Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/25/1994 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 024
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, CHAIRMAN OF HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE, PRIME SPONSOR OF SSHB 255, testified saying, "In
1972, the State of Alaska Legislature and the Governor
signed into law the Public Employees Relations Act. There
were provisions in the Act for communities to either select,
to go out from under the coverage of the Act, or to stay
under the Act, or come under the Act. Since that time, all
but 13 communities in the State of Alaska have opted out
Public Employees Relations Act (PERA). The court decisions
that have occurred since 1972, particularly the Kodiak case,
the Petersburg case, which are attached as part of your
packet, the legislature has preempted, what I believe, was a
very clear intent on the part of the legislature, to provide
for a democratic means for communities to decide whether or
not they want to be covered by PERA. When the statute was
passed in 1972, local determination was kept at a maximum,
and I would refer you to the 1972 Session Laws of Alaska
where it talks about (indiscernible). That is the enabling
clause that talks about communities being able to opt in or
opt out. (A copy of those Session Laws are on file.) But
subsequent court decisions, as I said, have modified the
legislatures original intent of the law. Now, it's not
necessarily impossible, but almost impossible, for a
community that is under the PERA to, on its own, opt out of
the system, which is to say that one governing body of a
community can convince all future governing bodies of a
community. This bill merely provides a means of correcting
what amounts to the court enactment of legislation or laws,
by providing a democratic process that would allow
communities to decide whether they want to be under the PERA
provisions or whether they wanted to opt out."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS joined the committee at 1:09
p.m.
Number 085
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said, "We have considerable
response from what I assume are state workers in POMs
(public opinion messages), and a comment from the municipal
league, but no other reaction from the general public. How
many people or municipalities, governments would you
anticipate would hold an election to opt out or opt in?"
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "I have no idea. Apparently
there are three communities - Bethel, Kotzebue and Haines
which are going through court procedures trying to opt out.
I would predict they'll be unsuccessful, but I don't know.
I just assume if they're unsuccessful in their in their
court, they might elect to go through the democratic
process."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG referred the committee to the third page of
the Legislative Research Agency's Research Request #93.232
dated July 8, 1993, which lists Alaskan communities by their
PERA status. (A copy of this report is on file.)
Number 112
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES said, "In the justification for
this, and in your statements just now, you said that one
body obligates all future bodies. I'm not sure that I
understand how that is. It seems to me that the obligation
is derived more from the community, and the test has been
whether or not public employees have chosen to organize or
not. It's not the governing body that's making the
obligation, but the combination of the actions of the public
employees and the 1972 legislature."
Number 130
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "PERA is not a unilateral
grant of the right to collective bargaining. This is a
process that among other things provides for binding
arbitration. It's the court decisions that have decreed
that...you read the enacting statutes of '72 and it appears
to me...the very clear legislative intent was communities
can have self determination on whether they elect to be
covered by PERA or not. The supreme court has said that
there was a window opening and those communities that did
avail themselves of the window have sacrificed forever the
opportunity of doing so. So all this bill is doing, really,
is trying to put the legislation of law back into the
legislative, the elected body as opposed to the court
system, where it is right now."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified, "I assume that window was
for opting out."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "Yes, that window was for opting
out."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "Would the same window apply for
someone that would want to opt in?"
Number 145
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "It doesn't appear to, but there
have been no lawsuits over trying to get in to PERA."
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked, "Do we need to adopt
the substitute?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said no.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "The sponsor substitute was read
across the floor by the Speaker and it is the bill before
you."
Number 166
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Is this a bill from State
Affairs or is this a bill from Representative Vezey?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "It says it is from State Affairs."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Has State Affairs adopted this
bill?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "It has not been to State Affairs
yet."
Number 178
VERNON MARSHALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEA-ALASKA, testified
in opposition to SSHB 255 by reading from a position paper
he handed out to the committee members. (A copy of this
position paper is on file.) He then added, "We feel that
the sponsor substitute is a bad bill. We feel the bill is a
bad bill, and we would encourage the committee to oppose the
legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "You indicated that under the
initial legislation, if I understood you correctly, schools
were not allowed the option of opting out, but yet you feel
that if this legislation passed, then schools would have the
option of opting out, even though they didn't have the
option originally."
MR. MARSHALL replied, "We're changing the law to apply to
other political subdivisions of the state and the question
is, I guess we're taking the worst case scenario, we assume
a school district is a political subdivision of the state,
and they would follow under the umbrella of this particular
bill and if so, the opt out provision through election would
apply."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred the same question to
Representative Vezey.
Number 240
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "The only way I can answer that
is to say that the law of 1972, and this isn't in statute,
it's part of the enabling Act..." and he read from the
Session Laws of 1972, Chapter 113, Section 4, where it says,
"This Act is applicable to organized boroughs and political
subdivisions of the state, home rule or otherwise, unless
the legislative body of the political subdivision, by
ordinance or resolution, rejects having its provisions
apply."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY continued, "The Session Laws of Alaska
1992...in 1992 the legislature enacted this provision
amending the Session Laws of 1972, Title 23.40.070-260,
notwithstanding Section 4, Chapter 113, Session Laws of
Alaska 1972, a municipal school district or regional
education attendance area may not reject application of
Alaska Statute 23.40.070 to 23.40.260 to employment
relations with public school employees. As I understand
your question, the answer is at this time, there is no way
anyone who's covered by PERA (can) opt out. The educational
community cannot opt out by statute, the remaining political
subdivisions cannot opt out..."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked, "Were your bill to pass, would
schools then be able to opt out?"
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "The answer is yes. The bill is
written such that any political subdivision can opt out."
Number 296
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Is this by vote of the
members, or the municipality?"
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "It would be a vote of the
citizens of the political subdivision."
ED FLANAGAN, SOUTHEAST REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA STATE DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF LABORERS, testified saying, "I am also speaking
today on behalf of the Alaska AFL-CIO. We adamantly oppose
HB 255, as should all supporters of collective bargaining,
because this bill is intended to do nothing less than
eliminate collective bargaining for thousands of Alaskan
workers employed by political subdivisions. By establishing
a revolving door, voted in one year, voted out the
next...will not only deny the basic human right to
collectively bargain with one's employer, to employees and
political subdivisions which then opt out of the system.
You'll also render meaningless the system you leave behind
for those areas which continue to bargain with their
employees, since the notion of good faith bargaining is
essential to meaningful negotiation and a healthy
relationship will cease to exist when an employer can always
threaten to opt out if it doesn't like the way things are
going in negotiations. The immediate practical effect of
this legislation will be full employment for attorneys, to
the detriment of both taxpayers and employee groups. The
legal issues raised by an election to opt out while a
collective bargaining agreement is in effect. These issues
alone will tie both the courts and your state labor
relations agency in knots. Even where a healthy and viable
bargaining relationship exists...that is still subject to
threat. A small number of voters in the community with an
anti-union (inaudible) of sufficient number to put the issue
on the ballot by initiative, and then require an annual
election on whether a municipality will continue to bargain
in good faith and with the intended expenditure of both
public and private resources which can certainly be better
used elsewhere. PERA has governed public employment
relations in this state for twenty years. There was nothing
inadvertent about its intent to apply to political
subdivisions. The Koslosky Amendment, which opened the door
to opt out was, in fact, a floor amendment and the courts
have determined it was a one-time option. The rationale
given on the floor was to allow political subdivisions to
develop their own systems. In fact many of those that have
opted out, their system is, we won't bargain, we won't
recognize you. Some decisions have to be seen by the
political subdivisions and any government agency as final
and binding. This is certainly one of those decisions. We
urge you to go on record in support of collective bargaining
and keep this bill in committee."
Number 347
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked for clarification, "This is
giving the local municipality the option to do this...to do
it or not."
MR. FLANAGAN said, "It's currently mandated by the state,
except for those political subdivisions which, within a
reasonable period of time, which varies with the court
decision of the enactment of PERA, I think the effective
date was January 1, 1974, to elect to opt out or new
political subdivisions as they are created, then have an
opportunity to opt out. But once you opt in or you're not
taking affirmative action to opt out..."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "You said that during a
particularly messy bargaining, they can go to the people,
that doesn't sound very practical."
MR. FLANAGAN said, "The way I see it and I think it's a very
likely result, if a political subdivision currently under
PERA is bargaining and having a tough bargaining situation
with its employees, it doesn't like the way it's going. It
decides we'd rather just cut their wages without negotiating
with them on it or impose some other things that are
currently items that they have to negotiate, then they just
say, fine. We'll get somebody out there that can even do it
at arms length. We'll get somebody out there to get the 10
percent or 15 percent of the voters in the last election to
sign a petition on the initiative and then adios."
Number 386
CHRYSTAL SMITH, DIRECTOR OF MEMBER SERVICES, ALASKA
MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, testified in favor of SSHB 255 saying, "As
many of you well know, there are a lot of municipalities
covered by PERA and have some financial constraints as a
result of their labor contracts, and we believe in giving
maximum flexibility to the municipalities to deal with the
situations that are facing them... We just feel the need
for local people to be able to decide whether they're
covered by this or not."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "There are three municipalities
currently trying to opt out. Are there others on the
horizon?"
MS. SMITH said, "I'm really not sure about that,
Representative Bunde. As a matter of fact, people have
asked me how many are covered and I'm sorry...I don't
know...it looks to me like about a third of the job classes
of the ones that we cover are covered..."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "If we were to pass this and we
got into the situation where there was negotiations going
on, and the situation arose that we were just discussing,
the municipality then would effectively have an election to
opt out in the middle of the negotiating process. Would you
consider that to be an essentially fair labor practice?"
MS. SMITH said, "I don't know whether I could say that was a
quote, fair labor practice. ...I'm certainly not a labor
law expert at all..."
Number 431
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked, "We've got a situation where a
municipality is finding difficulty in meeting their
financial responsibilities based on contracts...what would
be the time line for a municipality involved that wanted to
opt out. They aren't going to do this in two weeks."
MS. SMITH replied, "No, if you're going to schedule an
election its going to take a considerable amount of time I
think, you're talking maybe three months in terms of getting
an election scheduled. It's nothing you can pass like that.
Boom."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "It might be a court of last resort,
but it isn't going to be a negotiating tool...because of the
time lag it takes to hold an election."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "There are some contracts that
do take a little bit longer than two weeks to negotiate.
Sometimes two or three years."
MS. SMITH said, "Well certainly within the two to three year
period, you would be able to schedule an election."
Number 462
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked, "You're presenting the stand of
the municipal league. Is this an unanimous position? How
much input did you have?..."
MS. SMITH said, "This is a position that the league has held
for some time. Its been in our policy statement as long as
I've worked at the league, which is about six years now...
Our policy statement itself is readopted every year..."
Number 480
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I'd like to say that in the last year
we've had a number of local control issues come before us
and sometimes it's interesting to see who's for and who's
against. But I think that anytime we can put the democratic
process back somewhere near the individual voter in a
practical way that we serve a worthwhile purpose."
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS said, "I personally believe in the
individual right to collective bargaining. The American
worker has through literally many, many dozens of years both
nationally and the state level worked to win these rights,
and I personally consider a right to bargain collectively in
the same realm that I hold a civil right. I think that the
workers have this right whether it's in the private sector
or the public sector...I oppose this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed with Representative Willis's
testimony and added, "If we were to apply this, that it
would open up just a rats nest of all kinds of legislation,
and it would not be practical, and it would not be fair to
the workers of the State of Alaska."
Number 525
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I must be hanging around with the
wrong people, because the perception I have is that many
people who do not work for any government entity observe
that public employees generally have become, how can I say
this, an elite group of workers. World class benefits,
world class salaries, world class vacations. My nearest
relationship with a place where I think this perception is
very evident is Fairbanks, Fairbanks and the Fairbanks North
Star Borough. The City of Fairbanks particularly, I think,
has some financial problems that if they can't be addressed
any other way, maybe this is a way to keep the city out of
bankruptcy. But unionism has evolved over the last fifty
years into something that perhaps isn't recognizable as it
was in its earlier form. Somebody, somewhere, sometime, is
going to have to give something back or we will, as a
society, collapse of our own inertia and our own weight.
And I'm not suggesting that public employees are the only
people that ought to consider giving something back. I'm
suggesting that it's one segment of our society that might
consider giving something back. As a consequence, I favor
this legislation, because it does give local communities the
option to decide how their lifestyle relates perhaps to
their local public employees lifestyle and maybe there needs
to be some parity there."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "Being from Fairbanks...there
are two entities in Fairbanks. There's the Fairbanks North
Star Borough and the City of Fairbanks. There's been a lot
of dissention within the City of Fairbanks, in terms of
relationship between the city government and the union
workers there. And there's been a lot of attempt to hang
the financial problems on the City of Fairbanks on the backs
of the union workers. The Fairbanks North Star Borough does
not have that problem. The Fairbanks North Star Borough has
about five different collective bargaining units. They
negotiate in good faith. They come to agreements with their
workers. So I don't think we can point to unionism as the
problem. Rather it's the management of the City of
Fairbanks."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Did I leave that impression? I
think it's difficult to compare the Fairbanks North Star
Borough and the City of Fairbanks, because the services they
provide are so very much different..."
Number 576
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I just see coming down the
line, Anchorage going through the same thing that Fairbanks
has gone through. I support the Chairman's position one
hundred percent..."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I'd observe that Anchorage isn't
under PERA. They opted out. And they're still having
trouble meeting their obligations..."
Number 584
CHAIRMAN OLBERG clarified, "I'm not here to suggest that
it's an employee problem and not a management problem. I
think in the case of the City of Fairbanks, I think that I
would agree with you that management deserves as much of
the, if we're going to pass blame around, certainly there's
enough blame to pass around for everybody and I'm not
suggesting that management, city administrations, public
entity administrations, aren't as much of the problem as
anybody else."
Number 593
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I'm still having trouble
understanding where the drive for this legislation is coming
from. There are three small communities that are in the
process of trying to opt out when they had the window twenty
years ago, the majority of the people stayed in and yet I
hear from the Municipal League that this has been a request
for years..."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I think we've all seen a lot of
changes in the last six years, but you cannot confuse the
intent of this bill with collective bargaining. This bill
does not take away collective bargaining rights. We have a
system in Alaska called PERA. It provides for parameters in
which collective bargaining and settlement of disputes takes
place. Other municipalities, other political subdivisions,
the majority of them, use a different system of conducting
their collective bargaining and I feel it should be up to
the local citizenry as to which system they choose to use to
negotiate their relationships, their contracts with their
employees. I don't know how many different systems there
are in this state. I know Anchorage has one that's
different than...Soldotna has probably the most unique
system in the state. They take their collective bargaining
and they put their best proposal on the ballot, and the
other side puts their best proposal on the ballot, and
whichever one gets the most votes wins. There are other
means of structuring collective bargaining."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The people who've opted out are by
and large, if not entirely, collectively bargaining with
their employees in some fashion, I would think. Somebody
mentioned the fact that if negotiations weren't going well
the administration would opt out of PERA. It brings to mind
a personal case in Cordova right now, where there's a
tremendous financial crunch coming and the employees are now
deciding maybe they should have a collective bargaining
unit. It works both ways. And that's not to say it's not a
valid concern, but where finances are a serious
problem...the more flexibility and the more local control
you have, the better in my opinion."
Number 628
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I do think that because of the
possibility of dragging the negotiations out to one, two,
three years that, if we were to pass this bill, that it
would in fact, be an attack on organized labor and on the
ability to bargain, because it would be held as a threat
that we could just drag this thing out and we'll just renew
contracts until we get an election and take the right to
bargain out from under you... This legislation is indeed an
attack on the ability for the workers to negotiate their
salaries and benefits and working conditions."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY moved to pass the bill out of
committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected to the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS also objected to the motion.
A roll call was taken. Representatives Davies, Willis and
Williams voted NO. Representatives Bunde, Sanders, Toohey
and Olberg voted YES. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Number 650
CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|