Thanks, Des Moines
May 1, 2008 by Steve Wieland
The latest University of Iowa Governmental End of Session Summary is out, and it’s got some good news for students.
First, as a left-wing socialist nutjob, I’m happy to see that the Board of Regents is getting $41 million to hand out in teacher salary increases. This is part of a larger appropriation for teacher increases at all education levels across the state. Faculty salaries are a huge obstacle to attracting top-notch scholars and keeping reputation up. In total, the University of Iowa will receive $258 million from Des Moines.
Second, the state legislature has passed a bill recommending that state universities publicize course material lists so that students can shop around for better textbook prices:
In order to promote consumer choice and lower the costs of textbooks in higher education, the general assembly intends that students enrolled in institutions of higher learning have access to appropriate textbook information prior to the start of classes, with adequate time to pursue alternative purchase avenues.
It goes on to recommend that the school post this information near campus bookstores and online, complete with ISBNs for easy comparison shopping. It looks like the bill is just waiting for Governor Culver’s signature at the moment.
Third, public employees have more power to bargain with the state via a collective bargaining board. Before, the scope of this body’s ability to negotiate was limited to certain enumerated topics, now nearly everything is on the table. The act permits the board to negotiatiate ”Other terms and conditions of employment except” for a short list of items.
Steve Wieland
fsford
timhilton
smahieu
Morgan N. Engling
maryiowa
jaimiesuzi
jarens
kevinjames
brieanne
lcm
Andrew
sandista
enwinfield
All of these things are great - positive steps in the “correct” direction to continue offering quality public education in the state.
Without having read the text or any analyses of the second bill, what good does a “recommendation” do? What’s the point of a recommendation if there’s not some sort of enforcement mechanism? Won’t the university bookstores (who LOVE their monopolies on the textbook market) find some loophole or avoidance strategy?
Um, SMOKING BAN!!!!!
I’m unclear why the collective bargaining law is “good news for students.” Isn’t it more likely bad news for students? Assuming collective bargaining works out the way employees want it to (which isn’t always what happens), it will increase the costs to the state. This means one of three things (1) money diverted from students to pay state employees, (2) higher taxes, or (3) higher tuition. Which of these is the “good news” result?
And also, Morgan, why do you hate freedom?
CORRECTION: When I said “one of three things” I should have said “one OR MORE of the following three things will happen”
just an FYI, when i’m done with finals i plan to address the smoking ban on this blog, miss morgan. since i know it will face assaults on all fronts by the seething underbelly of the anti-smoking law student lobby, i have to make certain i’ve crossed my t’s and dotted my i’s.
the title will be “dear Morgan, let the market do its job.”
Collective bargaining for state employees can be good in a number of ways:
1. Many graduate students are state employees as TAs
2. Many of us graduate and become professors and government lawyers, etc.
3. Strong bargaining power helps Iowa attract qualified teachers, especially for K-12. Increased teacher pay and benefits is more directly correlated with attracting strong faculty than it is with causing tuition increases. That is, we know that paying teachers more will definitely help us retain better educators, but we can pay for those salaries without raising tuition on students (aka taxes, or, if you’re a Republican, debt).
I’ll be the first to admit that giving teachers greater bargaining rights doesn’t always work for the common good. I believe that teachers should be evaluated like any other worker, although not necessarily by their students’ standardized test scores. Teachers’ unions always seem to oppose evaluation programs of any kind. I forget, and I don’t feel like checking, if teachers in Iowa already had the power to negotiate over evaluations.
Also, a word about the smoking ban: it was going to happen one way or another. However, Sally Mason told me last week that the University would have preferred more time to set up an enforcement plan and to set programs in motion to help students and faculty quit smoking before July 1. This is mostly because the school can be fined by the government for failing to enforce the smoking ban effectively.
Its hard to respect the smoking ban when it doesn’t include casinos. I’m willing to concede that I am wrong about my personal preference for private property rights over public health rights. I am not so willing to say that it makes sense to only allow smoking in the one place where people could most use a smoke break to think about what they are doing (and the money they are needlessly wasting). The Iowa Democratic Party should pay in November for this shamelessly shortsighted political move…well, that is until you consider the alternative…
I’m just entertained that the Republican is defending the ban to all you Dems. Except you Sears. I’m convinced you are a Republican.
Boo smoking bans.
Also, Steve, are TAs/RAs actually included in the bargaining unit?
Also, I’ve smoked less than 5 cigarettes in my life, so you can all be assured that no chemicals are clouding my judgment of this issue.
Not only am I a registered Republican (I tilt a little libertarian, though), but I’m probably the only person here who has not smoked…… ever…..for religious reasons. Quite frankly, there are certain places I won’t go because I know that I’ll come back smelling like Joe Camel, and yet….those places continue to survive (and even thrive!!)–smoke and all. If someone is worried about second-hand smoke, then for Pete’s sake, don’t go to bars and bowling alleys (or casinos….btw, great post Hilkin); if you are fearful that second-hand smoke will lead to cancerous tumors or emphyzema (sp?), then by all means, take another job…in a clean room, or at one of the other hundreds of thousands of jobs where you won’t get exposed to second hand smoke.
But, I think its a bit paternalistic (and hypocritical per the casino exception) and a sad commentary on where our country is heades when we take away the right of others to strike their own path, and heaven forbid, make their own decisions on where they recreate and how they run their business.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution (I’m kidding….sort of),
Austin
If only it were so easy to find those “thousands of other jobs where you won’t get exposed to secondhand smoke.” It’s easy for us to sit in our Ivory Tower(s) and proclaim these principles; alas, the world does not always work out so nicely. Sure, everyone has made sacrifices to be where we are now, but others are not able to make the same sacrifices with the same luxury that we affords us the opportunity to pursue comfortable lifestyles and have options for employment.
The casino exception is ridiculous. I love listening to all these bar and restaurant owners talk about their impending huge lawsuit against the general assembly though. So entertaining, oh if they only knew what rational basis was…
here, here AFRO, hilton, and hilkin (pounds fist on table)! there are a number of idiosyncrasies in this ban that make it difficult not to laugh when someone claims its for the public health and not merely legislating the personal preference of a majority over the minority. i plan to address each one in turn in my post, which will likely be the most long-winded blog entry of all time. i hope you’ll shout out against the rousing caucophany that will surely ensue after the post.
and lindsey, i understand what you are saying; however, allowing the market to dictate these things does work. it’s not merely an ivory tower legal principle. the legislature can exact regulatory influence over the market by say, raising the tax on tobacco products to make them nearly unaffordable. this would cut to the heart of the issue - lowering the number of smokers producing secondhand smoke - without legislating personal preference of one sect of people at the expense of others.
the paradox: i am a smoker. yet i 160% support raising the tobacco tax as well as the impact the smoking ban will have on my health. (i will necessarily cut down, which is a good thing). i do not support the paternalism of this ban.
and yes, morgs, i fear i am a republican. my father is thrilled.
I have no idea if TAs and RAs are part of this bargaining unit. I suspect that they are, but I have no idea. They are employees of the state (via the University) and they do have some bargaining rights, these things I know for sure.
Anyway, about the smoking thing, when I hear the word “paternalism” I think of moral legislation (like telling gays they can’t get married, not selling booze on Sundays, etc.). In those cases, the government is deciding how people should live their lives for their own benefit, rather than protecting people from harm caused by other citizens. This is why I don’t think gun laws are “paternalistic” even though the debate has such a moral undertone.
Smoking isn’t a moral issue, it’s a public health issue. I don’t know how I feel about the ban, but calling “paternalism” makes it seem as if the law has no basis in science or fact. It’s meant to protect others from harm, not the smokers themselves, even if that’s a happy byproduct. It would be different if the government banned you from smoking cigarettes altogether–THAT would be paternalism.
Let me repeat, though, I don’t really know how to feel about the ban.
How dare you support a smoking ban steve! Seriously, though, there can be levels of paternalism.
If it’s a public health issue, meaning the cost to the public, then that simply leads to regulating all kinds of personal conduct, even kinds that don’t arguably have an effect on others, that put a burden on the health system. And then I start ranting and raving about the primacy of the individual and hurling copies of national review at people.
While I don’t know exactly what the data about the health effects say, and I kind of doubt that I would be convinced of the moral panic of second hand smoke exposure, I think it’s a much more convincing rationale to say employees don’t have a choice but to be exposed, etc etc.
Lindsay,
I agree it is not always easy for some to find suitable employment that is outside of a bar, restaurant, or other smoke-filled establishment. If anything, though, I would hope that a person in that situation would be willing to find work elsewhere when opportunities arose, or use is as a springboard to getting additional training or education to make themselves more marketable.
Steve, good point. Smoking is a public health concern and it affects all of us through higher health insurance premiums and taxes, and as long as we are footing the bill, perhaps government should have a say. I think it is paternalistic because it says that people are either incapable or unqualified to make their own decisions on where to work or where to recreate, which is false for the vast majority of us.
steve, hilton, et al,
i couldn’t agree more with hilton. i do not, repeat, do not, pretend to be an expert as to the actual effect of secondhand smoke, but the little research i’ve done suggests the studies are not nearly as conclusive as the general public is led to believe. (and by research, i mean, i’ve gone in and looked at the statistical sampling and constraints of the surveys, not merely read some article about it). the conclusive studies, again, i plan to research this fully before i write about it so this is just the broadest of all possible assertions, suggest a strong correlation between prolonged and frequent exposure to secondhand smoke (i.e., a child growing up in a smoking home) but do not speak to passive, transitory exposure. these results are being extrapolated into assertions about transitory exposure by identifying chemical levels present in the more definitive studies. however, i stand prepared to change my stance on this issue if i find out otherwise as i dig into it.
contrary to what you’ve said steve, i would think the states are justified in an outright ban of smoking. i would, paradoxically, fully support it. the effect of smoking on actual smokers are documented - and are far more definitive than even, say, the risk of heart disease caused by poor diet. i may eat twinkies all my life and never have heart disease due to good genes. if i smoke my entire life, it is almost certain i will get lung cancer or emphysema.
my issue is when the state regulates a perfectly legal activity by passing such a broad, overinclusive prohibition. ban smoking if you feel the state’s interest in public health supports it (which i believe it does). but don’t tell me that the only place i can engage in a legal activity is on a curb. that is paternalism.
Sandy, I think states would be justified in an outright ban of smoking, mine was a bad example. I meant to illlustrate my point that banning smoking altogether would have some moral undertones because the government is telling you what’s best for you, instead of telling you to stop doing something potentially harmful to others.
Marijuana might be a better example. It’s a far less harmful drug than cigarettes or alcohol: it’s physically non-addictive, less habit-forming, literally impossible to overdose on, and the harmful effects to the lungs are less pronounced. I’ve read that crap about “one joint equals five cigarettes,” but most people don’t smoke cigarette-sized joints by themselves, and even if they did, few of them would do that every day. Even then, they could stop at any time without withdrawal.
Anyway, I digress. We still prohibit marijuana due in large part to its historical identification with latinos, public misunderstanding and moral objections.
At the risk of getting attacked, and perhaps being kicked out of Tim’s apartment while being pelted with copies of National Review, I want to throw my two cents in here. I recognize all the anti-smoking ban arguments as totally valid, and this is completely just my personal experience, but we as future lawyers are in no way immune from this. I actually quit my summer job this week partly because I was supposed to work at a very small firm where the senior (and only) partner chain-smoked cigars. He outright refused to comply with the state smoking ban and told me I would be fired if I complained about it, and I don’t really have the resources or the desire to litigate the issue. Point: smoking affects employers/employees at all levels of society, not just waitresses and bartenders.
Second point: while I have absolutely no idea what the effects of secondhand smoke are long-term, I can confidently say that, as Sandy put it, “passive, transitory” secondhand smoke is a huge health problem to people with assorted respiratory problems. I have asthma and allergies, and going to a smoky place can be physically difficult for me. I realize this is a dumb argument without many legs to stand on, but frankly, I don’t want to be forced out of bars and restaurants and my job because other people are smoking.
While I am all for individual rights over government “paternalism,” that argument conveniently skips over the other side of the individual rights coin. What about my individual rights as a non-smoker to enjoy clean, smoke-free air when I go out to socialize or recreate? What makes the individual rights of smokers more important than individual rights of non-smokers? The government isn’t stepping in to be paternalistic, it is stepping in to protect the individual rights of people who choose not to smoke from those who actively choose to smoke while infringing others’ rights. Why should I have to give up my own rights to choose not to smell like an ashtray just so that someone else can satisfy his or her nicotine fix inside an enclosed space rather than outside in open air? It is against most city codes to play music in your home above a certain decibel level: while it is within every individual’s rights to play music however they want to, when it infringes someone else’s right to quiet enjoyment, they are no longer within their rights. [I realize I am dangerously close to mangling and misusing contracts and property terms; please forgive me.] So what’s the difference? The health concerns of playing loud music aren’t even as serious as the health concerns of smoking, and no one’s banging down the City Council’s door complaining that their rights are being unnecessarily limited.
Lindsey,
I’m completely sympathetic to your point of view. But, as someone who hates the smell of smoke (except at baseball games….for whatever reason, it is the one place where I feel jipped if I don’t smell a little second-hand smoke), and has never smoked in his life, I have to say: I’ve never had problem finding stuff to do sans the second-hand smoke (did I just use “sans”??….I need to take a break from this blog).
That being said, I also don’t drink, so I don’t go to bars except for the occassional lunch at Brothers (mock away…).
I think your argument offers great support for the opening up more smoke-free establishment.s Obviously there is a market for them if the state is willing to pass legislation to protect those who require or absolutely desire fresh air.
Brie, I’m not sure how to respond to your message. My sympathies seem to be fogging my better judgment.