MA: Labor Relations Act (Debating)

[Junkie]

If everyone would give me some time, I would like to offer an amendment that deals solely with the collective bargaining of "emergency" state employee unions (such as cops, firefighter, prosecutors, public defenders).  In Wisconsin, and I believe several other states (New York, for example) these types of employees are prohibited from striking.  Instead, binding arbitration (with appropriate appellate rights) is set up.  Based upon the essential nature of these workers, I believe this would be appropriate.  However, I am in the process of trying to make sure that such a statute fits in with the SC decision in UNESPE.

Also, an aside, I am a member of a Union.  For the most part, the union has been useless and does not have the best interests of its members at heart.  As such, I would support this bill.  Also, I believe that the bill as it stands, passes constitutional muster.

[Junkie]

If everyone would give me some time, I would like to offer an amendment that deals solely with the collective bargaining of "emergency" state employee unions (such as cops, firefighter, prosecutors, public defenders).  In Wisconsin, and I believe several other states (New York, for example) these types of employees are prohibited from striking.  Instead, binding arbitration (with appropriate appellate rights) is set up.  Based upon the essential nature of these workers, I believe this would be appropriate.  However, I am in the process of trying to make sure that such a statute fits in with the SC decision in UNESPE.

Also, an aside, I am a member of a Union.  For the most part, the union has been useless and does not have the best interests of its members at heart.  As such, I would support this bill.  Also, I believe that the bill as it stands, passes constitutional muster.

Would you concede, Junkie, that most union members would disagree with you on its usefulness? You've mentioned several times your disdain for your own union, but friends of mine who are union members, while not beleiving the union is the sun, moon and stars, is decidedly better than having a "free rider" or "open" shop dominated by management.

Of course, I would concede that.  I will even admit that there are individuals that do believe that the unions are the "sun, the mooon, and the stars."  I can see where you would be mislead by my comments.  My comments are not aboutall unions, but rather my opinion of most, not all, public service employee unions.  While I believe that that some types of these employees, such as firefighters and police, do benefit by union membership for bargaining purposes, I also believe that most public employees and the people they are supposed to serve are not well served by unions.  Quite frankly, I believe a civil service, merit system makes the most economic sense and also leads to quality workers.

I will also concede that uions have a noble past and in some cases are needed.  I come from a strong union family, but while many of family members are union, most do not feel that their leadership is doing what is best for them or even most members.  My cousin who is an electrician likes his union, but that is a differrent type.

That being sqaid, I have have relatives that work in non-union jobs and are not sad or taken advantage of because they are not in a union.  It is all of this experience that I take into account when I weigh this bill.  And thus I support it.

[Junkie]

As proponent of the statute, Governor, I believe it behooves you to explain what to do about the very real "free rider" problem I described above.

Bump.

Anyone? This is really the main issue here and is sadly being ignored.

Badger, sorry I did not respond earlier to this.  I do not believe that the "free rider" issue is in fact all that big.  Our union allows people to not join or cut from the union.  The contract that is negotiated includes a portion that comes from every employees check that goes to the union for "negotiating fees."  Non-union people must still pay that.  It ends up being a difference of about $2.50 a paycheck.  Pretty small, but then again so is our union.  However, the non-union members do not get a union rep in cases of discplinary or termination meetings.  Thus, many people stay in the union for that purpose.  Therefore, based on my own personal experience, I do not think that your concerns will end up being that much of an issue.

You may wonder why I am still in the union.  I am still in because I want a voice on other issues, who our unions supports, positions on statutes, etc.  Although, one buddy, who is now in Iraq, dropped out, and once a month we would go to a quarter tap bar and use his "non-union dues"as he called them and have a pretty good night.

[Junkie]

I would have voted Aye.  Also, I have two amendments I would like to add, but today I am swamped at work and then going on vacation.  I think I can find time on friday, so I will check in then.

[Junkie]

I will hopefully have the amendments done tonight, well at least one of them.

[Junkie]

Here is an amendment that I think will codify a reasonable fix to the "free rider" issue that Badger is concerned about.  It is what I already posted about.  This just makes it official.  Amendment in bold for easier reading.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Junkie]

Here is another amendment that I feel is important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Junkie]

E is a 100% important yes.

Your first amendment I'm on the fence. It says non-union members are not entitled to union representation (obviously a good fix) however does that carry over with the language that if union members strike a deal for higher wages that they don't or do get that higher wage as well?

If the union negotiates a raise, the nonmembers get the raise as well.  My amendment just makes the nonmembers pay for their fair share of getting that raise (negotiation, lawyers, lobbyists etc).  It will allow people the choice of leaving the union, but in cases where the union actually negotiates the raise, they will have to give something to the union for the benefit they recieve.  Or at least, that is what I intended.

[Junkie]

In regards to the questions, I will deal first with Badger --> the no more than 75% means that non-union employees that get union negotiated befenits by management will pay for that.  Since they don't union reps in displinary or termination matters, they should not have to pay for that.  Also they don't have to pay for political actions by the union.  I am attempting to codify that nonunion employees will pay for the services they get and not have to pay for what they don't get.

A-bob, as nonunion employees will only pay if they benefit, a choice to not benefit will then allow them not to have to pay any amount to the union.  Hope that answers the questions.

[Junkie]

Aye
Aye

[Junkie]

Aye

[Junkie]

Aye

[Junkie]

Is the whole problem here D?  Unless I am reading what we created wrong, this bill does not destroy unions.  It provides people with the option to leave unions, but does not allow for the free rider that Badger was worried about.  Before I decide, I would like to understand the arguements against it.  I am sorry, but I am just not seeing it? But then again maybe I am missing something.

Oh, and Badger, could it be that people are not leaving unions because they are just complacent or don't have the option to leave?  I would admit that this probably only applies to public employee unions, but you must admit that it is a possibility.

[Junkie]

Concerns were also over section E, however I wrote, and you amended Section D which I would like to explain my reasoning behind, which parallels with the comment you just posted.

I thought my amendment was a pretty good compromise.  Even Badger appeared to agree.  As far as E, we have not deprived these groups of employees the right to collectively bargain.  In an impasse they go to binding arbitration and even have the right to appeal that decision.  Again, I wrote that to try and steer as a center a course possible.  These employees are essential to a well run society and disruptions by strike can seriously impact safety and order. 

I am not seeing a reason to vote nay here, but am willing to here other arguements.   

[Junkie]

Aye

[Junkie]

from section D:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who sets the value of the "fee"? how much are nonunion workers going to be paying to unions under this bill? 

I know this failed, but I think I should still answer you question.  Badger's main problem with this bill was the "free-rider" issue.  Basically, unions negotiate for benefits for all employees most of the time.  He was concerned that non-union employees would still get those benefits and not have to pay, thus leading to a destruction of the unions.  As that is not something I wanted to see happen, I wrote the 75% section.

Thus, if an employee is in a situation where they would benefit from union negotiations (for example fixed salary structures, more time off, better working conditions, enviromental safeguards) those non-unon members have to pay up to 75% of the union dues.  The remaining portion they do not have to pay, as that goes to union representation that they would not enjoy.  Hope that answers the question.

[Junkie]

Sorry I have not been around for a bit, but work has been killer.  A good point on the "two months."  I was thinking two months from the beginning of contract negotiations.  While Badger's points are valid about the run of the last contract, that might not be feasible.  When dealing with local governments, often negotiations don't start for quite some time after the end of the previous contract.  For example, our union just started negotiating with the State in regards to a contract period that started 18 months ago.  The delay had to do with the budget, the end of the fiscal year, elections, and a number of other sundry reasons.  However, once both sides enter into negotiations, that is when the time should start running, in my opinion.

Additionally, in regards to D, i still think workers should have the option of not being a member of the union, so long as they still pay for any negotiated benefits that the union gets them.