Guest Column
Are Anti Union Ads a Push for Spending Cap Initiatives?
By Pete Talbot, 8-27-06
Annie Cathey is 37-years-old and has worked for the Motor Vehicles Department in the Missoula County Treasurer’s office for seven years. She makes $12.22 an hour.
“It’s a slap in the face, “ she says of the anti-union ads that were launched this week in Montana. The TV, radio and newspaper campaign portrays department workers as overpaid, lazy and nasty.
Annie wants to know who’s behind the ads and “if they’ve ever stepped foot in our office.”
“We’ve struggled for many years to overcome this negative image,” she added, “now we get compliments.”
As for being overpaid: Sandy has been with the department for 2 years and makes $11.33 an hour. Jana has been there for 22 years and makes $13.82. It’s been almost a year for Scott – he makes “around $11,” he said.
Montana isn’t the only targeted state. The advertising campaign is also running in Oregon, Nevada, and Michigan. Three of these four states have initiatives on the November ballot that cap state spending. The fourth state, Michigan, is in the process of certifying signatures for a similar ballot initiative.
The most active opponents of the initiatives are the unions that represent public employees. Others oppose the initiatives, including The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), but it’s “more difficult to slam seniors,” one union official said.
“I think it’s CI-97,” said Eric Feaver, president of MEA-MFT, the union that represents Montana teachers and other state employees. CI-97 is the constitutional initiative that limits state spending to a formula that includes the rate of inflation and population growth. Feaver says there’s a “very clear connection” between the anti-union ads and the spending cap initiatives.
He’s not sure who exactly is paying for the ad campaign. “It’s impossible to follow the money,” he said, “but it’s just too coincidental” that the ad campaign is running in states with spending cap initiatives on the November ballot.
“They all hit at the same time,” said Quinton Nyman, executive director of the Montana Public Employees Association (MPEA), of the four-state ad campaign. MPEA is the union that represents Montana’s Division of Motor Vehicles employees. (In most other states it is referred to as the Department of Motor Vehicles, or DMV. DMV jokes are the staple of late-night talk shows.)
The DMV ads are a “cliché” and state workers are an easy target, Nyman said. He was “speechless, ” though, when he opened up Tuesday’s paper to see the full-page ad targeting his union’s members. The ads “attacked the credibility and dedication” of the state employees, he added.
When Nyman visits the motor vehicle bureaus around the state he says that the workers don’t ask about pay raises, “they ask when more people will be hired to help with the workload.”
The organization behind the ad campaign is the Center for Union Facts. It is located in Washington, D.C., and its executive director is lobbyist Richard Berman. Berman has headed similar organizations that lobby for tobacco, alcohol and other industries, according to labor officials.
The organization’s communications director, Sarah Longwell, said that the ads are an “educational campaign” and the advertising budget is $1 million. She called the ads “funny, edgy.”
“It was taken into consideration,” she noted, in placing the ad campaign in four states with spending cap initiatives, but it wasn’t the main factor. The campaign “is not trying to influence people.” she added, but to drive them to the Center for Union Facts’ website.
The organization is a non-profit and is funded by “businesses, foundations, individuals and some union members,” Longwell stated. She would not reveal specific funding sources. She also said she didn’t know what executive director Richard Berman’s hourly salary is.
As for Annie Cathey at Motor Vehicles in Missoula, she says she isn’t getting rich at her job, “I live paycheck-to-paycheck, like most Montanans.”
Guest columnist Pete Talbot is a film and video producer who works with WestRidge Creative, an advertising firm in Missoula that provides marketing for nonprofits, and coordinates issue and candidate campaigns. He also does freelance film and video production under the name Sterling Productions, a company he founded nearly 30 years ago. Pete is a board member of Missoula’s Sustainable Business Council and treasurer for Missoula Community Access Television (MCAT). Politically, Pete has served on the Montana Democratic Party Executive Board and was chairman of the Missoula County Democrats.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Just wondering: Do you feel the same way about out-of-state money that supports causes you favor?
It's not just about out of state money, it's about the fact that this legislation wasn't written in Montana, the signatures were gathered by PAID out of state collectors. Nothing about this is from Montana. If it is good for Montana, then let it come from Montana. We don't need Howard Rich from New York pushing his plans here and ruining our state like TABOR almost ruined Colorado. This is one of the few cases where you can actually point to an example and say "See, it doesn't work".
Why do you keep making the false claim the FREE does not disclose its funding? It's all disclosed on our web site under funding. Really.
I agree. How about the push to raise the minimum wage? I'm just asking if there is not a double standard here.
Now Pete...you want to tell the readers when that page went up? It certainly wasn't 2003 as the copyright implies.
I signed the petition to raise minimum wage. As this article points out, Montanan's volunteered to gather signatures for Raise Montana. The bill was born and funded in Montana. That is the difference.
The other 3 initiatives (I97 included) were born in the mind and idealogy of Howard Rich in New York city and are being pushed in states all over the country. Paid sinature collectors used nefarious and deceptive methods for collecting signatures. That is the difference.
(1) Raise Montana's web site does not disclose their sources of funding. Maybe Twilly Cannon can investigate and report back.
But I'm skeptical that such an effort so closely linked to national Democratic Party politics is free of out-of-state money.
(2) If it's really true that "Paid sinature collectors used nefarious and deceptive methods for collecting signatures" I hope you and others will bring evidence of impropriety to the attention of the appropriate state officials.
(3) I am simply asking this question: Does the author of the origional piece object to any effort with out-of-state funding, even for the ideological causes he favors? If not, is there a journalistic double standard here?
You act like you are hearing about this stuff for the first time. I will bring you up to speed.
I did a little fact sheet here last month. There have been plenty of credible accusations about the signature gathers practices. In the Helena IR, in the GF Tribune and many others. The last details a lawsuit filed challenging the validity of the signatures gathered.
It may be that Raise Montana has gotten out of state funding. Accpeting out of state funding does not instantly demonize a project. There is something wrong when the ENTIRE project is funded by out of state money as these 3 initiatives are.