OTTUMWA — The union bargaining bill allowing public employees to negotiate more issues in their contracts has some in city government worried about the burden on taxpayers.

“I hope the governor vetoes it,” said Ottumwa City Administrator Joe Helfenberger. “We’ll be communicating with the governor and making our opinion known to him. Then we’ll see what happens.”

The proposed bill, which has passed in both the Iowa House and Senate, would take certain conditions of employment and make them a required part of contract negotiations, not “optional.” For example, workers are not allowed to negotiate what happens to their health insurance if they take early retirement or why workers can be fired unless management agrees it can be part of negotiations.

The bill, if signed into law, would make these terms a mandatory subject of discussion.

“This prevents employers from holding certain topics of negotiation hostage and refusing to even discuss it,” said Steve Siegel.

Siegel is in the somewhat unusual position of being able to see the issue from two sides. As a Wapello County supervisor, his job is to help hire employees at a contracted rate that is good for the county.

But in his other job as a union representative, he negotiates for employees — sometimes across the table from Iowa county supervisors — to get the workers what they need.

Siegel pointed out that he does not represent employees covered by his union in their negotiations or grievances with Wapello County.

“I do think it’s necessary,” said Siegel. “From my position as a union rep, several of the employers I have dealt with have consistently not allowed discipline and discharge to even [be discussed] during bargaining.”

A contract could say employees can be terminated for reasons spelled out in writing.

With that in the contract, he said, “you’ve got to have good reason to fire someone — but if you don’t have language like that, you’re an at-will employee and can be discharged for any reason. Now it [could become] a mandatory subject of bargaining. ”

“It requires both parties to discuss new things, but it doesn’t mean [those things must be] part of the final contract,” said state Rep. Mary Gaskill, D-Ottumwa.

Like any negotiations, Gaskill said, there is compromise on both sides.

But Helfenberger is still worried.

“There isn’t as much give and take as legislators assume there is,” he said. “I’ve encountered more compromise in Wisconsin with labor unions [where] they do not have this bill.”