Worries on union bargaining

By MARK NEWMAN Courier staff writer

March 25, 2008 11:27 pm

— 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.”
Siegel has heard various concerns.
“A lot of claims have been made that this is going to raise property tax rates and cost people millions of dollars,” Siegel said. “I don’t see it. And I don’t look for this to be a big-cost item for Wapello County. ”
There may not be much more cost, said state Sen. Becky Schmitz, D-Fairfield.
“My viewpoint is it’s healthy for the employees and the employers so they can have a discussion. And it doesn’t mean either party is bound; it just means they’ll discuss it. It shows respect for public employees.”
Maybe employee pay expenses won’t jump, but there are other things to consider, said Helfenberger.
For example, preparing for negotiations may soon require more time consulting with labor attorneys, he said.
“Anytime there is additional administrative costs, it reflects on the cost to taxpayers,” he said. “Every little thing adds up; why raise an expense? The city needs tools to work with controlling those costs, and the state seems to be taking those tools away.”
“I believe open-scope bargaining for public employees is the right thing to do,” said Gaskill. “It’s good for the middle class.”
“If there was a major problem, I’m all for fixing it,” said Helfenberger. “There wasn’t an apparent need for the legislation. It appeared politically motivated.”
Media reports claim Gov. Chet Culver and Iowa Democrats received a large base of support from unions representing public employees. The only support in the General Assembly for the new law comes from Democrats.
Yet the governor is now echoing some of the worries first stated by local officials.
“I want to be clear that there is a strong possibility I will veto this bill if a real effort to listen to the concerns of Iowans, local elected officials and government stakeholders at all levels does not take place,” Culver said in a statement Tuesday.
Helfenberger made no secret of his concerns.
“There should be more of a public input process for these types of issues. The way it was rammed through at 2 a.m.,” said Helfenberger, “seems counter to the way of our democracy. There should be plenty of time for public debate, and that did not seem to happen here.”
Both Schmitz and Gaskill said there was extensive discussion on the subject in the House and the Senate, and Schmitz said senators have spoken with their constituents.
Gaskill said House Democrats are hoping to “work with the governor’s office.” He was unavailable last week, and she thinks once he gets “caught up,” he may be more supportive of the bill.
In the meantime, Culver seems to be asking legislators to hit the phones.
“While I believe it is healthy to discuss important issues such as collective bargaining,” the governor stated, “I have serious concerns about the speed at which this bill was moved through the Legislature. It is simply common sense to allow the public time to weigh in as the Legislature considers changing Iowa’s collective bargaining law for the first time in more than 30 years.”
Mark Newman can be reached at 683-5358 or by e-mail at mgnewman@mchsi.com.