http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/2 ... -would-end
For irony factor, i will quote Ronald Reagan...Unions: Bargaining would end
Plan: at-will status if contract expires
By Karen Langley / Monitor staff
March 24, 2011
Union leaders and Gov. John Lynch said yesterday that a change the House Finance Committee made to a budget bill would effectively end collective bargaining for public employees in New Hampshire.
The provision would give public employers full authority to determine employee wages, benefits and terms of employment after a contract expires. The workers would continue as at-will employees until a new contract was reached. Republican lawmakers approved the change to collective bargaining laws Tuesday evening as an amendment to a budget bill. Rep. Neal Kurk, who introduced the amendment, said the threat of losing contractual protections would moderate union demands, leading to less expensive contracts.
Yesterday, the leaders of state labor unions denounced the proposal. Mark MacKenzie, president of the New Hampshire AFL-CIO, called the amendment an "unprecedented attack" on public workers and called on House lawmakers to remove the provision.
The amendment would apply to all public employees, including state and county workers, teachers, police officers and firefighters. Unions put the number of workers at roughly 70,000.
The provision does not in itself end collective bargaining for public employees. But by voiding the terms of an expired contract, the provision would allow employers to wait out negotiations and then pay workers whatever they like, said David Lang, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire.
"Why would you have a mutual agreement when you knew full well at midnight at the end of the month you could do whatever you wanted?" Lang said.
The governor said yesterday he opposes the provision because it would effectively end collective bargaining in the state. But Lynch, a Democrat, said he would have to see the proposal in its final form before deciding if he would veto it.
"I think the employees have a right to bargain collectively," Lynch said. "I think this amendment would effectively end collective bargaining in New Hampshire, and I don't support it."
Democrats and union officials said the proposal would go further to curtail collective bargaining for public employees than the new law in Wisconsin, the proposal of which set off weeks of vigorous protests in Madison and prompted Democratic state senators to flee the state in an effort to forestall its passage.
That law limits collective bargaining to wages, with raises limited to inflation, and increases employee payments for health insurance and pensions. It also ends the automatic collection of union dues from paychecks and requires most unions to hold annual votes asking if members still want to belong.
Lang called the House proposal "Wisconsin on steroids." Rhonda Wesolowski, president of the state affiliate of the National Education Association, said it was "much worse" than the Wisconsin law.
"In Wisconsin, the workers were allowed to keep their benefits," Wesolowski said. "Here, we would become employees at will. You don't even know if you would have a job, much less benefits."
Kurk, a Weare Republican, vigorously denied that the proposal would curtail collective bargaining.
"This is not like Wisconsin," Kurk said. "This does not affect collective bargaining. This does not eliminate unions."
Instead, Kurk said, the proposal allows government employers to change the conditions of a contract once it expires. Union officials who claim employees could forgo a contract so they could unilaterally determine worker compensation and conditions are describing "what is theoretically possible under the amendment," Kurk said, rather than what actually would happen. Government executives would be fair to their workers, he said.
Employers are unlikely to change worker salaries, Kurk said, but likely would change "the overly generous pension provisions and the overly generous health care provisions that our taxpayers are being asked to pay for." He said that the average pay for a public worker is $46,000 but that when benefits are included the compensation package totals $69,920. (next page »)
In the end, Kurk said, he believes the threat of becoming at-will employees would prompt workers to agree to less expensive benefits.
"I think we're going to get contracts signed to make sure that never occurs," he said. "To make sure those contracts are signed, the unions will moderate some of their demands."
Union representatives and Democrats also criticized the committee for attaching the proposed change to a budget bill during an evening work session without prior notice. MacKenzie, of the AFL-CIO, said lawmakers had reverted to "political gamesmanship."
"You don't put major pieces of legislation and put them in a budget bill in the dark of night without public hearings," he said.
All six Democrats on the House Finance Committee voted against the proposal, along with one Republican, Rep. Lee Quandt of Exeter. Democratic Reps. Randy Foose of New London and Cindy Rosenwald of Nashua said members of their party had not known the proposal was coming.
"The arrogance of the majority party is on display every day," Foose said.
House Speaker William O'Brien defended how the proposal was added, saying in a statement that "this process is completely transparent and completely within normal procedure." O'Brien said the bill had yet to reach the House floor, the Senate or a committee of budget negotiators.
O'Brien said the proposal would allow employers to control costs. Otherwise, the state would have to lay off between 350 and 500 workers to pay for a cut of $50 million to employee health benefits, he said.
"The House included this provision as an incentive to bring the union to the table and get a deal done that protects the taxpayers," O'Brien said.
Rep. Kenneth Weyler, chairman of the Finance Committee, said that public workers have become a "favored class" and that citizens want a change.
"The people paying for it are getting tired of it," Weyler said. "They're saying, 'Why are teachers getting so much money?' "
Weyler, a Republican from Kingston, called it a "gross exaggeration" to say the provision would lead to the end of collective bargaining. He said employers would offer reasonable terms or see productivity suffer, or work stop.
"If you try to impose something so odious, people are going to call in sick or drag their feet going to the job," he said. "It would lead to illegal actions, but they are likely to happen if people get obstinate."
As an airline pilot for 30 years, before his retirement, Weyler said he was furloughed, put on half-pay and worked at-will between contracts. He said such provisions are part of many agreements.
"Sometimes there's more realism for the employer than there is for the employee," Weyler said. "The union, often all they know is 'more,' while the employer has to stay in business."
Tom Messina, a sergeant at the state prison in Concord, said he was angered to learn of the vote. For workers, Messina said, the continuous proposals to cut spending translate into a charge that they're not doing their jobs. He suggested lawmakers should re-evaluate sentencing guidelines if they want to save money.
"I could care less who we lock up and who we don't lock up," Messina said. "But if the Legislature wants to lock everybody up and throw away the key, then they've got to pay for it."
The House Finance Committee is scheduled to finalize its budget proposal today.
Kurk assures us he doesn't want to use the giant stick, just have it ready nearby,where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.
