Unions, employers debate contracts

Public employees would be unable to receive any automatic pay or health benefit increases in between union contracts, under a bill that won committee approval.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) sponsors HF1974 that would change the way public-sector contracts continue in effect after they’ve expired. It provides that while unions are negotiating new contracts, their members would be ineligible for pay or benefit increases, regardless of the terms of the previous contracts.

In addition, public employers would be unable to enter into a contract that provides any retroactive pay or benefit increases. So, too, would arbiters be unable to award any retroactive increases, under the bill’s provisions.

The House Government Operations and Elections Committee approved the bill on a 8-5 party-line vote Feb. 15. It now goes to the House State Government Finance Committee.

Supporters include Grace Keliher, director of governmental relations for the Minnesota School Boards Association. She said school districts have been told by arbitrators on at least 12 occasions that school employees are entitled to automatic “step” and “lane” increases even though no contract is currently in effect.

“School boards are left with a very unbalanced table when we’re negotiating contracts,” Keliher said.

League of Minnesota Cities Human Resources Director Laura Kushner said this situation puts public employers at a disadvantage during lengthy contract negotiations.

“There is no incentive for a union to bargain on issues when the contract just keeps moving forward,” Kushner said.

Representatives from the unions said the bill would tilt contract negotiations against them.

Brian Rice, a lobbyist representing the Minneapolis police and firefighter unions, said the bill would “create chaos” by letting employers stall out contract negotiations knowing that the unions have no recourse. He described the bill as “very, very radical.”

Eliot Seide, executive director of AFSCME Council 5, said the bill’s proponents are being misleading. If employers want to write into contracts that pay and benefit increases won’t continue after expiration, he said they already have the ability to do that.

“What they’re trying to do here is change the balance of power from an equal playing field to a field that is no longer equal,” Seide said.