If anyone is functioning under the happy delusion that the current session of Nevada’s Assembled Wisdom is intent upon securing the happiness of the middle class – look no further than AB 182.
“It would clarify the rules that exclude supervisors from collective bargaining, prohibit using government funds to pay employees engaged in union activities, require employees to seek union deductions before they would be collected by a government entity, and make agreements retroactive to the date of the expiration of the previous contract. It would also require a final contract offer to be made public, among other provisions.” [LVRJ]
Welcome to the re-labeled world of corporate sponsored legislation as defined by ALEC and the related ACCE. The “public final offer” part is straight out of ALEC model legislation. This has not been overlooked:
“ACCE’s first meeting coincided with ALEC’s national conference. One workshop topic was “releasing local governments from the grip of collective bargaining.” Another report discusses the conservative Heritage Foundation’s plan for localities across the country to experiment with “local” right-to-work initiatives. Heritage predicts that these experiments could provoke a legal challenge ending up in the hands of the US Supreme Court, which they hope will effectively end “fair share” of agency fees for public employees currently under collective bargaining agreements.” [Teamsters]
There’s an agenda at work here, and it’s NOT one conducive to maintaining the middle class families involved in local government, firefighting, police and public safety, teachers, and others who perform vital public services at the state and local level. The Republican Noise Machine has been relentless in its messaging about public employee unions and the members they serve, and the term “messaging” is appropriate because what’s been transmitted isn’t rational, and often isn’t even factual.
“Two widely shared misperceptions are helping to drive this shift of opinion. The first holds that public sector workers now earn more on average than their private sector counterparts, making them what Indiana’s Republican governor, Mitch Daniels, calls “a new privileged class in America.” The leading candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination have helped promote this view. “Average government workers are now making $30,000 a year more than the average private-sector worker,” declares Mitt Romney. “It used to be that public employees were underpaid and over-benefited,” adds Tim Pawlenty. “Now they are over-benefited and overpaid compared to their private-sector counterparts.” The second perception is that collective bargaining contracts have been major contributors to the growing budget deficits of the states, a view promoted by Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute.” [Dissent]
What is conveniently omitted from the discussion is the fact that most government workers are older and have more education than the “average private sector worker.” Using a term like “counterpart” makes it appear that the opponents of public sector unions are comparing average government workers to average private sector employees – they aren’t. If the term “counterpart” is defined strictly as one person doing an essentially similar job then the numbers don’t back up the union opponents. The facts are:
Jobs in the public sector typically require more education than private sector positions. Thus, state and local employees are twice as likely to hold a college degree or higher as compared to private sector employees. Only 23% of private sector employees have completed college as compared to about 48% in the public sector.
Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector employees with comparable earnings determinants such as education and work experience. State workers typically earn 11% less and local workers 12% less.
Benefits make up a slightly larger share of compensation for the state and local sector. But even after accounting for the value of retirement, healthcare, and other benefits, state and local employees earn less than private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8% lower for state employees and 7.4% lower for local employees than for comparable private sector employees. [NIRS]
Thus we can discount the “Pigs at the Public Trough” argument for what it is – propaganda, using misleading numbers and comparisons to make an ideological point. And, we can dismiss the “driving the deficit” argument as well:
“There is no direct correlation between states with unionized public workers and those facing budget deficits. New York State, which boasts the highest percentage of unionized public employees of any state, is running a projected budget deficit of 16.9 percent for fiscal year 2012, while North Carolina, which prohibits public sector collective bargaining, faces an even larger budget deficit (20 percent) according to the data of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Similarly, there is no direct correlation between collective bargaining and pension obligations that have gone unfunded. According to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, New York has done a better job at funding its pension obligations (currently at 100 percent funding) than Virginia, which does not permit public sector collective bargaining and is currently funding only 80 percent of its obligations.” [Dissent]
Not only is there no correlation between collective bargaining and budget deficits, but we should also take into consideration the unasked question: Why is it always a matter of cutting expenses, and not a question of whether more revenue should be raised to sustain public services?
There is a correlation ALEC and ACCE don’t want to discuss. As the EPI documents – there is a correlation between declining wages and the decline in union membership. Unless one subscribes to the illogical and oligarchian ideologies of the ultra-conservative think tanks and the billionaires who support them, the logic of good old fashioned capitalism is obvious – the more wages, the more demand, the more demand, the more sales, the more sales, the more profits, the more profit the better for all concerned.
And, this holds true for public employees who pay their mortgages, buy groceries in the local supermarket, buy clothes from local retailers, purchase automobiles from local dealers, pay for gas at the local station, and get their hair cut by local barbers and beauticians. However, ALEC and ACCE’s perspective isn’t driven by any concern for ‘those small businesses,’ but by a concern for the corporate bottom line – a bottom line which would be enhanced if levels of state and local taxation were to be reduced. It sounds seductive to the local business owner to hear “we’re going to reduce your taxes,” until that coin is flipped to the obverse and the people who depend on those taxes for income stop thinking about the new car, defer car maintenance, put off buying new clothes, and reduce personal expenditures.
AB 182 launches some very specific attacks on public sector unions which bargain for wages and working conditions. For example, who is a supervisor?
Sections 2, 3, and 7 exclude school supervisory and administrative positions from membership in bargaining units, and expands the definition of an excluded confidential employee to include any employee whose duties entail access to proprietary or confidential information. Therefore, anyone with any supervisory duties is excluded – good by principals and administrators, and with a bit of creativity that “proprietary or confidential” information clause could exclude many others.
Section 1 is a double whammy. First, there will be no dues deductions. This is nearly always the first point of attack, and if we didn’t figure this out already, there’s a model bit of legislation from ALEC called the Public Employer Payroll Deduction Policy Act. There are also some alternatives offered by ALEC to this same end. Secondly, the opponents of public employee unions have noticed that union leadership is voluntary and if there is any remuneration it isn’t all that much. So, the “head of the serpent” can be removed by simply refusing to grant leave for union purposes, and also by removing anyone who is not compensated by the union from participating in union activities because they’ll lose time and benefits for doing so. That would wipe out most committee chairs, officers below the top level, and most local activists.
Section 6 gets rid of the Evergreen provisions. It “generally provides that upon the end of the term stated in a collective bargaining agreement, and until a successor agreement becomes effective, a local government employer shall not increase any compensation or monetary benefits paid to or on behalf of employees in the affected bargaining unit.” Thus much for previously bargained cost of living adjustments.
And if there’s an impasse in the bargaining process?
“If an impasse is reached in collective bargaining negotiations, existing law establishes a process of fact-finding. Under existing law, the findings and recommendations of the fact finder are final and binding if the parties so agree or a statutory panel determines that the findings and recommendations are to be final 40 and binding as to some or all of the issues in dispute. (NRS 288.200-288.203) 41 Sections 10 and 15 of this bill eliminate the panel.”
And, there’s more:
“Under existing law, an impasse in collective bargaining negotiations involving firefighters, police officers, teachers or educational support personnel may be submitted to an arbitrator, whose decision is final and binding. (NRS 288.215, 59 288.217) Section 15 repeals those provisions, eliminating the statutory right to arbitration as a means of impasse resolution.”
Remember, public employees in Nevada have no “right to strike” protections, and AB 182 removes the fact-finding and the arbitration options to settle an impasse. So, what’s left? If an impasse remains unresolved the government entity can’t raise any compensation and the employees are frozen in place?
AB 182 is, for all intents and purposes, an ALEC/ACCE dream piece, based on ideology rather than a rational approach to economic and social requirements, and supportive of corporate as opposed to local economic interests. The Committee on Commerce and Labor should file this one away in the “unconscionable” part of its cabinetry.