Collective bargaining changes pass House; Senate could consider measure Friday
2:36 PM
By Charlotte Eby Journal Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2008
DES MOINES -- Labor unions representing public employees could bring new concerns about working conditions to the bargaining table under a measure that passed the Iowa House today after an acrimonious debate.
Democrats who pushed the measure portrayed it as a modest change to the state’s collective bargaining laws that would expand the scope of negotiations to match laws in more than two dozen other states.
“All we’re doing is we’re giving public workers the same rights that they have in the private sector, to talk about various different subjects,” said Rep. Todd Taylor, D-Cedar Rapids, who guided debate on the bill.
The measure passed on a 52-47 vote, a razor-thin margin along party lines.
Republicans argued the bill takes decisions out of the hands of local school boards and government officials and would lead to a hike in property taxes.
GOP lawmakers also were angered the proposal was introduced the same week as debate began, giving the public little time to react.
“They want this on the governor’s desk before the public even knows what happened,” said House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.
The switchboard at the Capitol flooded with callers as word spread.
New topics that could be discussed in contract negotiations include discipline and discharge procedures, class sizes, staffing levels, and work equipment, among others.
The House stayed in session until about 2:30 a.m. today before returning this morning to finish debate. The bill is expected to be debated in the Iowa Senate later Friday.
Under Iowa law, public employee unions cannot strike if they fail to find an agreement on contract negotiations. Instead, differences are settled through arbitration.
School officials were at the Capitol this morning to try to convince lawmakers the proposal was a bad idea.
John Meyers, a school board member from Sioux City, said the way the bill was considered without public discussion was “not proper in the least bit.”
He said his district is already eliminating positions this year, both teachers and administrators, and the bill will only reduce the board’s ability to manage the district.
“It’s going to make it even harder for school boards to balance educational needs with the resources people can afford. That’s the bottom line,” Meyers said.
Meyers also disagrees with a provision that would allow the health insurance carrier to be a subject of bargaining. He recalled an instance when the district changed carriers despite opposition and saved $1 million without changing benefits.
“Under this bill we would not be able to do it, without giving the unions $1 million somewhere else,” Meyers said.
Dan Smith, executive director of the School Administrators of Iowa, said the organization has concerns about the bill and was surprised with how quickly it moved in the Legislature.
“We think it takes authority away from school boards, from elected representatives in local communities,” Smith said.
Democrats who pushed the measure portrayed it as a modest change to the state’s collective bargaining laws that would expand the scope of negotiations to match laws in more than two dozen other states.
“All we’re doing is we’re giving public workers the same rights that they have in the private sector, to talk about various different subjects,” said Rep. Todd Taylor, D-Cedar Rapids, who guided debate on the bill.
The measure passed on a 52-47 vote, a razor-thin margin along party lines.
Republicans argued the bill takes decisions out of the hands of local school boards and government officials and would lead to a hike in property taxes.
GOP lawmakers also were angered the proposal was introduced the same week as debate began, giving the public little time to react.
“They want this on the governor’s desk before the public even knows what happened,” said House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.
The switchboard at the Capitol flooded with callers as word spread.
New topics that could be discussed in contract negotiations include discipline and discharge procedures, class sizes, staffing levels, and work equipment, among others.
The House stayed in session until about 2:30 a.m. today before returning this morning to finish debate. The bill is expected to be debated in the Iowa Senate later Friday.
Under Iowa law, public employee unions cannot strike if they fail to find an agreement on contract negotiations. Instead, differences are settled through arbitration.
School officials were at the Capitol this morning to try to convince lawmakers the proposal was a bad idea.
John Meyers, a school board member from Sioux City, said the way the bill was considered without public discussion was “not proper in the least bit.”
He said his district is already eliminating positions this year, both teachers and administrators, and the bill will only reduce the board’s ability to manage the district.
“It’s going to make it even harder for school boards to balance educational needs with the resources people can afford. That’s the bottom line,” Meyers said.
Meyers also disagrees with a provision that would allow the health insurance carrier to be a subject of bargaining. He recalled an instance when the district changed carriers despite opposition and saved $1 million without changing benefits.
“Under this bill we would not be able to do it, without giving the unions $1 million somewhere else,” Meyers said.
Dan Smith, executive director of the School Administrators of Iowa, said the organization has concerns about the bill and was surprised with how quickly it moved in the Legislature.
“We think it takes authority away from school boards, from elected representatives in local communities,” Smith said.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
