Union negotiations could lead to taxpayer funded benefits

Font Size:

By Ed Tibbetts and Dan Gearino | Monday, March 24, 2008 |

DES MOINES — A hotly contested proposal dealing with public-sector unions is on its way to Iowa Gov. Chet Culver.

The Senate passed the bill 27-23 Monday night, after six hours of acrimonious debate. The measure would expand the list of topics that can be part of contract negotiations.

Culver, a Democrat, has given no indication whether he will sign or veto the bill. His clearest statement on the proposal was Monday morning, right before the debate began, when he raised concerns that his fellow Democrats were moving too quickly.

“I believe it’s crystal clear more time is necessary for all Iowans to have a chance to better understand this proposed legislation and be more involved in the process,” Culver said.

Despite this admonition, Senate leaders moved ahead and passed the bill. The vote was largely along party lines, with all but three Democrats voting for it and all Republicans voting against it.

The bill has captivated the Statehouse since House Democrats released the details last Tuesday. The measure passed the House on Thursday afternoon, after a marathon debate took up large parts of two days.

The Senate was set to take up the measure on that same Thursday, but Republicans walked off the floor and refused to come back until the debate was postponed.

The most controversial element is a switch to so-called “open-scope” negotiations.

Current law lists a fixed number of items that can be part of contract negotiations; nearly all of the items deal with salary or benefits. The bill would expand the list to include nearly anything related to working conditions, including class size for teachers and uniforms for public safety officers.

Supporters describe the bill as a minor change. They point to 27 other states that have similar rules, including Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska.

“This legislation lifts restrictions on what can be negotiated,” said Sen. Dick Dearden, D-Des Moines, one of the lead sponsors. “It does not mandate a result to those negotiations.”

Opponents warned that the bill would give unions too much power, which would lead to property tax increases. However, neither side had estimates about the cost.

The debate has led to some strange bedfellows. Groups that traditionally work well with Democrats — such as school boards and city governments — have joined Republicans in opposing the bill. Some of those school board members and city officials are Democrats, such as Davenport Mayor Bill Gluba.

“I have always opposed, and will continue to do so in the future, all unfunded state mandates,” Gluba said in a letter to legislators.

When asked about Gluba’s letter, Dearden said, “I would probably say that Mayor Gluba has not read the bill.”

The strangest bedfellow of all may be Culver, whose statement Monday was remarkably similar to arguments made by Republican legislators.

“I applaud Gov. Culver for singing the chorus with Senate Republicans,” said Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City.

Culver was vacationing in Florida last week when the debate began.

The bill’s biggest advocates are public-sector unions such as the American Federation of State, Council and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME. Danny Homan, president of AFSCME Council 61, framed the issue as a matter of fairness.

“This bill will allow union representatives to sit at a table with management and truly have a level playing field for the first time,” he said.

The bill would revise the landmark 1974 law known as Chapter 20, a reference to its place in the Iowa Code. The law codified the right of public-employee unions to collective bargaining and stipulated that binding arbitration would be used to resolve prolonged contract disputes. In exchange for those pro-labor provisions, public employees lost the right to go on strike.

Sen. Mike Connolly, D-Dubuque, a retired teacher, said the 1974 law was a great step forward. He thinks the current bill is another positive step.

“When I first started teaching, there was no collective bargaining,” he said. “You would go to the board and kind of beg for a raise.”

Sen. Frank Wood, D-Eldridge, is the only senator who is also a school administrator. He said he had strong reservations about the way the bill would affect his workplace, North Scott High School, where he is an assistant principal. He was one of the three Democrats in the “no” column.

“It’s a tough one,” Wood said.

The next question is whether Culver will sign the bill. His spokesman, Brad Anderson, said in a statement that the Senate’s decision to go ahead with debate was “premature” and “unwarranted.”

“It would be a mistake to ignore (Culver’s) concerns regarding this legislation,” Anderson said.

And yet, legislative Democrats said they expect Culver to sign it. They cite his background as a public school teacher and his prominence in a party that has strong ties to organized labor.

“He’s running on the Democratic ticket, I presume,” said Senate President Jack Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg.

Dan Gearino can be contacted at (515) 243-0138 and dan.gearino@lee.net.

More Information:

Current law says the following 16 items can be part of contract negotiations for unionized public employees. Other items can be discussed as long as both sides agree to expand the scope of negotiations.

* Wages

* Hours

* Vacations

* Insurance

* Holidays

* Leaves of absence

* Shift differentials

* Overtime compensation

* Supplemental pay

* Seniority

* Transfer procedures

* Job classifications

* Health and safety matters

* Evaluation procedures

* Procedures for staff reduction

* In-service training

The proposal passed by the Senate on Monday would expand the list to include anything that either side wishes to make part of negotiations, a provision known as “open-scope” bargaining. The bill lists examples of issues that may be raised, although the list can include anything related to working conditions.

* Preparation time

* Class size

* Discipline and discharge

* Work equipment and uniforms

* Staffing levels

* Retirement systems

Sources: Iowa Code, House File 2645

ROLL CALL

QUAD CITIES:

Voting yes

Sen. Roger Stewart, D-Preston

Sen. Joe Seng, D-Davenport

Voting no

Sen. Frank Wood, D-Eldridge

Sen. Jim Hahn, R-Muscatine

Sen. David Hartsuch, R-Bettendorf

Local government officials in the Iowa Quad-Cities are warning a new measure to lay more items on the bargaining table for union negotiations will inevitably lead to an expansion of taxpayer-funded benefits for public workers.

However, union leaders and two specialists on labor relations say those worries are exaggerated.

For almost a week, the state’s political waters have been roiled by the plan to change the law governing how public bodies and their employee unions bargain.

The House passed the bill last week. The Senate passed it Monday, sending the plan to Gov Chet Culver for consideration.

Currently, Iowa law requires that such items as wages, hours, insurance, shifts, procedures and overtime be subject for negotiation.

The new law would expand that list of “mandatory” subjects to include such things as class size, staffing levels and retirement systems. Even the choice of a government’s insurance carrier is included.

“To include those kinds of operating protocols within a collective bargaining agreement is just inappropriate, and it could be costly,” said Tim Dose, superintendent of the North Scott School District.

Even traditionally union-friendly political figures in the Quad-Cities objected to the changes.

Davenport Mayor Bill Gluba wrote a letter Monday, saying the measure would have a “significant” effect on city taxpayers.

Greg Jager, Bettendorf’s city attorney and its lead negotiator, said the bill is a recipe for greater taxpayer-funded benefits because arbitrators who settle disputes base their decisions on what other comparable governments are doing and the cost.

“It opens the door,” he said. And once that door is open, he said, the benefits will inevitably grow.

“That which has been bargained for in the past has been set in stone,” Jager said. “You’re only bargaining for how much more is going to be decided on in the upcoming contract.”

Union officials say the idea that benefits won are never surrendered is false.

They say unions have given back on health insurance. And, they say, most other states with public bargaining laws have an expanded list of mandatory subjects.

“It hasn’t bankrupted Illinois or Wisconsin or the 25 other states,” said Brad Hudson, administrative lobbyist for the Iowa State Education Association.

He added that expanding the list of “mandatory” subjects to include class sizes, for example, will prevent districts from delaying the hiring of assistants to help with large class sizes.

“It allows us to have some enforcement vehicle,” Hudson said.

Ronald Seeber, a professor of industrial and labor relations at Cornell University in New York, said he doubts there would be much difference.

“In a mature system like Iowa, I don’t think it’s going to have a heck of a lot of impact,” he said.

Instead, he said, governments will simply have to base their arguments to an arbitrator more heavily on their ability to pay. That ability to pay and the public’s interest are also areas that must be considered by an arbitrator, labor specialists said.

“They can’t use the law to resist, they have to resist themselves,” Seeber said.

Peter Orazem, the director of the industrial relations program at Iowa State University, said most of these items are already on the table in private-sector negotiations.

There may be gains in areas such as wages, he said, but “in most cases, it’s not going to make that much of a difference.”

The areas where it most likely be felt, he said, would be in small school districts locked into certain staffing levels but facing shrinking enrollments.

“Where it’s going to make a difference is where management thinks they’re going to have greater demand than they actually do,” he said.

Ed Tibbetts can be contacted at (563) 383-2327 or etibbetts@qctimes.com.