UNIONS PUSH FOR STATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

With a new governor in place who has said he would sign collective bargaining legislation, labor unions are making a push in this session of the General Assembly for a law that would allow public employees to bargain.

But many legislators are skeptical whether there is enough support to pass such a bill this year. They contend that the public has a false impression of what collective bargaining is and some are concerned with media reports about Illinois teacher strikes and fear this would happen in Missouri.

And while Gov. Mel Carnahan said during the campaign he would sign a collective bargaining bill if it came to his desk with adequate no-strike provisions, it is not an issue he is planning to take the lead on at this time.

"Quite honestly, over the last 12 years, any type of labor legislation has not stood up to the governor's veto. Now that we have new leadership, beliefs are coming back to the forefront that Gov. Ashcroft had no interest in," said Rep. Tim Green, D-St. Louis, chairman of the House Labor Committee. "Ashcroft had a deaf ear to the principle as a whole.

"We will see some push this year, but how far it goes I can't say. We have 41 new members in the House and I don't know where everyone stands," he said.

Roy Temple, deputy chief of staff to Carnahan, said he believes organized labor sees the change in administrations as an opportunity to push collective bargaining through and have made it a top priority.

Temple said that while the governor would sign a bill with stringent no-strike provisions for essential employees, it is not part of his legislative agenda this year.

"This is not part of the governor's legislative agenda. It is something he said he would sign if it came to him," said Temple.

"This is not something he is out there working on every day. If forces in favor of this get it through the legislature to the governor's desk, and it has the protective language he requires, he will sign it. That will be the extent of his involvement," he said.

Talk of collective bargaining for public employees has been fueled by a massive statewide advertising campaign by the United Auto Workers. The union, which represents over 100,000 public employees nationwide, is making its first effort to organize public employees in Missouri.

Advertisements invite state employees to call a toll free telephone number. The ads not only promote the UAW as a potential voice for state employees, it also urges the legislature to pass a collective bargaining bill this year.

Small groups of state employees are members of the Communication Workers of America and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. But the unions are not regarded as collective bargaining units.

Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett, the Democratic Party whip in the House, said he has heard little talk about a push for collective bargaining. As of late last week, no bill had been filed in the House or Senate, although Green indicated one will be filed soon.

Thomason, who admits he has some reservations about collective bargaining for public employees, concedes such legislation might get the 82 votes needed for passage in the House with a no-strike provision. He also does not feel it would be strictly a Democratic issue in the House, because some Republicans representing districts with large numbers of state employees would likely support the bill.

"My first gut reaction is 82 votes would be there in the House, when it is all said and done," said Thomason. "But the real hurdle the bill would have would lie in the Senate. In the Senate, one senator can kill a bill by standing up with a filibuster until the other senators give up and allow it to be tabled."

The Senate presently has two vacancies that will be filled later this spring, and has 18 Democrats and 14 Republicans. It takes 18 votes to pass a bill.

One member of the Senate who has pledged to be an opponent of the issue is freshman Sen. Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, who made opposition to collective bargaining a focal point of his campaign last year.

Kinder sought a seat on the Labor and Industrial Relations Committee so he could be involved in such an effort. "I'm pleased that I'm going to get in the middle of it," said Kinder.

"This looks to me like the biggest push in years. I don't know that this effort has ever been accompanied by this high profile of a campaign - blanketing the airwaves with a message that is going unanswered," he said.

Kinder agreed the change in administration has encouraged unions like the UAW to try and enter the Missouri market.

"The big change is not only do Democrats hold majorities in both houses, but for the first time in at least 12 years, we have a governor whose stated position is he will sign the bill if it gets to his desk," said Kinder.

"I believe this is a recipe for exploding costs in government. If people think government is expensive now, just enact this and watch costs spiral out of hand and watch children and our schools be hostage to strikes like we see every year in schools across the river in Illinois," said the Cape Girardeau senator.

Sen. Danny Staples, D-Eminence, a 10-year veteran of the Senate, said he has generally not been receptive to such a bill and does not think one will pass the Senate. Several years ago, Staples said he recalled voting for a bill that allowed state employees to "meet and confer" but had no-strike provisions all through it.

"I don't think a bill will pass," said Staples. "The way the Senate is laid out this year, I just don't see one passing."

In fact, Staples doubts a bill could ever make it out of committee to the Senate floor. "If one did come out, I would certainly be reading it line by line, word by word," said the senator.

Rep. Green explained that a bill allowing employees to "meet and confer" is considered less stringent than collective bargaining. Two years ago, former Rep. Doug Harpool, D-Springfield, had a bill that would have required school boards to sit down and talk about issues, although the board did not have to recognize them as the collective bargaining agent.

The bill did not pass the House.

Green said there are a lot of misunderstandings about what collective bargaining would make happen.

"I think many feel that when passed, public employees are automatically unionized," observed Green. "All this bill would do would authorize unions to attempt to organize public employees. They would need a majority vote from the people they are wanting to organize.

"I feel confident we can pass it. The basic premise is to make them aware of what you are doing, and that we are not forcing unions on employees."

Rep. Joe Driskill, D-Poplar Bluff, chairman of the House Commerce Committee, said there appears to be a well-organized collective bargaining push under way this year. "I think there is a great deal of pent up expectation about a new administration being in favor a bill and helping it get passed," said Driskill.

"I think some labor organizations see it is an opening to start the process of getting it passed in the state again."

Like many of his Southeast Missouri colleagues, Driskill said he will take a cautious approach toward any legislation.

"I'm withholding my judgment on the bill until I see what it does. There are many different ways to implement collective bargaining and some might be acceptable to me," noted Driskill. "Some collective bargaining bills are better than others.

"I will be a little skeptical, knowing what I know about the Southern Illinois experience where educators are often on strike. I think that in itself makes people in Southeast Missouri somewhat skeptical."

Driskill said he believes unions are also making a push this year because they are seeking to expand their membership and see public employees as a stable area for future growth.

Driskill stressed any bill would have to contain a no-strike clause and other safeguards. "It is very important we seriously consider what we are doing," he said.

Thomason argued that he does not see how collective bargaining could work in Missouri with the state's Hancock Amendment that limits new revenue without a vote of the people. Thomason said he doubts voters would support a revision in the amendment to take state employee salaries out from under Hancock guidelines.

"I have a little problem with the concept in the state of Missouri. My problem is you can't collectively bargain with your boss, because your boss is the taxpayer," said Thomason. "If we don't have the money to cover a pay increase, we would need a tax increase and you can't have a tax increase without a vote of the people. That makes collective bargaining an unworkable system.

"For example, say we agree to give a $500 pay raise and put it to a vote of the people to pay for it and they turn it down. Then what happens?"

Thomason said he also senses strong opposition to allowing teachers the right of collective bargaining. He noted that teachers in his area are represented by MSTA and are opposed to it. He added that the same Hancock Amendment limitations would apply to school districts as well as the state.

"I can't get in my mind how the concept will work in Missouri and to anybody's benefit because of Hancock," said Thomason.