Throughout the debate on the Governor’s budget repair bill we have heard time and again the voices of those calling for a separation of the items in the bill. Specifically, they urge that the “non-fiscal” matters (those that relate to collective bargaining) be pulled out and voted on separately. Their argument runs something like this… “The unions have agreed to pay more for health care and pensions. They’ve given what Walker wants. That is what will balance the budget and isn’t that what this is all about? Vote on the other matters separately because they are not fiscal” Sounds like a great idea… If there was any truth to it.
These changes are what the unions fear most. While they may not like the higher costs for health care and any cost for pensions, they know that their real power lies, and is thus threatened, by changes in these so-called non-fiscal matters.
Many others have talked about the long term impacts of annual re-certification votes, having employees pay their dues directly to the union, and giving employees a choice to join the union or not, so I won’t focus on that here.
Instead, I will discuss the rest of the fallacy. The wage sections of most of these labor agreements are pretty short, maybe a few pages. The balance of the documents outlines a huge range of other items (work rules, policies regarding union release, seniority rules, auto allowances, etc.) Nearly all of these items have significant fiscal impact, in addition to limiting the flexibility of the management to actually manage their programs.
Over the next few days, we are going to give real life examples, from real labor contracts that exist throughout Wisconsin of how these allegedly “non-fiscal” matters costs taxpayers huge amounts of money. Giving state and local governments that ability to address these “non-fiscal” issues, if they actually use this flexibility, can impact the fiscal situation of these governments by as much or more than the increase in contributions by employees to their health-care and pensions.
Example 1 – A municipal employer in Milwaukee County suffered the following: One evening a police officer comes across a tree limb in the road that had been blown down. Clearly the limb presented a safety hazard. The officer pulled the limb to the side of the road to allow safe use of the road by vehicles. The officer notified the municipal department of public works so that crews could clear the limb from the side of the road the next day.
Unfortunately for the municipality, the labor contract defined moving the branch as the work of a DPW worker. The senior DPW worker, who was on call for emergency situations, filed a grievance, claiming that moving the branch was “union work”. He claimed that he should have been called in, on overtime, to move the limb. The “non-fiscal” language in the contract stated that such an overtime call would be at 1.5 times his regular rate and that such an overtime call would be for a minimum of 3 hours. It also required that such calls for overtime be made in order of seniority, so this “non-fiscal” items required the employer to pay their highest paid worker time and a half for three hours to do what the officer on the scene did in just a few minutes. The employer fought the grievance, and lost.
The taxpayers were forced to pay the overtime to the employee that didn’t even do the work along with their legal fees incurred in defending themselves. They learned what so many other municipalities have in dealing with such issues – that it is cheaper to just have paid the claim when it was made and not fight it.
By making wages the only item of collective bargaining, Governor Walker and the Legislature will give municipalities the tools to take back control and management of their governments and bring a level of fiscal sanity that Wisconsin hasn’t seen in decades.
I would like to link this to FB. It's a great piece showing the fiscal part of collective bargaining. Is this allowed?