税金は悪か？ミネソタ州に聞いてみるとよい。
Stephen Henderson: Think taxes are evil? Well, go ask Minnesota
June 19, 2014, Detroit Free Press
あなたの隣人の庭が緑豊かなものであったときには、その優れた結果を得るために隣人が何をしたのかを考えてみるべきである。
だから、ミシガン州の議員たちは、ミネソタ州で何が起きているかを考えるべきなのだ。ミネソタでは、経済が成長し、1人当たりの所得が増えている。そしてそこでは、税金が高く、政府による支出も多い。教育とインフラへの投資が、経済回復を損なうのではなく、助長しているのだ。
実際、ミシガンとミネソタ、この2つの州は全く正反対である。ミネソタでは、9％以上も高い累進所得税があり、消費税もより高く、地域の政府には、より高い税金を課すことを許している。ガソリン税も高いし、他のサービスにかかる税金も高い。
ミネソタは、ミシガンよりも、教育、インフラ、社会サービスにより多くのお金を費やしており、刑務所にはより少ないお金を費やしている。不況後の経済再建において、ミネソタは、教育やサービス、インフラのために税金を上げてきたが、ミシガンは支出をカットし、反対に法人税を切り下げてきた。
その結果、ミネソタの回復は、ミシガンのそれを上回っている。ミネソタでは失業率は低いし、所得はより高い。貧困率も低い。
人口動態的な状況などが違うので、州を比較することは難しい。しかし、ミネソタの未来は、ミネソタとミシガン、両方の州がそれぞれの未来について決断するときに、よい材料を与えるだろう。
When you look over into your neighbor’s yard and see greener grass, it’s worth wondering what elixir he’s using to get better results. Right?
So lawmakers in Michigan, where the economy has been on a steady but slow rebound for the past four years, ought to be thinking pretty hard about what has gone on in Minnesota, which has grown its economy ― and per capita incomes in particular ― much quicker. Minnesota, in fact, is something of a Great Lakes phenomenon: a high-tax, high-spending counter to places like Michigan and Indiana, and a place where investment in education and infrastructure seems to be helping, not hurting, economic recovery.
The two couldn't be more opposite, really. Minnesota has a progressive income tax that maxes out above 9%, has a higher state sales tax and allows local governments to add onto it, has a higher gasoline tax and applies its sales tax to lots of services.
Minnesota also spends more than Michigan on education, infrastructure and social services, and less on corrections. And Minnesota shares far more revenue with its cities, and encourages more regional government cooperation, than Michigan does.
Rebuilding after the recession, Minnesota looked several times, in several ways, at tax increases to shore up education and services and infrastructure. Michigan, of course, has cut spending deeply in key areas while slashing business taxes.
Results-wise, Minnesota’s recovery is outpacing Michigan’s. Unemployment there is lower, while incomes are higher. Poverty rates are lower. Meanwhile, school and university funding is flush, and people aren’t driving impassable roads that suffer from investment neglect.
Apples-to-apples comparisons of state economies can be tough, given differences in demographics and strength or weakness in certain sectors.
But the Michigan Future report goes to great lengths to look at specific decisions made in both states, and assess their outcomes.
アメリカの労働組合、ワーカーセンター、権利擁護団体
- 産業別組合
-
- Service Employees International Union (SEIU)：主に3つのサービスセクター（healthcare, property services, public services）に焦点を合わせて、労働者の生活と彼らが提供するサービスの質を高めることを目標として活動。2005年にAFL-CIOを脱退。
-
- UNITE HERE：サービス産業（hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry, and airport industries）で働く労働者を対象
-
- United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW)：食品関連の産業（grocery and retail stores, and in the food processing and meat packing industries）で働く労働者から構成されるユニオン。UFCWのメンバーは全米とカナダで働いており、400以上のローカルユニオンに所属している。
-
- Teamsters：貨物運送ドライバー、倉庫労働者のユニオンとして知られているが、様々な職業の労働者を組織してきた。140万人のメンバーは、以下の活動を行っている（public defenders in Minnesota; vegetable workers in California; sanitation workers in New York; brewers in St. Louis; newspaper workers in Seattle; construction workers in Las Vegas; zoo keepers in Pennsylvania; healthcare workers in Rhode Island; bakery workers in Maine; airline pilots, secretaries and police officers）
-
- Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU)
-
- Communications Workers of America (CWA)
-
- Retail Action Project (RAP)
-
- Change to Win: Strategic Organizing Center
-
- AFSCME：パブリックセクターの労働者を代表するユニオン、メンバーは160万人以上。
-
- The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
- 地域のユニオン
-
- United Taxi Workers of San Diego
-
- Culinary Workers Union Local 226
- ニューヨークで活動する団体
-
- Make the Road New York：中南米移民の権利擁護組織とアフリカ系アメリカ人の政治的影響力を強めることを目的とした組織の合併により設立。主な事業は、コミュニティ・オーガナイジング・モデルに基づくコミュニティリーダーの育成と住民運動および教育機関への関与のほか、会員への語学教育、法的扶助。
AFSCME代表のLee Saundersからの声明
Statement from AFSCME President Lee Saunders
June 30, 2014, AFSCME Blog
Today’s Supreme Court decision does not dampen the resolve of home care workers and child care providers to come together to have a strong voice for good jobs and to give care to millions of seniors, people with disabilities and children.
The ruling places at risk a system of consumer-directed home care that has proved successful in raising wages, providing affordable care and increasing training. The number of elderly Americans will increase dramatically in the coming years.
Child care workers make it possible for working parents to support their families without the agony of trying to juggle their jobs and their kids. States need to build a stable, qualified workforce to meet the growing need for home care and child care – and having a strong union for care providers is the approach that has proven most effective.
Today’s ruling did not hand anti-worker extremists the victory they’d been hoping for because the Court did not revoke collective bargaining rights for public service workers or care providers. It did not eliminate existing contracts.
That would have been a fundamental gutting of the American Dream, but make no mistake – Justice Alito’s opinion made clear that the relentless assault on workers’ rights will not abate.
As always, AFSCME members nationwide will remain steadfast and fight for the simple rights and dignity that every working American deserves. A court ruling doesn’t change our obligation as proud union workers and it doesn’t negate our obligation to keep fighting to restore the American middle class.
最高裁は、ホームケア労働者に一撃を加えた
Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Home Care Workers
June 30, 2014, Labor Notes
ユニオンは、全パブリックセクターに対する全国的な"right to work"政策を創出する最高裁の決定、という最悪の事態に備えて身構えていたが、それは起こらなかった。今朝のHarris v. Quinnにおける裁判所の決定は、それよりも狭いものであった。
しかし、この決定は、急増するホームケアセクターの労働者を組織化するという未来に賭ける組合―特にAFSCMEやSEIUに大きな打撃を与えうるものである。
ホームケア労働者は、お年寄りや障害を持つ人をケアしている。この決定は、新しいグレーゾーンを創出する。つまり、イリノイの2万6千人の在宅ケアワーカーはパブリックセクターの労働者だとは、十分に言えないのだ。裁判所は、彼らを"quasi-public employees"と定義し、ユニオンは彼らに組合費を払うように要求することを不可能にした。
この動きは、他の州における、組織され、州によって給与を支払われるホームケア労働者、チャイルドケア労働者にも同様に影響を与えうる。アメリカには、180万人のホームケア労働者がいて、労働統計によれば、それは2020年までに300万人を超えるという。
Unions were bracing for the worst: a Supreme Court decision that could have created a national “right to work” policy for the entire public sector.
That didn’t happen. The court’s decision in Harris v. Quinn this morning was narrower.
But it will still be a hard hit on the unions that have staked their futures on unionizing the rapidly growing home care sector, notably AFSCME and the Service Employees (SEIU).
Home care workers care for elderly and disabled patients. Some are placed through state agencies, while others care for their own relatives. Either way, getting the care at home keeps people out of nursing homes and other costly institutions.
The ruling creates a new gray area, finding that Illinois's 26,000 home care workers are not fully public sector. The court designated them “quasi-public employees” and ruled that unions cannot force them to pay dues or an agency fee.
Their logic is that home care workers are dually employed―by their clients and by the state, through Medicaid funds. While the client has the ability to hire and fire home care workers, the state determines their pay, benefits, and other aspects of their work.
This move could affect similarly organized and funded home care and childcare workers in other states too. There are 1.8 million home care workers in the U.S. already, and labor statistics forecast their ranks will pass 3 million by 2020.
最高裁は、パブリックセクターの労働組合に一撃を加えた
Supreme Court strikes blow to public sector unions
June 20, 2014, msnbc
この決定は、イデオロギーの分断を反映している。マジョリティは5人の保守派の判事で、民主党によって任命された4人の判事は、この決定に対しては反対であった。
The Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to public sector unions Monday, limiting their ability to automatically deduct dues from public workers who nevertheless benefit from union negotiated contracts. The ruling fell along ideological lines, with the five conservative Justices in the majority and the four Democratic appointees in dissent.
“This case presents the question whether the First Amendment permits a State to compel personal care providers to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority. “If we accepted Illinois’ argument, we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
最高裁は、公的労働者がユニオンの会費の支払いを拒否することを許す決定を下した
Supreme Court Ruling Allows Some Public Workers to Opt Out of Union Fees
June 30, 2014, the New York Times
月曜日、最高裁は、政府の雇用者が彼らを代表する労働組合へ組合費を支払う必要がないと、裁定した。しかし、多くのパブリックセクターの労働者に組合費を支払うことを要求する数十年前の慣例を無効にすることは拒否した。
5対4の決定で、判事のSamuel A. Alito Jr.は、Madicaidの利用者によって雇用されるホームケア援助職のような、一部の公務員（a partial public employee）は、ユニオンに加入することを拒否することも、その会費を支払うことを要求されないこともできる、と結論を下した。
これらの公務員の賃金は州が決定するし、ユニオンは、しばしば、こののような一部の公務員のために集合的交渉をしないので、これらの援助職は、組合費を要求され得ない。
このケースは、Medicaid受給者へ在宅でのヘルスケアを提供するイリノイ州の8人の労働者によって持ち込まれた。彼らは、政府による雇用者はユニオンへ組合費を払うように要求されうるとする、1977年の決定を覆すことを裁判所に要求。しかし、最高裁は、この根本的な決定を覆すことは拒否した。
イリノイや他の州は、政府の労働者に、彼らがユニオンへの参加を選択しようがしまいが、ユニオンの集合的交渉への努力を財政的に援助する"fair share"の組合費を支払うように要求している。
しかし、SEIUやオバマ政権は、裁判所に、"fair-share fees"の適法性を支持するように説得してきた。
The Supreme Court ruled narrowly on Monday that some government employees did not have to pay any fees to labor unions representing them, but the court decision declined to strike down a decades-old precedent that required many public-sector workers to pay union fees.
Writing the majority 5-4 opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. concluded that there was a category of government employee ― a partial public employee ― who can opt out of joining a union and not be required to contribute dues to that labor group.
Justice Alito wrote that home-care aides who are typically employed by an ill or disabled person with Medicaid’s paying their wages would be classified as partial public employees, which would not be the same as public-school teachers or police officers who work directly for the government.
Because states often set wages for partial public employees like home-care aides and because unions often do not conduct collective bargaining for them, these aides cannot be required to pay union fees, Justice Alito wrote. He wrote that requiring these home-care aides to pay would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The case, Harris v. Quinn, was brought by eight Illinois workers who provided home health care to Medicaid recipients. They asked the court to overrule a 1977 decision that declared that government employees can be required to pay fees to unions for representing them and administering their contracts even if they disagree with the union’s positions. The majority declined to overrule that foundational decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ― a move that could have significantly cut into the membership and treasuries of public-sector unions.
Illinois and numerous other states require government workers, whether or not they opt to join a union, to pay “fair share” fees to finance a union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and to ensure “labor peace.” But the court in Abood held that workers could not be required to help pay for activities that were purely political, like a union’s lobbying the legislature or campaigning for particular candidates.
But the Service Employees International Union and the Obama administration urged the court to uphold the legality of “fair-share fees.”
最高裁は、イリノイのケースでユニオンをつまずかせた
Supreme Court deals setback to unions in Illinois case
June 30, 2014, Chicago Tribune
月曜日、最高裁は、イリノイ州によって給与を支払われているホームケア労働者は、ユニオンの会費を支払うように要求される政府の一般の雇用者とは同じであるとはいえない、という決定を下し、ユニオンをつまずかせた。
ユニオンに反対する団体である、National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundationにバックアップされて、雇用者たちは、裁判所に、公的セクターの労働組合が、そのお金が政治的活動に使われない限り、ユニオンによって代表されることを望まない労働者からお金を集めることを許す数十年前の規定を、反故にするように求めた。
10年以上前から、イリノイ州の在宅の労働者は、SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indianaによって代表されてきた。ユニオンと州との間の集合的交渉協定は、すべての労働者に強制的なユニオンの組合費を支払うように規定している。
Harrisは、他のホームケア労働者ともに、イリノイ州と知事のQuinnを訴えた。彼らは、ユニオンの組合費の支払いを強制されることは、アメリカ合衆国憲法修正第1項によって禁止されている言論の自由の制限にあたると主張した。
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to unions by ruling that in-home care workers in Illinois who are paid by the state are not similar enough to full-fledged government employees to be compelled to pay union dues.
Backed by the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees had asked the court to upend a decades-old practice that lets public-sector unions collect money from workers who do not want union representation, so long as the money is not spent on political activities.
For more than a decade now, home-based workers in Illinois have been represented by SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana. The collective bargaining agreement between the union and the state provides that all such workers pay compulsory union fees.
Harris, along with other home-based workers, sued Illinois and Governor Pat Quinn, a Democrat, claiming that the compelled payment of union dues was a form of forced speech prohibited by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
