The State of State Unions: A Year in Review

Posted on November 1, 2011 by Adam Santucci

This post was contributed by Tony D. Dick Esq., an Associate in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Practice Group in Columbus, Ohio.

Many watched intently in early February as the political theater unfolded in Madison, Wisconsin when Republican Governor Scott Walker proposed legislation to limit the collective bargaining rights of most state government employees. In a matter of days, the Capitol would be swarming with protesters and demonstrators on both sides of the issue. What followed was weeks of sit-ins in the Capitol, a mass walkout by all 14 Democratic State Senators to block a vote on the proposed law, the unprecedented recall elections of 6 Republican and 3 Democratic state lawmakers and a bitterly fought campaign to unseat an incumbent State Supreme Court Justice widely viewed as a pro-Walker.

Those in favor of public sector reform argue that collective bargaining limits are necessary to deal with steep budget shortfalls. Projections from Governor Walker’s office estimate that the state will save approximately $30 million this year as a direct result of the new law. On the other side, pro-union allies contend that moves like the one in Wisconsin are nothing more than a political power grab designed to bust up unions and cripple their longstanding support of Democratic candidates. Observers on both sides generally agree though that the movement to reform public sector collective bargaining rights has invigorated the debate on the role of unions in today’s uncertain economic climate.
 

Wisconsin’s law essentially limits collective bargaining for all state employees, except police officers, firefighters and state troopers, to negotiating wages. Essentially, state employees are limited to negotiating an increase in wages commensurate to the rise in inflation, unless voters approve additional wage increases through a referendum. In addition, state employees are required to contribute more toward their healthcare costs and pensions. And, under the law, unions can no longer require members to pay dues and must hold annual votes to maintain their status.

By March, even with the burgeoning protests in Wisconsin, 18 other states would follow its lead and propose various forms of legislation to curtail the collective bargaining powers of public unions. Of these 18 states, Ohio’s efforts have garnered the most media attention. Under Ohio’s Senate Bill 5, passed at the end of March, state employees would be required to contribute more of their salaries toward guaranteed pensions and healthcare costs. The bill also outlaws public sector strikes, bans binding arbitration, replaces a seniority system with merit-based pay for workers and gives counties and other legislative bodies, such as school boards, the final say on what offers to accept. If the legislative body refrains from selecting either side’s last best offer, the public employer’s final offer would win out.

In states like Indiana, Idaho and New Hampshire, less ambitious legislation has been introduced to curb state unions. The laws passed in Indiana and Idaho deal exclusively with narrowing the scope of collective bargaining rights for teachers. While in New Hampshire, the legislature is currently reconciling separate right-to-work bills passed in its House and Senate. The final bill would allow workers who opt out of a union to stop paying union fees.

Unions have not sat by idly following the wave of new legislation. The International Association of Fire Fighters announced in April that it will not support any federal candidates this election cycle as a protest against the collective bargaining laws. During the 2010 election cycle, it spent almost $15 million on behalf of federal candidates. In Ohio, in the months since the passage of Senate Bill 5, unions and their members have regrouped and worked to collect enough signatures to place a referendum on the ballot challenging the law. By mid-July, over 1.3 million Ohioans signed a petition to trigger a referendum. Issue 2 is officially on the ballot and will determine the fate of the law in Ohio going forward. Two weeks before the election, the latest polling data from Quinnipiac forecasts the likely repeal of Senate Bill 5 – 57 percent to 32 percent.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, the first rounds of collective bargaining under the new legislation have begun. The school board in Neenah, Wisconsin negotiated with teachers on the only matter that they are legally allowed to bargain for – a salary increase based on increased inflation. The pay increase for the teachers will not exceed 1.7 percent and they will see their benefits decrease by 4.3 percent. Teachers in Neenah will also pay more toward their health insurance premiums and pensions. The teachers reported that the school board negotiated fairly given the constraints of the new law.
 
Tags: , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

EFCA Resurrected: Pennsylvania Senator Specter switches Political Parties

Posted on April 28, 2009 by Michael Moore

Veteran Republican Senator Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a defection that will move Democrats closer to total control of the U.S. Senate. The switch may also revive EFCA in its original form despite Senator Specter's withdraw of support for the pro-union legislation last month. Senator Specter faces a difficult primary in Pennsylvania. 

Senator Specter was a co-sponsor of EFCA last year but withdrew his support.  In an announcement made on March 24, 2009, he proposed alternative amendments to the NLRA addressing his perceived issues in delays and problems with the unionization process.  His floor comments on his change of heart about EFCA will require some political backtracking, if he is now to support the measure consistent with his new party's position:

On the merits, the issue which has emerged at the top of the list for me is the elimination of the secret ballot which is the cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic society. The bill’s requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot live with. Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for collective bargaining which makes the employer liable only for a deal he or she agrees to. The arbitration provision could be substantially improved by the last best offer procedure which would limit the arbitrator’s discretion and prompt the parties to move to more reasonable positions. 

For now, EFCA in its original form, may have been given new life in the Senate.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Obama Victory may give rise to Unprecedented Unionization of the American Workplace

Posted on October 28, 2008 by Michael Moore

Union membership and the public perception of the role of labor unions are relatively unchanged in recent years. Union membership was up only slightly in 2007 based on a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, which published the following statistics on union membership:

     Percentage of unionized workforce
     Total - 12.5%
     Public sector - 36.5%
     Private sector - 7.8%

Public perceptions of unions is also remained constant. An annually conducted Gallop Poll shows a relatively constant union approval rating hovering around 60%, with only 22% of those polled feeling that unions would be “stronger” in the future.

The 2008 Election may dramatically change the landscape of U.S. labor relations with a reinvigoration of organized labor. The following influence could align to compel unprecedented unionization:

  • Payback to Union Supporters: Democratic candidates received substantial support from organized labor both financially and in getting out the vote. This support will garner political power, which will likely translate into a pro-union legislative agenda.
  • Uncontested Legislative Agenda: Senator Obama is the cosponsor of the EFCA and RESPECT Act both of which are strongly supported by unions. A Democratic majority in the House and Senate will pave the way for an uncontested legislative agenda that will likely include these laws. Republicans could be unable to slow the process down using a “filibuster” if the Democrats secure a 60-seat majority in the Senate to invoke cloture on floor debates.
  • Economic Woes: The economy downturn will continue to hurt businesses making necessary reductions in force, smaller paychecks and other cuts in benefits. The promises of job security and better wages are typical union themes. Nervous workers may turn to unions for help.  Traditionally, unions were forced to the bargaining table where strikes were their primary weapon to put economic pressure on an employer. The historic economic balance between unions and employers will be upset by passage of the EFCA, which mandates arbitrator-crafted contracts within 120 days after initial union recognition.
  • Unprepared Employers: Passage or the RESPECT Act and the EFCA would be a one-two punch for which many employers will be grossly unprepared. RESPECT would make many working supervisors eligible to unionize and to assist a union in collecting cards and other organizing activities. Employers would be unable to use these working supervisors as advocates for their union-free message or to collect intelligence on organizing activities. The EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot and mandate first contracts through arbitration.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,