The CPS policy committee recommendation is a good first step toward real bargaining, rather than the convoluted, multiple vote "multiple representation" system that MSTA supports. Remember that when the MNEA lawsuit reached the Missouri Supreme Court in 2007, MSTA and the Missouri Council of School Administrators jointly filed a brief opposing collective bargaining. The brief included this in the table of contents:
…Collective Bargaining Would Constitute Poor Public Policy
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Students
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Teachers
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Taxpayers and Voters
Collective Bargaining is Bad for Education.
Now they claim to support bargaining and seek to prove it by proposing the unworkable, never before used in the United State of America "multiple representative system." Right.
By CATHERINE MARTIN
Columbia Daily Tribune
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A Columbia Public Schools policy committee will recommend to the school board a collective-bargaining policy that calls for exclusive representation.
There is no district policy in place for collective bargaining, but a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court ruling said all public employees, including teachers and educational support staff, have the constitutional right to collectively bargain.
The committee has primarily discussed two versions of a recommended policy from the Missouri School Boards’ Association. One results in one bargaining representative after a single election; the other would allow the selection of a single representative, multiple bargaining representatives or no representation and could require multiple votes.
Some were unhappy with the committee’s decision today to only recommend one policy to the board at its September meeting.
“I do think that the multiple representation option should be presented to the board because there are two versions,” said Kari Schuster, president of the Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association. “Yes, policy No. 1 may be the safest to many, but policy No. 2 has its valid points.”
The committee agreed to present three policy options to the board — a third choice allows for a “meet and confer” method of bargaining — but will only recommend one.
“From this committee’s standpoint, we need to present something to the board, and we need to explain to the board why this is the policy we’re recommending,” school board and policy committee member Helen Wade said.
The decision to recommend the first policy is based on recommendations from MSBA, information from other school districts and public forums, said Dana Clippard, the school district’s director of human resources.
“All collective bargaining done in every other state is exclusive representation; there is no other experience out there with doing multiple representatives,” Superintendent Chris Belcher said. “We don’t want to put ourselves in the position of being a trial.”
An appellate court has not weighed in on the multiple representatives policy, Wade also pointed out, and although both policies have valid points, the exclusive representation model is simpler and safer.
“When looking for a representative, we have one representative of a district; we have one president. … It’s something people can get their minds around and are generally accustomed to dealing with,” she said.
The board likely will not vote on the policy until October. The first reading next month will give board members and the public a chance to ask questions and representatives from teachers’ organizations to explain their positions on the policy. The Columbia Missouri National Education Association has voiced support for the exclusive representation model.
“This will give us two full months of discussion and open debate,” Belcher said.
The school board will meet at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 12 at the district administration building, 1818 W. Worley St.
Reach Catherine Martin at 573-815-1711 or e-mail cmartin@columbiatribune.com.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Union leaders respond to proposed city pay raises
Water and Light employees still in negotiations
Columbia Missourian
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 | 7:26 p.m. CDT; updated 10:15 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, August 16, 2011
BY CHARLES MINSHEW
COLUMBIA — One group of municipal employees is still negotiating with city officials over wages and benefits, despite a proposed budget from City Manager Mike Matthes that recommends a 25-cent-per-hour raise for most city employees in fiscal 2012.
In May, all recognized labor organizations representing Columbia employees had a chance to attend meet-and-confer sessions with city administrators to discuss wages and benefits. Each group made varying requests. Now, they have differing reactions to the proposed raise.
Employees in three divisions of Columbia's Water and Light Department have been negotiating with the city since May 20, said attorney Christopher Hexter of St. Louis law firm Schuchat, Cook and Werner. Hexter has represented Local 2 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in the negotiations.
"We made our proposal directly to the city manager and the people he delegated this to," Hexter said. He said the union and the city have agreed to keep their discussions secret until they reach a resolution.
The last time city employees received a raise was in 2009, Matthes noted at Monday's council meeting.
“It’s been two years since staff received a raise, and the year that they did receive a raise it was also equal to an increase in cost for health care," Matthes said. "So, many staff feel like it’s been three years without a raise, and quite honestly I felt like another year was too much to ask, so we did put a very modest raise in there.”
The spending plan proposed by Matthes said the raises will cost $925,000.
Finance Director John Blattel said that a 1-cent-per-hour raise costs the city general fund about $20,000 and that the city was able to devote nearly a half-million dollars from the general fund for raises. The result was the 25-cent raise for most employees.
“We knew how much money we could afford to put in the budget for raises,” Blattel said, adding that the rest of the money for salary increases will come from enterprise and internal service funds.
Ashley Cuttle, executive director of the Columbia Police Officers Association, said the raise is "better than nothing." She said the group asked for a 3 percent cost-of-living increase and larger raises for police sergeants.
“I wouldn’t say that we’re satisfied or dissatisfied at this point," Cuttle said. "I will say that is is a small step in the right direction for us."
While most employees would see a 25-cent raise under the proposed budget, firefighters would receive a 17.8-cent-an-hour raise. Columbia Professional Firefighters President Brad Fraizer said that's because firefighters work 56-hour weeks.
Employees who work 40-hour weeks would get an extra $520 per year, while firefighters would get an extra $518.34.
Matthes said the across-the-board raise is "progressive" and "puts the benefit of the raise where it does the most good.”
Cuttle agreed the raise will help lower-paid employees most.
Originally, the Laborers' union asked for a 37-cent increase, said Regina Guevara, a field representative with the Local 773. This union represents employees of the Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments and of the Municipal Power Plant. Guevara said the union is satisfied with the 25-cent increase.
“We know the budget is tight, and it’s very difficult sometime to balance that. But we want to do what’s good for the worker and the community,” Guevara said.
The Columbia City Council will hold two more public hearings on the proposed budget, one at each of it regular meetings next month. Those meetings are scheduled for 7 p.m. Sept. 6 and Sept. 19 at city hall, 701 E. Broadway.
Friday, August 12, 2011
FAA bill dispute a fight over unionization rules. Mediation agency altered rule governing elections.
Delta, our local airline really doesn't like unions...or democracy. Let's hope the Obama administration hangs tough on this one.
Columbia Tribune
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — At the heart of the bitter dispute over funding the Federal Aviation Administration is an ongoing brawl between Republicans and Democrats over the rights of labor unions, one of several that have flared up during the Obama administration.
Congress struck a deal that gave the FAA temporary operating authority last week just as lawmakers began their August vacation. For nearly two weeks prior, the FAA was mostly shut down, with 4,000 FAA workers furloughed and tens of thousands of construction-related jobs idled. The unsettled labor dispute is waiting for Congress when it returns to consider a long-term FAA spending bill and could lead to another standoff.
House Republicans are intent on overturning a new rule passed by a little-known agency last year that made it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have made clear they want to keep the new rule, one of the few big victories for organized labor under the Obama administration.
Republicans have deplored other recent pro-union actions, including a decision granting airport security screeners collective bargaining rights, the National Labor Relations Board’s lawsuit accusing Boeing Co. of retaliation against union workers and the board’s proposal to speed up the pace of union elections. “What is important here, and it is not some itty-bitty little thing, is that we have labor law regulators out of control,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told the Senate last week.
But House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., pledged Democrats “will not allow a handful of Republicans to hijack the debate over a long-term FAA extension to serve an anti-worker agenda.”
The FAA conflict began last year, when the National Mediation Board decided to change a 75-year-old rule that governs union elections at airlines and railroads. Since 1935, workers in those industries had to follow a rule that required a majority of all employees to vote in favor of a union. Those employees who chose not to participate in the election were counted as “no” votes. For example, if a unit has 100 employees and only 60 of them decided to cast ballots, even if 40 workers voted in favor of the union and 20 voted no, the union would still lose because the 40 workers who decided not to vote would also be counted as “no.”
The rule was designed to make it more difficult for transportation workers to organize because of the potential disruption to the public and commerce. By contrast, most other private businesses are governed by the National Labor Relations Board, which uses traditional election rules requiring a simple majority vote.
Even with the tougher rule, the aviation industry is one of the most heavily unionized sectors. Today, every major airline except Delta Air Lines Inc. is mostly unionized. But flight attendant unions at Atlanta-based Delta repeatedly lost union elections under the old rules, and the airline has vigorously resisted unionization efforts.
Some Democrats have blamed Delta for pushing the stalemate, as the airline spent more than $2 million over the past year on lobbying, including a push to reverse the new rule. “What happened with the rule-change process undermined the integrity of our government,” Delta spokeswoman Gina Laughlin said. “The NMB is supposed to be neutral and operate in a fair and balanced manner, but that’s not what happened here.”
Delta has a key home state lawmaker in its corner, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., who is on the conference committee trying to hash out a deal between the House and Senate on the FAA bill.
Isakson said his last offer of compromise would have let the new rule stand but allow employers the right of judicial review. He said Democrats rejected that, but the offer still stands.
House Republicans also might consider keeping the new rule if it included an equivalent process for companies to decertify a union. Labor leaders have resisted that approach. Ed Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department, called those “poison pill provisions.”
“If compromise means caving in to a group of Republicans who don’t particularly care for the NMB rule, then there’s probably not much of an avenue for it,” he said yesterday.
Columbia Tribune
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — At the heart of the bitter dispute over funding the Federal Aviation Administration is an ongoing brawl between Republicans and Democrats over the rights of labor unions, one of several that have flared up during the Obama administration.
Congress struck a deal that gave the FAA temporary operating authority last week just as lawmakers began their August vacation. For nearly two weeks prior, the FAA was mostly shut down, with 4,000 FAA workers furloughed and tens of thousands of construction-related jobs idled. The unsettled labor dispute is waiting for Congress when it returns to consider a long-term FAA spending bill and could lead to another standoff.
House Republicans are intent on overturning a new rule passed by a little-known agency last year that made it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have made clear they want to keep the new rule, one of the few big victories for organized labor under the Obama administration.
Republicans have deplored other recent pro-union actions, including a decision granting airport security screeners collective bargaining rights, the National Labor Relations Board’s lawsuit accusing Boeing Co. of retaliation against union workers and the board’s proposal to speed up the pace of union elections. “What is important here, and it is not some itty-bitty little thing, is that we have labor law regulators out of control,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told the Senate last week.
But House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., pledged Democrats “will not allow a handful of Republicans to hijack the debate over a long-term FAA extension to serve an anti-worker agenda.”
The FAA conflict began last year, when the National Mediation Board decided to change a 75-year-old rule that governs union elections at airlines and railroads. Since 1935, workers in those industries had to follow a rule that required a majority of all employees to vote in favor of a union. Those employees who chose not to participate in the election were counted as “no” votes. For example, if a unit has 100 employees and only 60 of them decided to cast ballots, even if 40 workers voted in favor of the union and 20 voted no, the union would still lose because the 40 workers who decided not to vote would also be counted as “no.”
The rule was designed to make it more difficult for transportation workers to organize because of the potential disruption to the public and commerce. By contrast, most other private businesses are governed by the National Labor Relations Board, which uses traditional election rules requiring a simple majority vote.
Even with the tougher rule, the aviation industry is one of the most heavily unionized sectors. Today, every major airline except Delta Air Lines Inc. is mostly unionized. But flight attendant unions at Atlanta-based Delta repeatedly lost union elections under the old rules, and the airline has vigorously resisted unionization efforts.
Some Democrats have blamed Delta for pushing the stalemate, as the airline spent more than $2 million over the past year on lobbying, including a push to reverse the new rule. “What happened with the rule-change process undermined the integrity of our government,” Delta spokeswoman Gina Laughlin said. “The NMB is supposed to be neutral and operate in a fair and balanced manner, but that’s not what happened here.”
Delta has a key home state lawmaker in its corner, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., who is on the conference committee trying to hash out a deal between the House and Senate on the FAA bill.
Isakson said his last offer of compromise would have let the new rule stand but allow employers the right of judicial review. He said Democrats rejected that, but the offer still stands.
House Republicans also might consider keeping the new rule if it included an equivalent process for companies to decertify a union. Labor leaders have resisted that approach. Ed Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department, called those “poison pill provisions.”
“If compromise means caving in to a group of Republicans who don’t particularly care for the NMB rule, then there’s probably not much of an avenue for it,” he said yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)