Iowa lawmakers close in on new rules to blunt public unions

DES MOINES — A former adviser to Gov. Terry Branstad told lawmakers Wednesday she's appalled by a legislative proposal the governor has endorsed despite public employee warnings that it would strip them of collective bargaining rights they have used for more than 40 years.

Jodie Butler, who advised Branstad on education policy for almost five years, told members of the Senate Labor and Business Relations Committee that Senate File 213 would cause irreparable harm and undo Branstad-backed policies including his Teacher Leadership and Compensation System, adopted to improve K-12 education.

'Quite honestly, I am appalled,' Butler said. 'I am outraged.'

She wasn't alone. For the second day in a row, labor activists flooded the Statehouse to defend the 43-year-old collective bargaining law. Despite their numbers, they were unable to stop House Study Bill 84 and SF 213 from being approved by the House Labor Committee and a Senate Labor and Business Relations subcommittee, respectively. The action paved the way for action in the Senate committee Thursday and on the floor of the House and Senate next week.

A 68-page bill that majority Republicans say only 'tweaks' the 16-page law seeks to limit the topics that public employees who are not public safety workers could bring to the bargaining table; changes arbitration rules; alters how unions are certified; and eliminates the longtime practice of gathering union dues through payroll deductions.

Those not involved in public safety would be able to bargain only for base wages. Under current law, they can bargain for insurance, hours, vacations, holidays, overtime compensation and health and safety matters.

That doesn't mean those issues couldn't ever be discussed, said House Labor Committee Chairman Dave Deyoe, R-Nevada, because they would be 'permissive' subjects under the bills.

'You can talk about anything that is permissive,' he said. 'It just requires both side to agree they are going to talk about it.'

'You think we always support Democrats. You're wrong.'

- Mike Weckman of Laborers Local 177, noting that public employees plowed the streets 'so you all could get here."

There was plenty of talk during more than eight hours of public comment and discussion. Most of it was in opposition. Only three speakers at the Senate supported the bill and only one offered any explanation for their support.

'That tells me that either it doesn't have the broad base of support we're hearing is what apparently motivated this, or they don't want to be looking the people this affects in the eye and explain why it's needed,' said Sen. Nate Boulton, D-Des Moines.

Christopher Ingstad of Iowans for Tax Relief, which recently called state employees 'Iowa's privileged class,' was booed when he said the group supported SF 213. Bureau of Labor Statistics data it cited in a newsletter said Iowa public sector workers earn 150 percent more than private sector workers in comparable jobs.

But Rep. Bruce Hunter, D-Des Moines, rebutted that later, telling representatives that public sector workers earn 12 to 19 percent less than private sector counterparts.

'So we're getting a good deal,' he said.

Americans for Prosperity and the Associated Builders & Contractors of Iowa also supported the measures.

Senate Labor Chairman Jason Schultz. R-Schleswig, said some associations representing local governments have told his they are afraid to speak out publicly on the proposed changes.

'They've told me they are somewhat intimidated (because of) the amount of anger, the potential for violence,' he said.

Opponents of the bill were not reluctant to speak and to warn Republicans they are jeopardizing their Statehouse majority.

'You think we always support Democrats. You're wrong,' said Mike Weckman of Laborers Local 177, noting that public employees plowed the streets 'so you all could get here.'

Weckman and others suggested the attempt to bust public employee unions is part of a larger, extreme strategy, what one called a 'vast right-wing conspiracy.'

'This is how we make American great again, by literally taking away the rights of public employees,' Hunter said.

If it's part of a conspiracy, 'I don't know anything about it,' said HSB 84 floor manager Rep. Steve, Holt, R-Denison.

Whether it is or isn't, the collective bargaining change would be only a 'temporary setback in the long arc of justice,' according to John Campbell of the United Steel Workers and AFSCME.

'This bill will only survive for two years because the people will hear and feel the effects, and demand change against tyranny and oppression in the workplace,' Campbell said.

What's in the bill?

Identical bills filed Tuesday in the Iowa House and Senate would bring dramatic changes to how the state's public employees collectively bargain. Here are some of the key pieces of the proposal, much of which exempts public safety officials like state troopers and firefighters:

• Non-public safety employees would be able to collectively bargain only for wages unless both side agree to more. No longer would they automatically be able to bargain for insurance, hours, vacations, holidays, overtime, health and safety matters, and other provisions.

• An arbitrator ruling on a case involving non-public safety employees would be required to consider comparable wages, hours and working conditions of other public employees doing comparable work. Also, to the extent adequate, applicable data is available, an arbitrator would be required to consider comparable wages, hours and working conditions of private sector employees doing comparable work.

• An arbitrator ruling on a case involving non-public safety employees would be required to consider the financial ability of the employer to meet the cost of an offer in light of the current economic conditions of the public employer.

• An arbitrator ruling on a case involving non-public safety employees would not be allowed to consider the public employer's ability to raise taxes to increase revenue, nor would the arbitrator be allowed to consider past collective bargaining agreements.

• Public employee unions would be required to recertify by a majority vote of its total membership, not just of votes cast. If a bargaining unit fails to secure a majority vote, it would be decertified.

• No longer could union dues be automatically deducted from public paychecks.

• A public employee could be fired without the employer establishing proper cause.