Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/14/1997 06:10 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 151 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT LABOR RELATIONS
COCHAIR SHARP stated his intent to take testimony and
hold SB 151 for redrafting of amendments, to be taken
up at a later date. Testimony was heard from all the
above attendees. SB 151 was HELD for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to public employment labor relations;
relating to the protection of the rights of public employees
under the Public Employment Relations Act; establishing
ethical standards for union representatives of public
employees; and establishing disclosure requirements for
public employee labor organizations."
COCHAIR SHARP noted that the committee received
approximately eighty pages of written testimony that were in
members' files. He stated the purpose of this meeting was
to take testimony over teleconference and in Juneau. He
then invited Mr. Chance to provide a synopsis of the
legislation.
ART CHANCE, Consultant to House and Senate Finance
Committees, read a ten-page statement and sectional analysis
(copy on file). Following is an excerpt of the first
paragraph to summarize the legislation.
The proposed legislation has two purposes and
discussion will be divided into two parts. First, the
existing law is amended to incorporate the lessons of
twenty-five years of collective bargaining in Alaska
and to comply with a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases
concerning union dues issues in public employment.
Second, extensive additions are made to the Act to
reflect the provisions of the federal National Labor
Relations Act as amended. These provisions regulate
the organizational structure of public employee labor
organizations and the conduct of union officers and
employees as well as officers, elected and appointed
officials and certain employees and contractors of
public employers. The legislation covers only public
employee unions and public employers and does not
regulate the conduct of private sector labor unions or
councils and federations that do not directly engage in
collective bargaining between public employee unions
and public employers.
SENATOR ADAMS stated the problems he saw with the bill. He
questioned if the committee was willing to spend over $1
million in fiscal notes for the legislation. He opposed the
some of the language in Section 1, stating it was
inappropriate to cite instances of disregard for rights of
employees and failures to observe high standards. His first
preference was to leave the bill in committee. He opposed
Section 5 that decertified the current unions and would cost
an excess of $345 thousand. He suggested deleting the
federal labor management report and disclosure act, noting a
fiscal note could go as high as $800 thousand. He suggested
deleting the requirements added for arbitration awards and
proposed establishing and maintaining a separate system for
school employees. His opinion was that the legislation was
expensive, not needed, hurt morale and upset state
employees.
COCHAIR SHARP called for statewide teleconference testimony
next, announcing individuals would have a two-minute time
limit.
Delta Junction:
JACKIE NELSON-LIZARDI spoke in opposition to the bill. It
represented total control and no respect. It was biased on
the side of management and punitive in nature. She believed
it was an attack on the rights of public employees.
Kenai:
NANCY MACVIE testified in opposition. There were provisions
in the bill that were undemocratic. She had several
questions for the committee, the primary one was what
prompted a revision of the Public Employees Retirement Act
(PERA). PERA was working and she questioned why the rules
were being changed. Ms. Macvie's written testimony was
submitted and is on file.
BILL PARKER, Soldotna, opposed the bill. He challenged the
findings in Section 1 regarding ethical conduct as well as
the concept of bargaining by statutes.
DON OBERG, Staff, NEA Alaska, submitted written testimony
(copy on file). He was opposed to the legislation,
perceiving it as an attempt to fix a problem which may not
exist. He believed it would do more harm than good. Two
concerns he had were related to the cost of bargaining and
the cost of enforcement of negotiated agreements.
Mat-Su:
KATHLEEN WIGHT-MURPHY urged a no vote on SB 151. It was a
regressive bill. It would take bargaining away from the
local level, politicize education, restrict topics that
could be bargained and erode grievance procedures. She
questioned the constitutionality of publishing names and
addresses under disclosure. The bill would weaken local
control, diminish the responsibility of school boards and
shift power to the legislature and local assembly. She
stated it was expensive and not needed.
Sitka:
RICK ROHLMAN, Sitka Education Association, opposed the bill.
He questioned how he could protect his family when unneeded
financial disclosure was required. He urged a no vote.
Fairbanks:
MAYOR JIM SAMPSON, Fairbanks North Star Borough, cited his
background and testified in opposition to SB 151. PERA was
working well as it was. SB 151 would neither enhance nor
benefit labor management relations. It would hurt
municipalities as well as those under PERA. He cautioned
the legislature against following the recommendations made
by Mr. Chance.
CRAIG PEARSON, Public Safety Education Association,
testified next. He opposed SB 151 and stated PERA had
effectively worked for 25 years. He believed the findings
about unethical behavior was a slap in the face. He stated
the bill was anti-worker, costly, unnecessary and added more
bureaucracy to state government. He urged that it not be
passed from committee.
BILL BJORK, Fairbanks Education Association, testified in
opposition. The bill was an attempt to fix what wasn't
broken, that being PERA. He spoke of the agency fee
procedure within his organization. He disputed the
insinuation in the bill that people weren't being treated
fairly.
RICHARD SEWARD, State Director, AFL-CIO, spoke against the
bill. It was costly with a $1 million price tag. It
radically changed the relationship between unions and
management. He believed PERA changes should be done through
a long and deliberative process. He felt the bill would
cost more than the fiscal note says.
End SFC-97 #108, Side 2, Begin SFC-97 #109, Side 1
CHERYL VOGEL urged a no vote on SB 151. It would take away
rights and create concern for equity and fairness in the
work force. She spoke of the lengthy time factor of vesting
for seasonal employees. She opposed financial disclosure of
public employees.
The following individuals testified in person in Juneau.
ED FLANAGAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor,
testified in opposition to the bill for a number of reasons.
It would run counter to the goals of the administration and
the legislature to provide more efficient and cost-effective
government by creating a cumbersome and unnecessary new
bureaucracy to micro-manage the internal affairs of public
sector labor organizations. The bill
added fifty pages to the twenty page PERA law which has been
adequate for twenty-five years. The bill was largely a
wholesale adoption of provisions of two federal labor laws
from 1947 and 1959. Their adoption would increase the size
of government and rather than improving public sector
relations, it would severely disrupt them. MR. FLANAGAN
mentioned the "incongruous mimicry of
federal law language" of the findings in Section 1, stating
they were unsubstantiated. He stated that it would render
most of the current bargaining units illegal and detailed
particular problems with barring the presence of peace
officers and non-peace officers in the same unit. He
elaborated on other problematic provisions in Sections 7, 19
and 37. Section 37 would create a new bureaucracy and
affect over 2,800 officers, their wives, dependents and co-
habitants that would be under the reporting requirements.
MR. FLANAGAN elaborated on the seven articles that would be
included under Section 37 and stated that the workload would
be enormous. He indicated he would provide his written
statement for the record.
JOHN CYR, President, NEA Alaska, stated his opposition to SB
151. He detailed the major problems he saw with the bill.
Section 2 allowed local governments to decide what could be
subject to bargaining via ordinance. In REAA's, the
legislature would have to look at every negotiated contract.
Section 5 regarding grievance procedures allowed individual
employees to bypass the union which could result in a myriad
of claims that may or may not be grievances. Section 6
allowed employers to harass unions by claiming that a union
was no longer representative of the employees in the unit.
There was mention of AS 23.40.110 that was clearly at odds
with Supreme Court decisions regarding collective bargaining
activity. Under the bill, a fee payer would become a free
rider if they only could be charged for activities that
happen at the bargaining table. Most costs were
administrative and the laws were clear about what was and
was not chargeable. MR. CYR brought up page 15, regarding
approval of agreements by the borough assembly or the
legislature. He believed it would reduce the authority of
school boards in the bargaining process. He pointed out
page 17 that excluded half-time employees from bargaining
units, noting that NEA represented many. He questioned why
that group would not have the right to be represented. Page
22 related to protection of the right to sue and stated it
was a gratuitous insult. Regarding reporting requirements,
MR. CYR estimated there would be about 1,500 people who
voluntarily served as shop stewards who would have to file
financial disclosure. He questioned why the legislature
would be interested in how much those people made and how it
was spent, stating that it didn't made sense. The bill also
injured school board members. MR. CYR summarized his
testimony by reading Section 1(c), which he believed was the
entire premise for the bill. He strongly opposed the
statement and took offense, stating that it should be
deleted.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, NEA Alaska, explained
what the NEA had done for the last several years with regard
to administration and accounting for agency fees relative to
individuals who choose not to become part of the union. He
provided a copy of their Hudson Notice which provided
detailed information to objectors to the union. It listed
everything from administrative expense to political costs.
He elaborated on the point that many procedures of NEA had
been upheld by the courts. He stated that they were already
under a tremendous degree of reporting requirements.
WILLIE ANDERSON, Lobbyist, NEA Alaska, continued with an
explanation of the Hudson Notice and contents of packets
which were sent by certified mail to everyone they
represent.
MIKE MCMULLEN, Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration; spoke briefly about the fiscal note.
Section 5 contained a number of restrictions on who could be
in the same bargaining unit, which would create an estimated
nine additional units. It would require six months of staff
time per unit spread over two years in additional to an
ongoing professional staff for each unit.
BRUCE LUDWIG, Business Manager, APEA, AFT. He stated that
this was the worst bill and fastest moving bill he had seen.
He mentioned that the $1 million fiscal note related only to
state government, noting that it did not include the fiscal
impact to municipalities. He further explained and stated
that the costs could be as high as $3-4 million. He
believed the legislation was a shotgun approach that created
more problems than it fixed and that it went far beyond
federal law. MR. LUDWIG pointed out that many officers were
already covered by the ethics act and that the legislation
would create two levels of standards.
MARY GRAHAM, State Employee, Juneau, testified that she was
a shop steward and had concerns about the disclosure
requirements. She agreed with most previous statements and
expressed confusion as to why the bill moved forward when
there had been no testimony in favor of it. She disagreed
with a comment made by Mr. Chance that part-time employees
were tangential to state business. She believed PERA had
worked well and didn't need to be fixed.
LINDA GOHL, ASEA Shop Steward, Juneau, stated that the
legislation would be very expensive and complicate labor
relations. She felt the bill was punitive. Giving new
employees the option of being out of a union would be
divisive. She believed the fiscal note was ridiculous
relative to the state budget constraints. The only benefit
would be to new staff and attorneys.
HAL CLEEK, ASEA Shop Steward, testified that the bill was
flawed and cumbersome.
End SFC-97 #108, Side 2
Begin SFC-97 #109, Side 1
MR. CLEEK continued with discussion of grievance filing and
appeals process. He observed that the way to address and
solve money problems was at the bottom, not at the top.
ROBERT WELTON, JR., State Employee, testified in opposition
to SB 151. He stated it was a union-bashing bill that would
also affect non-state workers. The way to get support of
union workers was not to undercut their union but to support
them on work place issues such as day care and health care
for spouses. He believed the bill was a violation of the
balance of power between the legislative and executive
branches and was inappropriate. He stated there would be a
return to a "cattle call approach" to bargaining, citing
pre-PERA history of bargaining with the legislature. The
bill was needlessly draconian, adversarial and violated
employer-employee contracts. He summarized that the bill
was a bad idea.
RICHARD ISETT, State Employee, Juneau, opposed the bill. It
was a mean-spirited, anti-collective bargaining bill that
reduced rights and did not encourage ethical conduct. He
believed SB 151 created an under-class comprised of public
employees and should be rejected.
KRISTENA EWING, President Local ASEA Chapter, Juneau,
testified that SB 151 was a punitive and unfair bill. It
did not provide equity to workers and was a regressive
process for representation. She opposed the bill.
DON ETHERIDGE, District Council of Laborers, Local #71,
testified in opposition. It did nothing good for members,
required additional paperwork for staff and reporting. He
encouraged the committee to look seriously at the bill and
then throw it away.
AL TRAGIS, ASEA Shop Steward, Juneau, opposed the bill. He
noted the grievance process didn't exist in the private
sector. The bill was atrocious compared to what was on the
books.
BEVERLY HOLT, ASEA Shop Steward, Juneau, testified that the
system in place was good. SB 151 would make a more
litigious system. She encouraged an up-front dialogue
before the bill was put in place.
COCHAIR SHARP stated that SB 151 would be HELD for
redrafting of amendments.
SENATOR DONLEY commented that he was not supportive of the
legislation, even though it was sponsored by the committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|