AFT-OR's Political Education Working Group will present a panel of trans and non-binary organizers discussing their perspectives and experiences building worker solidarity. RSVP to join!
Sat, August 17th from 3 - 4:30pm in SE Portland
Showing posts with label American Federation of Teachers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Federation of Teachers. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 14, 2024
Monday, August 5, 2024
Oregon AFT: What we need to know about Ballot Measure 118 (IP 17)
The following ws produced before IP 17 became Ballot Measure 118:
"Oregon Rebate" Ballot Measure Analysis - What to Know
This November, Oregonians will vote on a recently qualified ballot measure going by "Oregon Rebate", Measure 11X (aka, IP 17). This is a static cash check to Oregonians created by raising the corporate minimum tax.
Here are some topline analysis from our coalition partners in the pro-education revenue and labor policy spaces, as well as a new Legislative Policy & Research Office report from the State of Oregon:
IP 17 would result in a $1 billion cost to the General Fund next biennium by shifting over constitutionally required education funding from corporate taxes to the general fund
In addition, the Legislative Revenue Office estimates IP 17 would cost at least $1 billion in general funds to get off the ground
IP 17 provides a non-progressive rebate: giving the same amount to the highest income Oregonians and the lowest income Oregonians
AFT-Oregon is committed to stronger funding and a multi-year revenue campaign in coalition with labor and advocacy groups. This measure may set us back decades and hamper new funding efforts for higher education.
The Politics, Policy, Legislation, and Solidarity Council and our Vice President for Political Action have been approached multiple times by the backers of this bill since 2022, and concerns have been raised to the petitioners each time without being addressed. As a result, our members have never endorsed this measure.
_____________________________________________________
Corporations and the wealthiest in Oregon should pay their fair share. Everyone should have the ability to cover their basic needs. Many people have heard these lines communicated by the Oregon Rebate - and these things are true. However, the approach of IP 17 raises dire concerns about whether dollars will go to those who need them most, the actual impact on low-income families, fairness, and implementation.
1. Legal complications for Oregon
The petition language is unclear on the funding mechanism for the rebate program because of other constitutionally mandated funding allocations. Even if there were a 1:1 match between corporate tax increases and subsequent rebate checks, IP 17 will require new general fund expenditures to occur for State School and Highway Funds.
2. Immediate new General Fund costs (Oregon is already facing a $300 million shortfall for the 2025-2027 Budget)
IP 17 would shift over $1 billion in constitutionally required education funding from corporate taxes to the general fund for 2025-2027. The Oregon Constitution requires that the "corporate kicker" be dedicated to the State School Fund. If passed, IP 17 would increase the corporate tax collection and the corporate kicker, but then allocate those dollars to the rebate. The result would be that next year, Oregon would have to somehow come up with the funds to meet the Constitutional requirements towards the State School Fund with new dollars.
In addition to $1 billion in shifted funds due to constitutional requirements, IP 17 would cost at least $1 billion in General Fund dollars to get off the ground. Because of the difference in time frames between when corporate taxes are collected in Oregon, when budgeting occurs, and requirements in IP 17, an estimated $1 billion would need to come out of our General Fund to meet obligations for rebate checks in 2025 and 2026. And this is before considering the costs of replacing lost benefits.
Unknown additional new costs to replace state benefits. Under the measure, if people choose to take the rebate check, the State has to pay for benefits lost if the additional income pushes them out of eligibility. Aka, if the $750 impacts OHP, Medicaid, SNAP, or other benefits, Oregon will need to foot the bill to make the person held "harmless." It's unknown how replaced health care coverage would be administered, and the full impact of how this directly hits Oregon's federally obtained funds for programs is also difficult to predict. But it isn't cheap, and those funds would need to come from the General Fund.
3. Fairness and equity
IP 17 gives the same rebate to the wealthy as it does our most vulnerable communities. IP 17 does not center families and communities who need it most, and the petitioners have not addressed or integrated any of the ample feedback given to them. People who do not receive the money will get checks, reducing the amount that lower income people could potentially receive. A better approach would be a targeted basic income program or cash assistance program similar to other countries who provide cash assistance, or such programs advocated for by progressive groups in Oregon.
4. Local verses out-of-state approaches
IP 17's approach - like the kicker - favors the wealthy, does not resolve budget issues long-term, and has unintended consequences. The wealthy California venture capitalists who spearheaded the funding of this campaign in Oregon did not have deep, or seemingly any, knowledge about Oregon's unique tax, revenue, and Constitutional funding obligations. This means that this program will come at the expense of schools, higher education, health care, and other things Oregon pays for.
Oregon's racial and economic justice groups have been sidelined by the Chief Petitioners. There is a long-time Oregon coalition working on Basic Income that works for our state which includes Urban League, Oregon Center for Public Policy, and many other organizations. There have been pilot programs and studies done which have paved a solid path already. However, the Chief Petitioners of IP 17 were invited into this space to work with these organizations, but instead moved forward alone with this approach. This raises serious questions about the viability, impact, and consequences.
Parachuting into Oregon's election landscape. The campaign is funded by tech millionaires who have refused at every step to work with the labor movement and Oregon's economic and racial justice groups. They have ignored concerns from local organizations. Some believe that Oregon's Initiative Petition process, which is one of the "cheapest" in the nation for outside funders to influence, have been taken advantage of. It's worth considering whether Oregon should be an experiment for outside interests to play with our election system through paying for signature gathering with out of state money. If successful, this sets a dangerous long-term precedent.
"Oregon Rebate" Ballot Measure Analysis - What to Know
This November, Oregonians will vote on a recently qualified ballot measure going by "Oregon Rebate", Measure 11X (aka, IP 17). This is a static cash check to Oregonians created by raising the corporate minimum tax.
Here are some topline analysis from our coalition partners in the pro-education revenue and labor policy spaces, as well as a new Legislative Policy & Research Office report from the State of Oregon:
IP 17 would result in a $1 billion cost to the General Fund next biennium by shifting over constitutionally required education funding from corporate taxes to the general fund
In addition, the Legislative Revenue Office estimates IP 17 would cost at least $1 billion in general funds to get off the ground
IP 17 provides a non-progressive rebate: giving the same amount to the highest income Oregonians and the lowest income Oregonians
AFT-Oregon is committed to stronger funding and a multi-year revenue campaign in coalition with labor and advocacy groups. This measure may set us back decades and hamper new funding efforts for higher education.
The Politics, Policy, Legislation, and Solidarity Council and our Vice President for Political Action have been approached multiple times by the backers of this bill since 2022, and concerns have been raised to the petitioners each time without being addressed. As a result, our members have never endorsed this measure.
_____________________________________________________
Corporations and the wealthiest in Oregon should pay their fair share. Everyone should have the ability to cover their basic needs. Many people have heard these lines communicated by the Oregon Rebate - and these things are true. However, the approach of IP 17 raises dire concerns about whether dollars will go to those who need them most, the actual impact on low-income families, fairness, and implementation.
1. Legal complications for Oregon
The petition language is unclear on the funding mechanism for the rebate program because of other constitutionally mandated funding allocations. Even if there were a 1:1 match between corporate tax increases and subsequent rebate checks, IP 17 will require new general fund expenditures to occur for State School and Highway Funds.
2. Immediate new General Fund costs (Oregon is already facing a $300 million shortfall for the 2025-2027 Budget)
IP 17 would shift over $1 billion in constitutionally required education funding from corporate taxes to the general fund for 2025-2027. The Oregon Constitution requires that the "corporate kicker" be dedicated to the State School Fund. If passed, IP 17 would increase the corporate tax collection and the corporate kicker, but then allocate those dollars to the rebate. The result would be that next year, Oregon would have to somehow come up with the funds to meet the Constitutional requirements towards the State School Fund with new dollars.
In addition to $1 billion in shifted funds due to constitutional requirements, IP 17 would cost at least $1 billion in General Fund dollars to get off the ground. Because of the difference in time frames between when corporate taxes are collected in Oregon, when budgeting occurs, and requirements in IP 17, an estimated $1 billion would need to come out of our General Fund to meet obligations for rebate checks in 2025 and 2026. And this is before considering the costs of replacing lost benefits.
Unknown additional new costs to replace state benefits. Under the measure, if people choose to take the rebate check, the State has to pay for benefits lost if the additional income pushes them out of eligibility. Aka, if the $750 impacts OHP, Medicaid, SNAP, or other benefits, Oregon will need to foot the bill to make the person held "harmless." It's unknown how replaced health care coverage would be administered, and the full impact of how this directly hits Oregon's federally obtained funds for programs is also difficult to predict. But it isn't cheap, and those funds would need to come from the General Fund.
3. Fairness and equity
IP 17 gives the same rebate to the wealthy as it does our most vulnerable communities. IP 17 does not center families and communities who need it most, and the petitioners have not addressed or integrated any of the ample feedback given to them. People who do not receive the money will get checks, reducing the amount that lower income people could potentially receive. A better approach would be a targeted basic income program or cash assistance program similar to other countries who provide cash assistance, or such programs advocated for by progressive groups in Oregon.
4. Local verses out-of-state approaches
IP 17's approach - like the kicker - favors the wealthy, does not resolve budget issues long-term, and has unintended consequences. The wealthy California venture capitalists who spearheaded the funding of this campaign in Oregon did not have deep, or seemingly any, knowledge about Oregon's unique tax, revenue, and Constitutional funding obligations. This means that this program will come at the expense of schools, higher education, health care, and other things Oregon pays for.
Oregon's racial and economic justice groups have been sidelined by the Chief Petitioners. There is a long-time Oregon coalition working on Basic Income that works for our state which includes Urban League, Oregon Center for Public Policy, and many other organizations. There have been pilot programs and studies done which have paved a solid path already. However, the Chief Petitioners of IP 17 were invited into this space to work with these organizations, but instead moved forward alone with this approach. This raises serious questions about the viability, impact, and consequences.
Parachuting into Oregon's election landscape. The campaign is funded by tech millionaires who have refused at every step to work with the labor movement and Oregon's economic and racial justice groups. They have ignored concerns from local organizations. Some believe that Oregon's Initiative Petition process, which is one of the "cheapest" in the nation for outside funders to influence, have been taken advantage of. It's worth considering whether Oregon should be an experiment for outside interests to play with our election system through paying for signature gathering with out of state money. If successful, this sets a dangerous long-term precedent.
Monday, May 6, 2024
Educational Unions Ally To Organize & Win---And Provide A Lesson For Others
Teachers, counselors, librarians, teaching assistants, clerical workers, bus drivers, custodians, food service workers and others who work in the Fairfax, Virginia public school system have filed for two bargaining unit elections. They are represented by the Fairfax Education Unions (FEU), an alliance between the Fairfax Education Assiciation, an affiliate of the National Edcation Association, and the Fairfax County Federation of Teachers, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers. Their disrict is the ninth largest in the United States.
A press release issued by the alliance underscored the historic nature of the union alliance and the demand for recognition being put forward by the FEU. That press release can be read here.
There are lessons for Oregon here. Unity between unions and union organizing are positive steps. The Fairfax school district is experiencing some economic difficulties, despite Fairfax County being one of he wealthiest districts in the United States, and these difficulties are based in part on the County Executive not being responsive to the needs of the community and the school workers. Sound familiar? You can follow the union response to this situation here.
The unions involved have strong relations with the labor movement---another practical lesson for us in our region---and the AFL-CIO had this to say about the union campaign:
Top Cut:Fairfax Education Unions (FEU), an alliance between Fairfax Education Association and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) affiliate Fairfax County Federation of Teachers (FCFT), filed for two bargaining unit elections last week and demanded recognition from Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS).
Why It Matters:
In March 2023, the Fairfax County School Board voted to extend collective bargaining rights to workers, three years after the Virginia General Assembly first gave localities the power to do so, reversing a 1977 Virginia Supreme Court ruling. An overwhelming number of FCPS workers signed authorization cards and a petition urging recognition of their union. This organizing effort is taking place in the ninth largest school district in the entire country and is the largest public sector bargaining campaign in generations.
“Today we are proud to announce our decision to file for a union election. This pivotal step reaffirms our unwavering commitment to advocate for the rights and well-being of all FCPS staff,” said David Walrod, president of FCFT, in an FEU statement. “For too long, we haven’t had a seat at the table. But now we are empowered to stand together, speak up, and shape FCPS for the better. This initiative marks a significant milestone in our journey towards the bargaining table.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)