Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/15/2000 03:56 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 224 - PERA: NOTICE BEFORE STRIKE CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the next order of business as House Bill No. 224, "An Act requiring a public employee labor organization representing employees of a school district, regional educational attendance area, or a state boarding school to give notice before striking." [HB 224 was sponsored by Representative Kohring by request.] Number 2111 RANDY LORENZ, Researcher for Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present HB 224. House Bill 224 amends the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) to require that school districts receive a three work days' advance notice before a strike can be called by a union representing district employees. Since 1990, when PERA took effect, there have been three labor strikes. Prior notice was provided on two cases. In January 1999, the Totem Association of Educational Support Personnel called a strike at 10:40 p.m. on Thursday. The strike began the following morning. The district had no time to provide sufficient notice to parents to enable them to make alternate arrangements for the care of their school-aged children. This action caused significant and undue disruptions to the families and placed the children at safety and health risk. MR. LORENZ shared what the Anchorage Daily News reported: Anchorage parents of public school children woke up to an ambush Friday morning. School district office workers and teacher aides voted ... Thursday night to strike, then ... called the strike for Friday. The decision came too late for the evening news. ... Many parents didn't get the word until Friday morning. That left them scrambling for child care and seriously disrupted work and transportation schedules. Parents who have paid attention knew a strike and school closing were possible. They didn't expect to learn of a strike at the school doors or bus stop, or while they were getting their children ready for school. While the union's timing got the community's attention, it in no way got community support. ... The union would have served its own cause and the community better by giving Anchorage parents a weekend's warning in time to make child care, work and transportation arrangements. Blindsiding thousands of families Friday morning served no one's interest. MR. LORENZ noted that in May 1999, Representative Kohring received a letter from the Anchorage School District requesting this legislation. He told the committee that the AASB [Association of Alaska School Boards] also supports legislation which would require and/or their bargaining agencies to give the school district a 72-hour advance notice when a strike will occur. The reason is unannounced strikes will undermine public confidence in the public education system and not serve the community well. The safety of school children would be compromised in the event that school employees walk off their jobs without adequate notice. MR. LORENZ said HB 224 will require three work days' advance notice but will not grant undue advantage to the districts. Employees will retain the full use of the strike weapon while protecting families and their school-age children from unnecessary risk. Opponents of this bill will argue that this will never happen again. However, the precedent has already been set. He encouraged the committee to pass HB 224. It is a matter of child safety, not union rights. Number 1971 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN pointed out that when there is a school closure for snow, parents are only given one day's notice. He asked Mr. Lorenz why the bill specified three days' notice. MR. LORENZ answered that the Anchorage School District requested the three-day notice in order to make arrangements for the children and to get the notification out. Number 1918 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that he takes great umbrage with the statement that this is a bill to address child safety issues; it's not. The Anchorage School District, school boards and administrators that are negotiating throughout the entire process know there is the potential for a strike. If they fail to make the appropriate arrangements, it is their fault, not the fault of the employees who go on strike. MR. LORENZ responded that as a result of the word not getting out to the parents, children were left at the bus stops with no bus service, or students were dropped off at the school doors without anybody there to let them in or let them get out of the weather. Normally, if the weather is bad and schools are closed, parents know it the night before because they can see it, or it is advertised on the radio. When it came to this strike, however, the talks had been going on for a long time, and parents had no way of knowing when they woke up that morning that there was actually going to be a strike. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that it becomes a failure of the administration to take the appropriate action when it was known that a strike was a strong potentiality. Once again, it is not a question of child safety; it is a question of lack of preparedness by the school district that causes the negotiations to go so far. Number 1832 LARRY WIGET, Executive Director, Public Affairs, Anchorage School District, came forward to testify. He stated that the Anchorage School District does support a three-day work day advance notice before a strike can be called. As evidenced by testimony by the sponsor of the bill, written testimony provided to the committee from the Anchorage School District, and articles and editorials that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, their primary concern for this legislation is for the safety of the students, by allowing parents to provide a safe environment for students in the unfortunate event of a strike. MR. WIGET said in terms of the Totem strike that happened last January, the district notified parents as soon as the district became aware of it. The parents in Anchorage watched the 10 p.m. news, but no indication was given then that a strike would be called. At approximately 10:40 that evening, the district received a call; that was after the news that the parents and community were watching to find out the status of the next day's activities. The district respects the right to strike and believes that this law does not provide an unfair advantage in labor negotiations. The district is not seeking an unfair advantage. However, children should not be placed in an unsafe situation, and the parents should have the opportunity to find alternate means for their children; many parents work and arrangements need to be made. Number 1723 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked: If child safety is the issue, then why doesn't the school district negotiate in good faith with its employees and make the appropriate preparations just in case? MR. WIGET replied that is making an assumption that the school district doesn't. Number 1700 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Wiget why a three-day notice is needed. MR. WIGET said in discussions with the administration, that group felt three days would provide fair and adequate notice for parents to make alternative arrangements. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if those discussions include school district employees that are represented by collective bargaining organizations. MR. WIGET said the discussion was held by the administration. Number 1641 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Alaska Association for School Boards (AASB), came forward to testify in support of HB 224. The AASB has had a position on this for over five years. He was a school board member in 1974 when the issue then was "meet and confer" laws, and there was no finality. He shared some history about the "meet and confer" laws and binding arbitration. Somewhere in between those two resulted the legal right to strike. The legal right to strike has been successful in many cases in bringing the pressure that was required to get the agreements finalized. MR. ROSE noted that the job action may be between labor and management dealing with salary and benefits. He said, "I don't believe, and I don't think anyone here will say, that you're striking the community or you're striking students. I believe you're striking the school district." With 72 hours as the ultimatum, the public pressure will be brought to bear in 72 hours for an agreement, or there will be consequences. He believes it will be good for communities, and it's good for children because parents and schools can prepare for their safety. The pressure is on the people at the table to come up with an agreement, or consequences will be recognized. His counterproposal is that school districts should be given a 72- hour notice of implementation of contract if they can't meet in agreement. He is concerned about the issue of public confidence. Number 1458 JOHN CYR, President, National Education of Alaska (NEA)-Alaska, came forward to testify. He shared some history of negotiations. He referred to the question about the health and safety of children; if it were about the health and safety of children, school districts would make those kinds of accommodations a long time before that final hour. If school districts were concerned about the health and safety of children, they wouldn't be hearing about "we'll give you 72 hours before we implement." He stated: What we would be hearing is if there's a strike, then we're real concerned, and we'll agree to keep the schools closed until the strike is settled. I may be paranoid, but I've watched too many strikes, and I've watched too many school districts enter into situations where they try to hire replacement workers. This is about strike breaking. This is about tilting the playing field. I don't think that's fair. We have a system that works. That's what this is about. This is punitive. It's about punishing one group, that quite frankly, they [NEA-Alaska] don't even represent, but they [support staff] are folks who work in schools. And if this happens here, it will happen in other places. I just don't think we need to do this. This is a bill whose timing is poor, that changes the way the game is played. If we're going to change the way the game is played, then I would suggest that we look at some amendments, [that] we look at keeping schools closed if there is a strike, to keep students safe. If we don't want to do that, I would suggest that we move those folks who work in the schools in the same classification as other public employees whose services are too important to have them go out on strike and give us binding arbitration. There are some ways to handle this if there is legitimate concern. But I don't think that is what this is about. Number 1237 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Cyr if the replacement workers generally meet the qualifications of the striking workers. He would expect that bringing on replacement workers would cause a greater child safety issue than the proposal that has been put forth. MR. CYR answered that there is no way that a school district can hire replacement workers who are as qualified as those people who are in the classroom. The school district is hiring warm bodies without any checks, or they are going out of state to find qualified people. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Cyr when the schools would be shut down. MR. CYR said if the school district wishes the union to give notice, the union would have no objection to giving notice if the school districts will agree that they won't use that period of time to hire replacement workers. The schools would remain closed for the period of the strike to keep the students safe. Number 1118 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Cyr about giving notice only 24 hours before the strike begins. MR. CYR said the union sees no need to give notice. He would prefer 24 hours to three days. He doesn't know why the school district needs it at all if they do a good job of informing their constituents. Recently, in Ketchikan, the union just went out on strike, and the district was told on Friday if there wasn't a contract settled by Monday, the members would be on the street. The district agreed to close the schools and then late Sunday evening announced that the schools would be open. The district put the students in the same kind of position that Anchorage accuses the Totem union of doing. Neither situation is right. Number 0986 CHAIRMAN DYSON noted that he has learned some new perspectives. He said: When you had said before that this bill would tilt the game, all I could think of was you were saying in order for the bargaining unit to prevail, the public has to have a lot of discomfort and because of their discomfort put a lot of pressure on the administration to either come to the table or agree. Now I'm not so sure that you're against this bill just because it decreases the public discomfort. MR. CYR answered: Quite honestly, anytime there is a strike, there is a failure on both sides. Any union that leads its folks out into the street has done a disservice to the folks it serves. It happens. Unfortunately, because we are public employees and we work with kids and in schools, it is markedly different than shutting down the coal mine, if you will. If there was some other way to do it, it would certainly meet my needs. Number 0896 DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School Administrators, came forward to testify in support of HB 224. He also shared some strike history. The ACSA supports this bill to protect the children and to protect the teachers from negative public relations if notice isn't given. Number 0760 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the parents are not really a part of the long process of negotiation. He asked Mr. Hargraves if he viewed this as a way to involve parents in the process. MR. HARGRAVES said that could be a fallout result, but that is not what he is after. If the school district starts considering a lockout or implementing other types of actions, then they also need to make the announcement to the unions. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Hargraves if the three days' notice would primarily be a time to increase pressure to get back to the table and solve the problems, or would it be as Mr. Cyr suggests, a time for the school district to hire replacement workers in order to break the strike and break the union. Number 0645 MR. HARGRAVES said he believes districts could use it both ways. The pressure that the district can bring against the teachers' union is not his concern. He is advocating for advanced notice. CHAIRMAN DYSON announced that the committee would take an at-ease to figure out what would be the best course of action to take that would address everyone's concerns. The committee took an at-ease from 5:32 p.m. to 5:40 p.m. Number 0539 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which changes page 2, line 28, from "three days" to "24 hours". CHAIRMAN DYSON asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0430 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move HB 224, as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kemplen, Coghill, Green and Dyson voted in favor of moving the bill. Representative Brice voted against it. Representatives Morgan and Whitaker were absent. Therefore, CSHB 224(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Committee by a vote of 4-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|