

Why might workers like the opportunity to opt out of union membership? Some believe they can make better use of their own money rather than giving it to a union. Others “vote with their feet” against what they perceive to be poor union service or negotiating results. Still others leave because they oppose their unions’ political positions. They simply don’t want to support any organization that doesn’t share their political beliefs.

Many scientific surveys have been conducted to see how the public and members of union households feel about these issues. A survey conducted for this year’s National Employee Freedom Week asked members of union households this question:

“Are you aware that you can opt-out of union membership and of paying a portion of your union dues without losing your job or any other penalty?”

Surprisingly, over 27 percent of Oregon union household members surveyed answered No. This implies that over 65,000 of Oregon’s some 243,000 union members don’t realize that membership and some dues are optional.

The right to work without third-party interference is more than an economic issue; it is a profoundly moral one as well. In America, no one should be compelled to join a union or to pay union dues in order to hold a job. For more information about how employee choice can benefit Oregon workers, visit oregonemployeechoice.com.

Put Individual Rights Above Those of Powerful Unions

By the time the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case next June, Rebecca Friedrichs may be the most well-known public school teacher in America—and the most controversial. She is asking the Court to uphold the Constitutional First Amendment free speech and free association rights of all California public school teachers, and by extension all public sector workers across America, against the demands of unions that now require even non-members to pay “agency fees” or “fair share dues.”

The Friedrichs case is just the latest to come before the Supreme Court pitting individual workers against the powerful unions that seek to take their money without their consent. In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), public sector unions were allowed to impose fees on all workers for collective bargaining purposes. Then, in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), the Court found that unions could not compel fees for political purposes that workers opposed. Finally, just last year in Harris v. Quinn, the Court went further and ruled that at least some workers could opt out of both the political and bargaining portions of public sector union dues. This set the stage for freeing all public sector workers from any forced union dues, which is what the Friedrichs decision hopefully will accomplish.

In Oregon, there also may be a citizen’s initiative on the ballot next November granting freedom from all union dues for public employees. Public employees are the focus of this initiative, and the Friedrichs case, because it has become clear that all public sector union activities are political, including the inherently political act of collective bargaining with public bodies. Union arguments that they should collect fees from all workers because they represent them all increasingly ring hollow because unions lobby to represent everyone. They could just as well lobby to only represent those who voluntarily agree to pay them.

Several scientific surveys have been conducted to see how the public and members of union households feel about these issues. The 2013 survey found that more than 30 percent of Oregon union households would opt out of union membership if they could do so without penalty. Last year, more than 80 percent of all Oregonians surveyed agreed that employees should be able choose whether or not to join a union or pay union dues. This year’s survey again asked members of union households the following question:

“Are you aware that you can opt-out of union membership and of paying a portion of your union dues without losing your job or any other penalty?”

Surprisingly, over 27 percent of Oregon union household members surveyed answered No. This implies that over 65,000 of Oregon’s some 243,000 union members don’t realize that membership and some dues are optional. This is even more surprising given that their so-called “Beck rights” granted by the Supreme Court in 1988 are named after Harry Beck who is now retired in Oregon and still advocating for worker freedom.

These surveys were conducted for National Employee Freedom Week, which this year runs from August 16th through the 22nd.

Rebecca Friedrichs is taking her case to the Supreme Court because, in her own words, “It’s time to set aside this union name calling and all this fear mongering and let’s put America and her children first, and let’s put the rights of individuals above the rights of these powerful unions.”

“Put[ting] the rights of individuals above the rights of these powerful unions” is something every Oregonian should support.

1 2 3 4