Are anti-union ads a push
for spending cap initiatives?

NewWest.net
Guest Column

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.”