Among the issues raised by business professors Jack Morton and Michael Harrington are whether Montana ought to enact a right-to-work law and weaken its strong constitutional guarantee of a clean environment. They also questioned Montana's high workers' compensation premiums and the lack of an at-will employment law, making it harder to fire an employee.
Without naming the professors, Schweitzer last week blasted them for trotting out “the same worn-out, tired” solutions Montanans heard when the economy lagged in the 1990s.
“If these pointy-headed people would get out of the university classroom to meet with someone that actually started a business or has a business or is planning to, they might hear a little different story,” Schweitzer added.
Morton and Harrington, both attorneys, recently presented their findings, “Montana's Legal Environment: Are We Open for Business?” to 1,100 people attending the Montana Economic Outlook seminars in the state's seven largest cities. They based the findings on results of an open-ended questionnaire sent to several hundred business people, attorneys and accountants and discussions with others.
“Whenever we compare Montana's business sector to surrounding states, we are envious,” the professors wrote. “We often wonder why Montana hasn't grown more of the types of firms that we see in our neighboring states of Idaho and South Dakota.”
They cited the presence of Hewlett-Packard, Micron Technology and J.R. Simplot, among others, in Idaho. South Dakota attracted Citibank and grew Daktronics and Gateway Computers.
“We'd love to have our students get jobs in Montana instead of going to Boise, Idaho,” Morton said in an interview.
Schweitzer, though, said the professors ought to get a C-minus for their work and an incomplete for failing to do their homework.
Schweitzer said he didn't attend any of the seminars, sponsored by the UM Bureau of Business and Economic Research. However, he got a first-hand report from his chief business officer, Evan Barrett, who did.
“You can't sit over in a think-tank atmosphere and plop these things out and not have consequences,” Barrett said, calling the professors' work “clearly nonscientific.”
Barrett voiced concern over the question posed in the presentation's title - whether Montana is open for business. Schweitzer, in the opening line of his State of the State address a year ago, pronounced Montana was indeed open for business, he said.
Paul Polzin, director of the UM bureau sponsoring the seminars, said Morton and Harrington received scores averaging “very high” in written evaluations completed by those attending the sessions.
“I met a number of people who do business who really agreed with those (ideas),” Polzin said.
Polzin emphasized the speakers weren't advocating the changes, but presenting ideas others had suggested.
Morton agreed and expressed some surprise at the governor's reaction.
“It's kind of kill the messenger,” Morton said. “It seems that there are some things you can't talk about.”
In an article in the booklet distributed at the seminar, the UM professors suggest Montana's business climate suffers compared to that of Idaho and South Dakota. They suggest Montanans at least ought to debate whether to change their laws and constitution to make them more business friendly.
Morton and Harrington pointed out that Montana stands alone among its neighboring states in not having a right-to-work law, which prohibits requiring a worker to join a union as a condition of employment in an organized job site.
They said Montana and only seven other states have state constitutions guaranteeing residents the right to a clean and healthful environment. Idaho and South Dakota don't.
Schweitzer criticized right-to-work laws as “right to work for less.” He said Montana's strong constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment is an asset and a major factor in why people are moving to Bozeman, Hamilton, Kalispell and Missoula and starting businesses there.
Jim McGarvey, executive secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO, also was upset by the professors' right-to-work comments. He said they failed to provide “one shred of empirical evidence.”
“It's not only an assault on unions, but an assault on the good environment that we have for moving the state forward,” McGarvey said. “It's an assault on the university system, Montana in general and in particular, the worker.”
Chief business officer Barrett said Schweitzer and his two Republican predecessors, Judy Martz and Marc Racicot, have all opposed a right-to-work law for Montana.
“What we're trying to do is raise wages in Montana, not lower them,” Barrett said. “It's not a flight to the bottom. We're already at the bottom with wages.”
Schweitzer expressed concern over Montana's work-comp premiums and has asked Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger, a retired businessman, to examine how other states have held down their rates.
But Morton said the governor's office misinterpreted the report by saying the professors are recommending these changes.
“We're saying that respondents say that economic change will come more slowly to Montana because we're not a right-to-work state,” the professor said.
Morton said the two most common - and volatile - issues raised by people were a right-to-work law and a modified constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
“I'll bet you my life 100 years from now neither of those issues will ever change, but there are others we could change that might bring us to a more level playing field with our surrounding states,” Morton said. “Don't we at least have to acknowledge that those issues may hinder economic growth in Montana? It would be myopic to ignore them.”
Barrett said some good might come from the flap. He hopes it will lead the UM bureau and business professors to work more closely with the Schweitzer administration on economic development and vice versa.
“Maybe this will bring us a little closer,” he said.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)