By Rep. Paul Anderson
What a dramatic finish to the legislative session! As this is written early Monday morning, approximately 17 hours remain until a mandatory midnight date with adjournment. Most of the major spending bills have been acted on, but an historic debate is still waiting to be concluded on a proposal to allow a vote by child care and personal care attendants (PCA) on unionization. If enacted, it would be a major victory for the DFL and public-sector unions. But those of us against it are not going down without a fight.
Debate on the unionization bill got underway at 2 a.m. Sunday. Despite the late hour, the rotunda outside the House chambers was crowded with demonstrators on both sides of the issue. Union backers sporting SIEU or AFSCME shirts were there, along with other child care providers from around the state, there to voice opposition to the plan that could put providers who care for children receiving the state subsidy into a union.
As debate dragged on throughout the night, opponents to the measure chanted “We’re still here” each time the doors opened and members entered or left the chamber. The same measure had been approved the week before in the Senate, but only after a marathon debate of 17 hours. It appeared the same scenario might play out in the House as around 100 amendments to the bill had been filed.
We went until 7 a.m. Sunday, at which time the session was ended. We were told to return for another full day of debate in just four hours. Members and staff were back at the Capital by 11 a.m., and we started again. After passing a couple other bills, we went back to debating the unionization bill for another four hours. Told that belonging to a union would give providers better pay and benefits, I asked, “If that’s the purpose for all this, why not just pass a bill giving those people an increase. After all, the state subsidy and PCA payments are set by the Legislature.”
As this, the final day of session unfolds, much work remains. Debate on the unionization bill needs to wrap up, and other bills await action, as well. Public opinion, along with editorial positions from several major newspapers, including those in Minneapolis and St. Paul, were lined up against the push for unionization. I’ve heard from many providers back in the district, and there’s nearly unanimous opposition to the plan. They run their own businesses, and don’t see any benefit in belonging to a union.
***
Another interesting development occurred Sunday evening when the DFL conference committee’s $2 billion tax plan was unveiled. One of the new provisions contained in the 382-page bill was a business-to-business tax on storage and warehouse fees. When I saw the word “storage,” my first thought was a tax on grain being held at an elevator. As I questioned the Tax Committee chair on the bill, it turns out this is a tax on any commercial storage fees and would affect inputs such as fertilizer and fuel. Turns out this is a big deal and a tax on farm inputs. Rep. Rod Hamilton contacted the major farm groups and they immediately emailed letters of concern to the plan, which seemed to catch everyone off-guard. Also included is a provision to apply the state sales tax to farm machinery repairs and other types of repair work. The tax bill was eventually passed, with four Democrats joining the Republicans in voting against the plan.
-30-