Legislative breakfast held at VUJC; Right to Work dominated discussion
The Jasper Chamber of Commerce sponsored a legislative breakfast on Saturday, Jan. 14, where coffee, juice, and granola bars accompanied an ample dose of right to work opinions.
There were five representatives of the Indiana legislature in attendance: District 74 Representative Sue Ellspermann; State Senator Lindell Hume of Princeton; District 63 Representative Mark Messmer; State Senator Richard Young of Milltown; and District 73 Representative Steve Davison.
Each of the five were given an opportunity to tell what bills they are working on in this shortened session of the Indiana legislature. Bills that were discussed include:
- Right to Work House Bill 1001
- Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients House Bill 1007
- Smoking Ban House Bill 1149
- Rural Entrepreneurship Tax Incentive Financing (RETIF) House Bill 1241
- Nepotism and Conflict of Interest House Bill 1005
- Human Trafficking Senate Bill 4
- Synthetic Drugs House Bill 1196
Moderator Nancy Eckerle of the Jasper Chamber of Commerce opened the floor to questions from the public but before the session could be hijacked by discussion on the Right to Work bill she directed the audience to hold questions concerning it till the end.
The first question was regarding what types of loans would be forgiven with the new bill that would increase the loan forgiveness of doctors who work in rural communities. Currently a doctor can have up to $5000 in education debt forgiven and the new bill would increase that amount to $25,000. According to Senator Young the loan forgiveness would be for any loan the student has taken out and would be funded through state appropriations.
Jasper Mayor Terry Seitz asked how the new smoking ban would be implemented. The ban is fast tracked to take affect Feb. 1 in time for the Super Bowl. Rep. Davison stated the bill has already been in discussion and he actually opposes it since he feels it is something that should be handled at a local level. He continued by stating the ban is an extension of what Indianapolis has tried to enact and failed to do so.
Seitz’ concern was based around potential punitive actions taken against establishments who may be unaware of the new bill.
Rep. Messmer stated the way the bill reads now it is very similar to the current Indianapolis ordinance and he expects it will basically resemble the Indianapolis ordinance by the time it is enacted. He stated he doesn’t understand why it is even being considered since Indianapolis already has an ordinance in place.
Senator Hume took this question to discuss the human trafficking bill that has been proposed in response to news that this type of activity follows large venues like the Super Bowl. Hume is the co-author of the bill and is insistent the bill should be fast-tracked to fight the possibility of these activities occurring around the Super Bowl.
Huntingburg Councilman Glen Kissling pointed out he understood the basis for the Nepotism/Conflict of Interest Bill but also stated many small rural communities have a limited amount of people to draw from for positions on the fire department and the town boards. Rep. Ellspermann stated she understands the problems associated with the bill in regards to small communities. Senator Hume joined her in stating he would welcome commentary about the existing bill. Young also stated he would be glad to talk with Kissling about an amendment for the bill.
Ernie Brames asked about the $340 million recently found and why it wasn’t heading back to the schools. Ellspermann and Hume explained that a law was in place that triggered a return to the taxpayers of Indiana in cases like this. The trigger was put in place when the State received criticism for “banking” billions of tax payer dollars in the 90’s when it had a surplus of money.
The legislature is looking at the reasoning behind sending back the money to the taxpayers when the amounts would range from $0.17 to $100 per taxpayer.
Brames pointed out that Governor Daniels had cut the public school funding by $300 million four years ago and wanted to know why this surplus wouldn’t be earmarked back to the schools. Hume stated this was due to the trigger and additionally the $1.9 trillion unemployment debt to the federal government created a deficit for Indiana and the $340 million surplus isn’t really a surplus with this looming debt.
Hume stated the State needs to utilize that money where it is needed and not turn around and give it back to the taxpayers when it equates to very small payments.
Jim Kulbeth then asked why he as a small business owner and employer should be saddled with the bill for the unemployment debt when he didn’t lay anyone off but made other sacrifices to ensure his employees kept their jobs.
Ellspermann stated that the rates on the amounts the employers pay is based on how much they use the unemployment benefit. Messmer stated the amount paid from small businesses that do not let employees go was actually lowered, but Senator Hume recognized Kulbeth’s plight and agreed that he shouldn’t be saddled with the tax burden.
After this the question and answer session turned to Right to Work. Rep. Messmer informed the group he could not comment and would not be voting on the bill due to his business being a unionized business.
The first question asked Rep. Ellspermann to identify a company looking to move to Indiana based on Right to Work. Ellspermann stated a company is looking at Evansville if the right to work bill passes.
“We actually had in testimony last Friday a company LF Manufacturing out of Texas. A manufacturer of fiberglass materials for sewer systems,” Ellspermann said. “They have told the Coalition of Southwest Indiana that when Right to Work passes let them know they would like to move here.”
Senator Hume stated he agreed with the governor on Right to Work. He then pulled out a letter the governor had written to Bill Dugan the ex-president of the International Union of Operating Engineers in which Governor Daniels thanked the IUOE for their support in his campaign. Hume read the final paragraphs of the letter in which Governor Daniels stated he agreed with the position that there is no need to enact a right to work statute in Indiana.
Statements were made by several other members in attendance. Most were against the right to work bill, but some in attendance were supportive of the bill. Christine Prior stated she felt the Right to Work was akin to her right to reproduce and the bill should support the worker’s choice just like her own choice.
Larry Reller is a union carpenter and has been for most of his life. “Oh my God, I’ve worked my whole life and now they want to ram this through to become a law and it’s just going to hurt us,” Reller said. “If they get this through then I’m afraid the younger workers won’t join the union and my pension will go to heck.”
Ellspermann reiterated that the bill simply allowed the individual worker to decide whether they want to join a union or not. Messmer did not comment on the bill except to say that Indiana law precluded the Right to Work bill going to a statewide referendum as some at the State House have suggested.
According to Senator Young and Senator Hume the goal of the Right to Work bill is to destroy the unions and remove a source of funding for the Democratic Party. “It’s political, it’s to damage the Democratic Party and labor. And in some cases it’s punitive to the unions,” Hume stated. “If this wasn’t going to effect labor, why would they be so opposed to it in the State House. Business understands this is going to make if more difficult for labor unions to organize.”
