■ l a b o r - m a n a g e m e n t c o o p e r a t i o n & n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h u n i o n s ■ Unions and Collective Bargaining: A Prickly Situation for Many Organizations By Amanda Cuda | 10 | JULY <strong>2011</strong> <strong>HR</strong> NEWS MAGAZINE
■ l a b o r - m a n a g e m e n t c o o p e r a t i o n & n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h u n i o n s ■ When it comes to labor relations, William Prokop considers himself fairly lucky. Prokop, <strong>IPMA</strong>-CP, is assistant city manager in Keene, N.H. New Hampshire, like many states throughout the country, has been embroiled in a heated battle over labor <strong>issue</strong>s. At press time, New Hampshire’s state house had recently delayed a vote on whether to override Gov. John Lynch’s veto <strong>of</strong> the controversial “right-to-work” bill passed by the legislature earlier this year. The bill would prevent unions from collecting partial dues from nonmembers. Supporters <strong>of</strong> the bill say it prevents workers from being forced to join unions, while those who are opposed to it contend that court rulings prevent forced membership. It has been a contentious debate, but Prokop said he didn’t think the outcome would affect Keene much. In his city, he said, relationships between employers and the unions have always been strong, and he doesn’t expect the bill’s fate to change that. “Our collective bargaining relationships happen to be very strong and very good,” Prokop said. “Many places have had constant union problems, but I think that if both sides work to understand each other, you can have a good relationship.” Unfortunately, not all share his optimism. All over the country, many states are fighting battles over exactly how much negotiating power unions should have, and some wonder what the future <strong>of</strong> collective bargaining will look like. Debates All Over New Hampshire is only one <strong>of</strong> several states to mull a right-to-work bill, with others including Maine, Indiana and Missouri. More than 20 states have such laws in place already, but many <strong>of</strong> the right-towork bills being debated now are facing strong opposition. In most cases, the greatest animosity has been expressed by unions, who see right-to-work as an attack on organized labor. In Maine, hundreds <strong>of</strong> union workers from the public and private sector turned up to protest a public hearing on the bill in early June. Those who support the bill, however, said it could reap economic benefits for states that enact it. In his veto <strong>of</strong> the New Hampshire bill, Lynch argued that there wasn’t enough evidence <strong>of</strong> the bill’s economic benefits. But right-to-work is just one <strong>of</strong> many union-related controversies making the news these days. Many other states are considering bills that are viewed as anti-union by some, and as essential cost-saving measures by others. In Ohio, legislators passed a law in spring that effectively stripped most workers <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> their collective bargaining rights, and boosted health insurance and pension contributions by workers. As <strong>of</strong> press time, unions were still pushing to undo the Ohio legislation, collecting signatures in an attempt to force the <strong>issue</strong> to a referendum. In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Haslam recently signed <strong>of</strong>f on a bill repealing a 1978 measure mandating collective bargaining for public school teachers. That decision was made to the chagrin <strong>of</strong> members <strong>of</strong> the state’s education association, who argue that the legislation will make it harder for teachers to advocate for themselves. Nevada passed a state budget in early June that, among other things, allows local governments to reopen employee contracts during fiscal emergencies, and prohibits supervisors from collective bargaining. The budget also would eliminate retirement health insurance for state employees hired after Jan. 1, 2012. In Massachusetts, the House and Senate have approved separate but similar measures that would curb collective bargaining rights <strong>of</strong> units. Both plans would allow local <strong>of</strong>ficials, such as mayors, to move workers into the state’s health insurance plan. Officials would also have the option <strong>of</strong> designing their own plans. Though workers would have the opportunity to discuss any health insurance changes, the <strong>of</strong>ficials would have the final word on any new arrangement, even if the workers oppose it. Like most other plans that have been labeled “antiunion,” the Massachusetts plan aims to save money. “...employers would have to set policies about these conditions, which would be tricky.” One <strong>of</strong> the harshest battles over bargaining has taken place in Wisconsin, which, like Ohio, passed a bill limiting bargaining rights and raising worker contributions to health care and pension funds. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker pushed for the law as a way to help balance the state’s budget, but, as in other states, the legislation drew the ire <strong>of</strong> many. It particularly angered those who argued that Republican lawmakers, many <strong>of</strong> whom supported the bill, had violated the state’s open meetings law during the session that led to the bill’s passage. That debate led a circuit court judge to void the law in late May, ruling that the open meetings law had indeed been broken. However, as <strong>of</strong> early June, the law’s fate was still uncertain, with the Supreme Court slated to discuss whether to take up the ruling. Maria Monteagudo, employee relations director for the City <strong>of</strong> Milwaukee, Wisc., said, despite the circuit court ruling, she’s almost WWW.<strong>IPMA</strong>-<strong>HR</strong>.ORG JULY <strong>2011</strong> | 11 |
Change language