Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/06/2000 03:28 PM House L&C
| 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 ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be 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." Number 1304 RANDALL LORENZ, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to present HB 224 on behalf of the sponsor. He started by illustrating a hypothetical story of a family's dilemma between the demands of work and demands of a child in school in relation to the TOTEM [Association of Educational Support Personnel] strike last year. House Bill 224, he said, is not only a child safety bill, but it guards businesses as well. The bill guarantees parents in Alaska at least 24 hours' notice before a school bargaining unit can allow its members to strike; in that way, it provides parents with ample time to prepare for the safety of their children and the demands of business. The unions, he said, will indicate that this will never happen again; but the sponsor says that if positive steps are not taken, it will happen again. He noted that Ms. Debbie Ossiander, a school board member, was online to testify, since the bill was introduced on behalf of the Anchorage School District. Number 1455 DEBORAH OSSIANDER, Member, Anchorage School Board, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She urged the committee members to support HB 224. The school board believes that this is a child safety issue for all public school children, especially for the medically fragile and very young students. Children's safety is at risk if they are dropped off at school and there is an inadequate number of adults present to watch over them. Some students, she noted, require one-on-one adult supervision. In that regard, it's essential that parents, families and employers have adequate time to prepare for a strike that closes the schools. MS. OSSIANDER explained that she uses the word "close" because just about every school district in the state would have to close if "hit by a bargaining group strike" as a result of a shortage of labor. She assured the committee members that the closure of schools due to a strike is not like a snow-day closure. Parents are able to look out the window and suspect a closure in relation to inclement weather, but authorization to strike may occur months before the actual labor stoppage. She pointed out that for the majority of strikes, there is adequate notice given. Number 1640 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Ms. Ossiander, excluding the TOTEM strike, how many times there has been a strike without notification. MS. OSSIANDER replied that a strike without notification has only happened once; it was significant, however. She also noted that the Anchorage School District is having trouble with labor negotiations at the present time. Number 1661 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Ossiander where besides Anchorage there has been a strike without notification. MS. OSSIANDER said she can't answer the question. She noted that the Association of Alaska School Boards [AASB] voted unanimously to support HB 224. She therefore assumes that this is a concern for every school district in the state. Number 1685 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Ossiander whether it is correct to say that it would be a problem to find substitute supervision for the special education students without due notice. MS. OSSIANDER replied, "You're exactly right." It's very problematic. There were significant problems with that population during the TOTEM strike. She noted that there is special training for dealing with students who require nursing care. She further stated that, if there isn't an adequate number of adults to maintain order and discipline, the result is chaos, which she believes is unacceptable to everyone. Number 1751 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Ms. Ossiander what the parents of special education students do for care when school is canceled because of snow. MS. OSSIANDER replied that when school is canceled because of snow it is a problem for every family, and even more of a problem for families with children who have high needs. Luckily, she said, employers around the state are very aware of the needs of working families and oftentimes they grant personal leave days for parents to adequately care for their children. Number 1855 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS asked Ms. Ossiander whether there is any provision at all for a strike notification in the union contracts. MS. OSSIANDER replied, "No." The board, she noted, was taken aback when they encountered the problem last year, and to a certain extent the board is reacting to that problem. Number 1879 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Ms. Ossiander whether her concern is related to the fear of the unknown rather than to an actual strike. MS. OSSIANDER replied exactly. House Bill 224 is just a safeguard that the school board feels needs to be in place. It's not because they have any real expectation that any particular bargaining groups is going to [strike] in the near future. But the potential exists, and there is some precedence to give a reason for concern. Number 1902 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Ms. Ossiander whether she has talked to any of the leaders of the bargaining groups about dealing with the fear in the form of a contract rather than [in the form of a bill] that changes the statute. MS. OSSIANDER replied that the issue has been discussed informally. According to her experience, informal or cordial relationships deteriorate rapidly when emotions get high and labor negotiations get close to a strike situation. The school board, however, believes that this transcends a bargaining issue and is a basic safety issue. Number 1962 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Ossiander why a strike notification is not negotiated in good faith since it is a basic safety issue. MS. OSSIANDER answered that the school district believes that they are negotiating their contracts in good faith. She said, "If I may make a slight aside comment: It would certainly help if statewide educational funding had ... matched inflation." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed with her aside comment. He further noted that a strike is the last [action] in a long process. In that regard, he doesn't see how the sides can't see the possibility of a "walkout." Number 2035 JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association-Alaska [NEA- Alaska], came before the committee to testify. The public employees got the right to strike a number of years ago, he explained, under the Public Employees Relations Act [PERA]. It was nothing that NEA-Alaska wanted. It was a compromise in relation to binding arbitration. The bargaining process, he said, is very lengthy. In that regard, the issue is not like a sudden snow storm, as Ms. Ossiander indicated earlier. When TOTEM went on strike, the Anchorage School District tried to hire replacement workers in order to keep schools open. He understands that is their job, but when talking about the health and safety of children he would like to see a provision that doesn't allow a school district to hire less qualified replacement workers. That, he said, would keep the playing field level. He doesn't believe that HB 224 is about health and safety; he believes it is about tilting the playing field in the direction of the Anchorage School Board over one incident. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Cyr whether he said that a 24-hour notification is tilting the playing field. Isn't there a scintilla of public safety and concern involved? MR. CYR replied that certainly, there is some public safety and concern involved. He said: I think the Anchorage School District, the last time the weather was bad, closed school at ten thirty in the morning; I think that's a mistake. I think to hire replacement workers is a mistake. I think there are things that can be done and should be done to bring negotiations to a close before it ever gets to this level. That's where the concern should lie. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed with Mr. Cyr's final point. Nobody, he said, likes strikes. They usually upset life and commerce, even if they are in the public sector. Number 2194 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Cyr why a strike option was preferred over binding arbitration. MR. CYR replied, from the point of view of NEA-Alaska, that a strike option was not preferred over binding arbitration. He said: We had on our books and as part of our records for years we looked for finality in bargaining around binding arbitration. We wanted to be placed in the same class because we think it is a public interest as law enforcement and fire people and the right to binding arb[itration]. We believe we needed some finality in bargaining and that was the way it should go. The legislative process, though, dictated otherwise. We went through this process a number of years ago trying to get binding arbitration. Could not agree to it. In the last hour, we got the right to strike under PERA. We agreed to the right to strike under PERA with the idea and we said publicly at the time that we would never again, or at least we would try not to, introduce a bill asking for binding arbitration. You know, that we had cut a deal and we were done. We didn't like it, but it was a deal. So, we got finality but we didn't get the finality we wanted. And we're happy with the law that we have. We believe ... the law that we have now works. Number 2260 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Cyr whether he thinks school districts now would prefer to have binding arbitration. It would seem to do away with their concern in relation to strikes and notifications. MR. CYR said he could not testify on behalf of school districts. Number 2286 DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist, AFL-CIO [American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations], came before the committee to testify. The AFL-CIO is opposed to HB 224 on the grounds that the parties involved know when there would be a strike. That, he said, is when the school district could react. In that regard, the bill would give the school districts another 24 hours to find replacements and extend a strike. Number 2332 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Etheridge whether the "scab" employees are trained to the same level of those they are replacing. MR. ETHERIDGE replied, "No." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE replied, in that case, there would be a greater danger to children by exposing them to those who don't have the training in relation to the regular employees. Number 2354 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Etheridge whether the ability to strike or the requirements that surround strike notification are usually handled in the collective bargaining process. MR. ETHERIDGE said yes. During the bargaining process, language calling for the requirements to strike can be negotiated. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Etheridge whether he is aware of any contracts that contain strike notification provisions. MR. ETHERIDGE replied, "No." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Etheridge whether it is the same for the federal government. MR. ETHERIDGE replied that he doesn't know about the federal government. He noted, however, that a lot of federal government employees are prohibited from striking. Number 2401 BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Governmental and Legislative Affairs, General Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska, came before the committee to testify in opposition to HB 224. She said: We're speaking against notice because we unfortunately - the Teamsters - represent the bus drivers for the Anchorage School District. We also have the maintenance workers and we also have the food services workers under the district contract. All three different contracts; all negotiated at separate times. At the time that the TOTEM association gave notice to go out on strike, we were also in a similar situation at the table. ... I don't know how many committee members have actually sat in an actual negotiating session, but John Cyr had mentioned earlier the balance or leveling the playing field out there. And collective bargaining, the negotiating process is a very, very delicate balance that unless you've actually sat across the table and negotiated and experienced that give-and- take, it doesn't take much from other side to really offset that very, very delicate balance of negotiations, especially from a union perspective, with the cards per se that really truly are more on the management side than they are on the union side. About the only thing that we do have as we're going through the collective bargaining process and ultimately end up after ... going through mediation and then through interest arbitration and then the finality of the management introducing their last best and final offer and giving us the right to strike. It is an impasse situation that actually is required a condition of both side. It's not one side or the other that declares while we're going out on strike or we're going to implement our last best offer. It actually is a very thought-out process that is also under government control because before we can even go out on strike we have to go through the state board. The state board conducts this particular election which is all public information and also requires that or allows for representatives from the management, in this particular case, the Anchorage School District, to also sit and ... [ends midspeech because of tape change]. TAPE 00-26, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. HUFF TUCKNESS continued: When TOTEM went out, unfortunately, the Teamsters who represented the Anchorage school bus drivers also found ourselves in a similar situation. We, for the record, gave five days notice, and that was public notice. We are not crazy. We are not going to leave these kids in the middle of winter sitting at the bus stops without proper notice to the pubic. I mean, we also live and work in these communities. We have to deal with the parents with the children of which most of us also have children that attend these various schools around the state as well. And, I guess, in closing my statements, it is a very delicate process. It requires, I think, some political astuteness on the part of not only the management but the union negotiators from both sides and hopefully as we're going through this very delicate process there is that astuteness on both sides to assure that the public is given proper notice. I myself have given my son, at five-thirty in the morning, notice on a no-school day. Yes, I guess you could argue that all of the signs were out there hours before, but I can also sit here and argue that months before. I would predict that if things don't get better at the table with Anchorage School District and the teachers, and I'm not involved in those negotiations, that I would anticipate probably a strike coming down the road. But, I mean, this is all because of what I'm reading in the newspapers. I think that the way the rules are set forward right now do somewhat level that playing field, and we have been willing to work and play within those set rules. And I would request the committee [to] not support this bill. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Huff Tuckness whether he heard her say that Local 959 gave five days' notice in relation to the bus drivers' strike. MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS replied, "Yes." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Huff Tuckness whether there are provisions in Local 959's contracts to provide for strike notification. MS. HUFF TUCKNESS replied, "No." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, then, that Local 959 provided notification out of courtesy and public safety. MS. HUFF TUCKNESS replied, "That's correct." She explained that Local 959 provided paid advertisements in the newspapers for five days before they went on strike. Number 0098 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Ms. Huff Tuckness to indicate how public sentiment relates to a strike. He imagines that the public would get angry in regard to a lack of notification to the point that it wouldn't happen again. MS. HUFF TUCKNESS replied that she anticipates that this particular situation would probably never occur again. There was backlash, she noted, from the public and from the rank-and-file members of the union. Number 0163 CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School Boards [AASB], came before the committee to testify. Historically, it was the desire of AASB to remain in the meet- and-confer status under Title 14. The issue, he noted, of binding arbitration was a desire at the time of NEA-Alaska. The compromise was made to allow for the right to strike that neither AASB or NEA-Alaska wanted. But they have lived with it ever since, and it has worked for the most part. In 1995, he explained, AASB passed a strike notification resolution calling for 72-hours of advance notice. They were told by members of the legislature that there was no need for such a bill, and last year TOTEM went on strike. MR. ROSE further stated that he is looking at HB 224 in relation to the issue of public confidence. An unannounced strike, he said, weakens the public's confidence; it creates security and child safety problems. As previous testimony has indicated, all parties involved understand when a strike is imminent. But a strike being imminent and knowing when people are going to strike, he said, are very different. MR. ROSE said HB 224 does not tip the balance of power, for a strike or job action is a serious matter. It's an economic and political tool that is used and in most cases the message is very clear. But he doesn't think that it's the intent of the state in its policy to strike communities and students. He thinks that the difference lies between the governing boards and organizations. In that regard, HB 224 is trying to get some accommodation for proper notification to communities in order to alleviate any security problems and most importantly to accommodate the children in relation to any safety concerns. The AASB, therefore, supports HB 224 and urges the committee members to pass it out of the committee. Number 0291 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Rose how many strikes have taken place in the last ten years across the state, and where. MR. ROSE replied that he can think of two strikes in Anchorage and one strike in Ketchikan. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Rose, outside of the TOTEM strike, how many strikes have taken place without any notification. MR. ROSE replied that to the best of his knowledge, the only strike without notification was the TOTEM strike. Number 0327 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Rose to define what he means by an unannounced strike. He noted that before there is a strike, there is mandatory arbitration, a strike vote as well as other steps. In that regard, he sees an unannounced strike along the lines of "wildcatting." MR. ROSE clarified that he was not alluding to wildcatting. When negotiating, the parties involved know when a strike is imminent. The question is: Will the strike happen on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday? In that regard, the AASB is looking for a 24-hour advance notice in order to make the proper accommodations. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked whether, in the cases when the parties involved know that a strike is imminent, isn't it prudent to have contingency plans? MR. ROSE replied that he believes there are contingency plans, but they don't know when to implement them if they don't know when a strike is going to occur. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said a plan is implemented when a strike occurs. MR. ROSE replied: I guess my response remains the same. You have plans to implement, but you don't really know when that strike is going to happen. But ... you can't make accommodations for the community or kids. I mean, for schools and issues of security, I think, you can try to do that, but with regard to our communities and students, there is no way of knowing until you actually find out that there is a strike. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is why there should be alternative plans. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that HB 224 would be held in the committee to allow for further public testimony.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|