HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
May 20, 2003 Hearing Room E
3:00 P.M. Tapes 67 - 68
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Tim Knopp, Chair
Rep. Alan Brown, Vice-Chair
Rep. Deborah Kafoury, Vice-Chair
Rep. Jeff Barker
Rep. Greg Macpherson
Rep. Mary Nolan
Rep. Dennis Richardson
Rep. Wayne Scott
MEMBER EXCUSED: Rep. Tom Butler
STAFF PRESENT: Cara
Filsinger, Administrator
Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB 2978 – Public Hearing
HB 2979 – Public Hearing
HB 2980 – Public Hearing
HB 2981 – Public Hearing
These minutes are in
compliance with Senate and House Rules.
Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact
words. For complete contents,
please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
Tape 67, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Knopp |
Calls meeting to order at 3:13 p.m. and opens public
hearings on HB 2978, HB 2979, HB 2980 and HB 2981. |
|
HB
2978, HB 2979, HB 2980, HB 2981 – PUBLIC HEARINGS |
||
|
009 |
Margaret Hallock |
Department of Administrative Services (DAS). States they have serious reservations
about the bills. They believe the
bills are counter productive and will not cause labor relations to go any
more smoothly and believe the end result could be quite disruptive. Believes that over the next few years
labor-management negotiations will be fragile enough in Oregon because of the
many changes that have already been enacted and the economic climate. They feel the best place to resolve the
remaining issues is at the bargaining table and further changes to the
collective bargaining statutes should not be made. |
|
030 |
John Marshall |
Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA). Testifies in support of all four bills. Comments
on school boards’ responsibility to bargain with their employees and employee
representatives when asked to do so.
There are 198 school districts of which 178 have contracts with their
licensed and classified employees.
There are over 350 collective bargaining agreements in place, not
including 21 education service districts (ESD) or 17 community colleges, many
of whom have two or more collective bargaining agreements. They believe these bill will make the
existing collective bargaining process a smoother, more streamline, and less
expensive. States they have written
testimony outlining the provisions of the four bills and their rationale for
support (EXHIBIT A). Asks that Rom Wilson be allowed to
explain the bills. |
|
048 |
Ron Wilson |
Director, Human Resource Development, OSBA. Comments on time required to bargain contracts
and the expense of bargaining. Comments
on HB 2978 (EXHIBIT A, page 1). |
|
090 |
Wilson |
Comments on HB 2979 (EXHIBIT A, page 3). |
|
132 |
Wilson |
Comments on HB 2980 (EXHIBIT A, page 4). |
|
|
Chair Knopp |
Asks if there is one place a person can go to see
all the contracts. |
|
|
Wilson |
Explains that their office has a library that
includes all contracts, including contracts of ESDs and community
colleges. Adds that the contracts
would be available to anybody under the public information request process,
and they would provide specific language if the committee wishes. |
|
159 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Comments on actions affecting the statutorily
required benefits for public employees, and states that it seems the
collective bargaining rights are the last protection for the employees. Asks if this is the right time to be bringing
this package forward. |
|
178 |
Wilson |
Responds that the bills talk about changes to the bargaining
process; they do not dictate a particular result. The bills are referring those decisions back to the bargaining process. HB 2978 is about making the process more
efficient for both parties. The
second bill, by modifying the statute on step increases, refers it back to
bargaining, and HB 2980 does the same thing.
The bills are responsive changes that are needed because of the
current situation and not all change comes at a pace we would like, but
thinks these changes are necessary. |
|
210 |
Rep. Macpherson |
Asks if it is a fair generalization to say that all
four of these bills change the landscape of bargaining in a way that is less
favorable to public employees. |
|
|
Wilson |
States he would disagree. It does change the landscape and the rules but it doesn’t
prejudice public employees in the process; it forces both parties to be more
efficient. |
|
221 |
Rep. Barker |
Comments that Wilson is complaining that it takes too
long to bargain a contract, and then they want to double the time by saying
in an economic situation they would go back to negotiations. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds that he does not believe that the effect of
HB 2980 would be to double the time. Comments
on reopening contracts in Tillamook. |
|
246 |
Rep. Barker |
Asks if this applies to all public employees, not
just teachers. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds affirmatively. |
|
249 |
Rep. Barker |
Comments that if some are agreeing to reopen their
contracts he does not see why it should be imposed on everybody. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds that he thinks this provides a much more
positive tool that the parties can use to refine the problem-solving
solutions at the bargaining table. |
|
|
Rep. Barker |
Comments on serving on a negotiating team and
reaching a settlement, then the organization finding millions of
dollars. Asks if unions should have
automatic re-opener for more wages if the economic times improve. |
|
270 |
Wilson |
Responds that he doesn’t think it is realistic to
expect a windfall, but some windfall agreements do occur. |
|
285 |
Rep. Barker |
Asks if this is for only a short time. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds that the bills do not address how long the
statutes would be in place. |
|
291 |
Rep. Barker |
Gives example of City of Portland giving money to
Dignity Village. Asks if the city could say they don’t have any money because
they gave it to somebody else. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds he is not that familiar with City of
Portland bargaining. This bill talks
about a revenue shortfall not an expenditure or allocation shortfall. Believes the answer would be no. |
|
|
Rep. Barker |
Comments this just seems to be a stacking on now
because we are in tough economic times.
Comments on SB 750 (1995). |
|
325 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks if it would not be more efficient, rather than
doing away with or prohibiting a coalition of local labor unions, to have a
coalition of school that would represent the schools in the Southern Oregon
Bargaining Council and enter into agreements that would cover that region. |
|
339 |
Wilson |
Responds that some of his attorney friends have
indicated that such a coalition would probably not be supported by the
current statutory structure. One of
the observations is that better decisions are made at the local level. On the basis of a public policy
perspective, these detailed decisions are best made at the most local
level. |
|
|
Rep. Richardson |
Comments on serving on local budget committee while
not knowing how much would be funded by the state. Adds there is discussion of having statewide bargaining since
the funds are state controlled. |
|
412 |
John Marshall |
Comments that they have dealt with this issue since
Measure 5 passed. The question is how
to balance the legislature and its fiduciary responsibility to assure the
state money allocated to schools goes where the legislature thinks it ought
to go. Comments on state-wide
bargaining. They believe allowing
local citizens to sit down with their employees in their community and work
out agreements relative to salaries, benefits, and conditions of employment
works well. They are suggesting here
that they believe they have identified some ways to make that more efficient,
streamlined, less expensive, less burdensome, and less cumbersome. |
|
TAPE 68, A |
||
|
008 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks what, under HB 2979, would prevent an employer
from dragging its feet to withhold step and merit increases from its
employees. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds that he thinks this bill takes away the
public policy statement that grants automatic pay increases; this bill would
put it back on the bargaining table. |
|
039 |
Rep. Nolan |
States the step increases are already in collective
bargained agreements. |
|
|
Wilson |
Responds that this, as a statute, would impose that
on a collective bargaining agreement, when the agreement doesn’t necessarily
address that issue. |
|
054 |
Rep. Nolan |
Comments that she is hearing that the step increases
are now in collective bargaining agreements and Wilson is advocating that we
take them out and that the legislature should dictate how that should happen. |
|
|
Wilson |
States there are different levels of complexity;
much more time than the 100 hours is involved. It is 100 hours of all those involved. Believes that bargaining counsels make the
process more complicated and less efficient.
|
|
113 |
Rep. Nolan |
Asks if Wilson advises school districts on negotiations
and provides certain services. States
that while they don’t call themselves a coalition, they have an association
of employers and Wilson is serving very much the same function of a coalition
for the employers. Asks why it is
fair to let him provide those services and not allow the employees to do the
same thing by pooling their resources. |
|
129 |
Wilson |
States they do provide negotiating services and
consultation for school districts, and they will represent school districts at
the bargaining table as the chief spokesperson, but they do not represent all
the school districts. The districts
have private attorneys and labor consultants that provide that service. OSBA does it for 45-50 districts at
various levels. When they provide
service to a local district, they are not representing OSBA and they do not
have a statewide bargaining policy; they are representing the local school
board. They try to do the opposite of
what a coalition would—they try not to bring an outside agenda to a local
negotiation. |
|
148 |
Tricia Bosak |
Oregon Education Association (OEA). States they are in opposition to all four
bills. These are not new
concepts. Many were discussed and
discarded in 1995 in SB 750 and in 1977 in SB 650. HB 2980 seems to be a reaction to the current fiscal condition. States they are concerned about the
implications and these proposals would be a part of the Collective Bargaining
Act for all time. They see all the
changes as impractical or unnecessary.
These bills upset the balance between employers and employees. Introduces Diane Trainque, a negotiator
for OEA. |
|
196 |
Diane Trainque |
OEA Negotiator.
Testifies in opposition to HB 2978, HB 2979, HB 2980, and HB
2981. States that ORS 243.656 is the
policy statement and is an important piece of why they oppose all four bills
before the committee. |
|
205 |
Trainque |
Comments on HB 2978 and interim bargaining. States that the ability to reach a
peaceful settlement is dependent on good faith. Suggests that if someone wants to make bargaining more
efficient, it might be to impose upon the parties a minimum number of hours they
must come together. If the school
district was willing to promise 100 hours at the bargaining table talking in
good faith, she would then be willing to shorten the timelines even further. Timelines are not the answer and will not
change whether or not the parties enter into the process in good faith. States there were a few school districts
that bargained for a long time. The
reality is each year there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 to 100
contracts bargained in school districts and the vast majority are bargained
without going to mediation and they hope everything is not changed because of
a few bad examples. |
|
276 |
Trainque |
Comments on HB 2979 relating to merit and longevity
steps. Explains that putting steps
into the contract was a way to save school districts money and allowed
teachers to gradually move up to a professional or contract-level
salary. States that the experience
step for the last year of a current agreement is earned inside that year
under the terms of the old agreement.
To prevent the teacher or any member of the bargaining unit from
taking that step the next year would be to deny them a benefit they already
earned the previous year. |
|
298 |
Trainque |
Comments on HB 2980 relating to revenue shortfall. States that if a district can declare they
have a financial emergency, it does not give them a lot of motivation to
spend their money as wisely as possibly.
They would be concerned about the shift in balance that could occur if
the districts could make these kinds of unilateral decisions. States there are also practical
problems. If there is disagreement
about whether the district meets the conditions or terms set up in the
statute, who would resolve the dispute, and how long will the dispute take
before bargaining can get back on track.
Believes this will delay bargaining and make it more difficult. It will not provide an atmosphere of trust
between the parties. |
|
340 |
Trainque |
Comments on H 2981 relating to the coalition of
labor organizations. Comments on
structures and benefits of bargaining councils. |
|
368 |
Rep. Barker |
Comments this would seem to be detrimental to the
moral of the public employees. |
|
|
Trainque |
Agrees. States
that the process is not broken and does not need to be fixed. |
|
409 |
Mary Botkin |
American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) Council 75.
Explains AFSCME’s bargaining process and states they do not believe it
makes sense to create timelines. States
that the Employment Relations Board (ERB) would not be able to meet the
timelines. |
|
TAPE 67, B |
||
|
020 |
Botkin |
Comments on HB 2979. States there are processes that say if you are dragging your
feet at the bargaining table, you are guilty of an unfair labor practice of
bargaining in bad faith; it is against the rules. States she cannot imagine a union dragging its feet so their
employees would get a step increase.
Even under the most contentious circumstance it would make no sense. |
|
032 |
Botkin |
Comments on HB 2980 relating to reopening contracts
in an economic downturn. States they
do it all the time. States that the
only time they came close to striking in Portland was when the mayor gave all
the money away and when they went to the bargaining table, the mayor said
there was no money. This is a process
which is fraught with potential problems of the employers acting in bad
faith. |
|
068 |
Botkin |
Comments on HB 2981. The City of Portland can bargain nine contracts instead of
one. States that in rural contracts
they do coalition bargaining.
Explains that it saves money, time, and meets the needs of
everyone. States that for the State
of Oregon contracts they have a central table bargaining where they bargain
for every state agency they represent.
|
|
110 |
Rob Wagner |
American Federation of Teachers of Oregon (AFT of
Oregon). States they are opposed to all
the bills. Comments that they feel HB
2979 and HB 2980 tilt the table toward management and poison the bargaining
environment. States that as he reads
the statute nothing prohibits mutual agreement to freeze steps pending the
next contract. Reads language in HB
2979, on page 2 in line 10. The
effect of the bill is to statutorily prohibit steps and takes the issue away
from the bargaining table. |
|
132 |
Wagner |
States they had a situation with their Portland
Community College faculty in the 1980s where the steps were frozen despite
the fact it was in the collective bargaining agreement that steps would be
honored. They sued and won on an unfair
labor practice claim. The employer
had to go back and recalculate the additional earnings consistent with the
bargaining agreement. |
|
145 |
Wagner |
States there is nothing that prohibits an agreement
to reopen a collective bargaining agreement in times of financial exigency.
Explains they have several contracts that could be reopened. Adds that there is no definition of “unexpected
revenue shortfall.” |
|
169 |
Wagner |
States that the last two bills do not directly
affect their people and believes the timeline piece has been well
stated. Believes the bills are a
poison pill. |
|
177 |
Tricia Smith |
Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA). States they are also opposed to all the
bills. States they negotiate
approximately 50 public sector new and successor labor contracts each year
and on average their union is involved in 10 expedited collective bargaining
negotiations each year that modify or add new language to an existing
contract. HB 2978 is counter
productive. Artificial timelines for
completion of the collective bargaining process will not produce faster nor
better agreements between the parties; it will only produce a more
contentious setting in which to try to make agreements. |
|
224 |
Smith |
States their members feel these bills are a fine way
to thank them for coming to the table as often as they have to help employers
try to stabilize and manage their budgets in a reasonable way. It is difficult for members to do that and
then have bills like this come forward that appear to be motivated by a sense
that they are not doing their part, which they feel they are. |
|
234 |
Smith |
Comments that HB 2979 is interesting because merit
pay and longevity pay schedules are not the first choice of labor. Believes they were put into place to allow
the employer to work into market wages for their employees. For the employers to now say they don’t
want to pay these step increases when they have already been negotiated and
earned by the people is inappropriate.
If the employers don’t like merit and step raises then they should go
to a market rate for wages and skip the five-year lead in to the actual wage,
which is the top step. |
|
259 |
Smith |
States they do not understand HB 2980 at all. Asks what “unexpected” revenue shortfall
is. |
|
279 |
Smith |
States that OSEA does not have bargaining
councils. They do not see a need for
this bill. Believes the City of
Portland is a perfect example for why bargaining councils are a good idea. |
|
300 |
Brian Delashmutt |
States that all of his clients are against all of these
bills. |
|
310 |
Chair Knopp |
Closes the public hearings on HB 2978, HB 2979, HB
2980, and HB 2981. |
|
317 |
Chair Knopp |
Adjourns the meeting at 4:30 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A – HB 2978, HB 2979, HB 2980 & HB
2981, prepared statement, John Marshall & Ron Wilson, 6 pp