Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/2000 09:30 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am
An Act relating to legislative powers and
responsibility with respect to collective bargaining
agreements between the state and a labor or employee
organization representing state employees; and
providing for an effective date.
SENATOR KELLY noted that he did not support Amendment #1, 1-
LS1386\KA.3, Cramer, 3/27/00. [Copy on File]. He commented
that there could be some language developed which could take
care of the University of Alaska. The intent of the
legislation is to make certain that, following the court
decision, that the Legislature must fund new contracts. The
language has created ambiguity whether it should include the
non-monetary terms. He pointed out that verbiage contained
in one of the new contracts, clarifies that provisions of
the agreement not require Legislature funding before they
are put into effect and implemented on the effective date of
the agreement. If the Legislature should decide that this
year the contracts would not be funded, according to the
agreement, the non-monetary terms would go into effect. If
there should be a second round of negotiations, the
contracts would already have the non-monetary terms in the
"bank".
He reiterated that the idea is to clarify that non-monetary
terms do not go into effect until the monetary terms are
approved by the Legislature. The next step clarifies that
it would be an administrative nightmare to change non-
monetary terms during the three-year time span of the
contract. Once the monetary terms are funded, the non-
monetary terms would go into effect. If the monetary terms
of the contract are not funded, the non-monetary terms stay
in effect until the end of that contract. The Legislature
would need to reappropriate each year of a multi-year
contract. Next year, the Legislature will come back and
reappropriate funding for the increase in health benefits
and the 2% salary increase.
Representative J. Davies countered that the "clarification"
actually makes the legislation "muddier". He pointed out
that the amendment addresses that concern.
Representative J. Davies noted that there are many non-
monetary provisions that are not controversial. He
suggested that in the interest of the Unions and in the
interest of the State, those things should move forward. He
noted concern that the non-controversial things are
disallowed. He noted that would not be in the best interest
of either the State or the Legislature. Additionally, he
asked, if the monetary terms were not signed and the non-
monetary terms then would not be effect, at that time would,
the Unions be at an impasse and strike. Representative J.
Davies believed that situation will "trigger" a lot of
strikes, which could otherwise have been avoided.
Representative J. Davies added that the multi-year contracts
would remove the "right to strike" in the second and third
year. Senator Kelly suggested that normally these types of
things are "trade offs". He thought that they would remain
under the provisions of the old contract until there was
agreement with the new contract. In response to comments by
Representative J. Davies, Senator Kelly explained that if
the Legislature does not fund each of the twelve contracts,
a number of possibilities could happen. It is hoped that if
the Legislature does not fund the contracts, they would be
renegotiated.
Senator Kelly advised that he did not know what would happen
with the contracts this year, but anticipated that they
would be renegotiated. He did not know if that would
"waive" the right to strike. He thought that there was
language in the bill, which indicates that if the second and
third years of the contracts are not funded, they do not
give up the right to strike. Senator Kelly understood that
work was being done on a committee substitute which would
redefine the monetary terms to include benefits.
Representative J. Davies stated that the terms of the
contracts were negotiated under the status quo. There would
be different terms if the proposed language were taken into
effect. He stated that the largest difference is that there
would not be a multi-year contract happening again. He
acknowledged that some terms are more complicated than
others, which will create problems with the Legislature only
meeting once a year. He believed that it would force many
of the contracts to go unaddressed for an additional year or
could force the Legislature into a Special Session. Senator
Kelly replied that if the proposed legislation went into
effect, the Legislature would not have to refund a multi-
year contract every year. The bill does not identify that.
Representative J. Davies clarified that the Legislature has
the option to not fund every year. He acknowledged that was
language was clear and that it would remain clear given the
status quo. He pointed out that in multi-year contracts,
the Unions would have to agree to take the non-monetary
terms for the three years whether or not the monetary terms
are funded. If the Unions were forced to accept that, the
Legislature would effectively be taking away their right to
strike on those issues. Senator Kelly disagreed that they
would be giving up their right to strike.
Co-Chair Mulder did not see the point of why the Unions
would go only to the single year contracts. He argued that
non-monetary terms are questionable. Going from a sick leave
to a cash benefit, is a monetary term. He thought that the
amended language would "throw the bone" to the Unions.
Representative J. Davies countered that the Unions had
testified that they would not go for a multi-year contract.
Senator Kelly stated that the contracts are currently all on
the same cycle. He believed that was good. He pointed out
that they are three-year contracts which will all come up
for renegotiation at the same time. Now all twelve public
employee contracts are on the same cycle. Each contract
contains different divisions and each division was written
by Unions not the Administration.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if it would be good public policy to
allow the non-monetary terms to take effect in a contract,
if the monetary terms had been rejected. Representative J.
Davies suggested whatever moves forward should be determined
by the negotiated process with the exception, that the
Legislature has the right to define what is monetary and
what is non-monetary.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that a definition of
monetary terms had been presented. He noted that Senator
Kelly was willing to consider new language. Senator Kelly
commented that change would be in lieu of only Section 1,
which would then solve the University's problems.
Senator Kelly pointed out that the discrepancy, which exists
between the employee numbers, submitted by the Unions and
those of the Administration. He advised that in the non-
monetary contracts, the cash buy out provision was most
perplexing. He noted that there are twenty-six employees
that have more than 2,000 hours of sick leave. He
reiterated that the cash-out provision would be costly.
Representative Williams questioned the circumstances
associated with the non-Union employee and how the contracts
would affect them. Co-Chair Mulder replied that would be a
non-monetary term. Representative Williams reiterated the
circumstance of the employer paying sick leave rather than
training an additional employee.
Senator Kelly agreed that is a value, but that the cost
surpasses that value. The reserve would be used for all
State employees.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment 1. [Copy
on File]. Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative Phillips recommended that the wording be
worked out in Committee before submitting it to the House
Floor. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that it is scheduled
for the House Floor today. Representative J. Davies
observed that if the amendment has the support the
leadership and the House Finance Committee, it would be
accepted on the House Floor.
Representative Grussendorf stated that without the
amendment, there would not be multi-year contracts. The
idea of 12 contracts coming up for renegotiations every
three years would be too much. He preferred that the
contracts be staggered so that there could be several Unions
settled. He reiterated that if all 12 contracts are up for
renegotiation and several are not happy, it would present a
difficult situation. Currently, they stagger in, leaving a
core that has approved contracts. If they were addressed
all at the same time, it could be a nightmare to public
services.
Representative Williams spoke to the cost of negotiations
for 12 multi-ear contracts.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf, Moses, Williams,
Austerman
OPPOSED: G. Davis, Foster, Phillips, Bunde,
Therriault. Mulder
The MOTION FAILED (5-6).
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 269 (RLS)am out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative Grussendorf
OBJECTED, stating that the additional work should be
addressed in the House Finance Committee and not on the
House Floor.
Representative Williams also OBJECTED to undertaking the
work on the House Floor. Representative Austerman echoed
comments of the Representative Williams. He expected to see
the amendment be clarified.
Co-Chair Mulder WITHDREW his MOTION to MOVE the bill from
Committee.
CSSB 269(RLS) was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|