Boston Democrats Strip Unions of Bargaining Rights

[NickyJ]

Source: Boston.com

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

“We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,’’ he added. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.’’

The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.

DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.

“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.

Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.

The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.

The second concession gives union members 20 percent of the savings from any health care changes for one year, if the unions object to changes imposed by local officials. The original bill gave the unions 10 percent of the savings for one year.

The modifications bring the House bill closer to a plan introduced by Governor Deval Patrick in January. The governor, like Murray, has said he wants workers to have some say in altering their health plans, but does not want unions to have the power to block changes.

But union leaders said that even with the last-minute concessions, the bill was an assault on workers’ rights, unthinkable in a state that has long been a bastion of union support. Some Democrats accused DeLeo of following the lead of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other Republicans who have targeted public employee benefits. “In the bigger world out there, this fits into a very bad movement to disempower labor unions,’’ said Representative Denise Provost, a Somerville Democrat who opposed the bill.

Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.

Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said that, even if the bill becomes law, municipal workers would still have more bargaining power over their health care plans than state employees. “It’s a fair, balanced, strong, effective and meaningful reform,’’ he said.

Unions lobbied to derail the speaker’s plan in favor of a labor-backed proposal that would preserve collective bargaining, and would let an arbitrator decide changes to employee health plans if local officials and unions deadlock after 45 days. Labor leaders initially persuaded 50 lawmakers, including six members of DeLeo’s leadership team, to back their plan last week. But DeLeo peeled off some of the labor support in the final vote.

Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat who is secretary-treasurer of the Boston Building Trades Council, led the fight against the speaker’s plan. In a speech that was more wistful than angry, he recalled growing up in a union household that had health care benefits generous enough to help him overcome cancer in 1974. He said collective bargaining rights helped build the middle class.

“Municipal workers aren’t the bad guys here,’’ he said. “They’re not the ones who caused the financial crisis. Banks and investment companies got a slap on the wrist for their wrongdoing, but public employees are losing their benefits.’’

The timing of the vote was significant. Union leaders plan today to unleash a major lobbying blitz with police officers, firefighters, and other workers flooding the State House. Taking the vote last night at 11:30 allowed lawmakers to avoid a potentially tense confrontation with those workers, and vote when the marble halls of the House were all but empty.

Dose dang Democrats don't want bargaining rights for unions!

 

[Leonel]

Unfortunate. Everyone should have the right to negotiate for a better wage.

 

[SuperJay]

Note to anyone bothering to take the bait: The thread title is misleading, either because NickyJ wants to incite an argument or because he didn't actually read his own article.

The MA House voted for this plan, and it's going to the state Senate. No collective bargaining rights have been stripped, yet.

 

[Ajidica]

Congrats, you have found democrats can be scumbags also. I suppose that your next triumphant post will be about how the Earth is Round or Ice is less dense then water?

Just to clarify, only health care bargaining rights are being stripped away. Everything else remains even if health care is one of the big ones.

 

[Dreadnought]

“These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

I think those sentences state enough about these unions. I like the way the union trend is going. Pass the bill. Pass the bill!

 

[NickyJ]

I think those sentences state enough about these unions. I like the way the union trend is going. Pass the bill. Pass the bill!

Hear hear! These are some Democrats that I'll root for. For the voting anyway, not elections.

 

[Bill3000]

I think those sentences state enough about these unions.

uh, every group which donates to a politician who politically betrays them will say the same thing

 

[Disgustipated]

haha, maybe the unions will support the republicans next election.

Time for a third party I say. The democrats aren't committed enough to causing the downfall of America. We need a third party more committed to bankrupting the U.S. (and individual states)

 

[Ajidica]

You already have that in the republicans.

 

[Zack]

We need a leftward shift in America. Both parties are too far right.

 

[emzie]

Congrats, you have found democrats can be scumbags also. I suppose that your next triumphant post will be about how the Earth is Round or Ice is less dense then water?

Just to clarify, only health care bargaining rights are being stripped away. Everything else remains even if health care is one of the big ones.

Healthcare is a massive right to have stripped away. The only way I can even partially justify removing their health care bargaining rights is if the state's universal health care law covers these workers through other means.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Some Democrats are just as conservative as some Republicans. What a revelation.

 

[Ajidica]

Healthcare is a massive right to have stripped away. The only way I can even partially justify removing their health care bargaining rights is if the state's universal health care law covers these workers through other means.

I personaly would rank health care lower then right to collectively bargain for a safer workplace, hours, wages, and such.

I don't like the bill though.

 

[emzie]

Some Democrats are just as conservative as some Republicans. What a revelation.

In Massachusetts?

I personaly would rank health care lower then right to collectively bargain for a safer workplace, hours, wages, and such.

I don't like the bill though.

I'll take health care over anything but pensions.

 

[Ajidica]

Personal choice for which is worse, I guess.

 

[NickyJ]

haha, maybe the unions will support the republicans next election.

I hope so.

Time for a third party I say. The democrats aren't committed enough to causing the downfall of America. We need a third party more committed to bankrupting the U.S. (and individual states)

So true. The Democrats aren't trying hard enough to destroy us.

You already have that in the republicans.

Actually, Republicans are ever so slightly on the "keep from destroying us" side. Democrats aren't trying hard enough, so we need a third party to be fully committed. Maybe they should go ahead and launch the "New Communist Party" they've always wanted.

 

[Ajidica]

Actually, Republicans are ever so slightly on the "keep from destroying us" side.

 

[Cutlass]

In Massachusetts?

Why not? They are in Connecticut. The thing you get in a state that is dominated by one party is that people in the party start having a wider set of interests. People become one of one party because it's better to win that way. Not because they are wholly in agreement with the overall program. A second, possibly more important issue, is that each of these people have to get elected in their own district, and the interests of the district may not align with the state political party. For example, Democrats that represent wealth, exclusive, towns, are expected to protect that. Even when it means that on many issues they not aligned with typical Democratic programs.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And just look at that bipartisan spike before Obama even came into office. How quickly revisionist historians want us to forget about 4-year-old history.

 

[NickyJ]

And just look at that bipartisan spike before Obama even came into office. How quickly revisionist historians want us to forget about 4-year-old history.

So true. People always want to say that it was all Bush, but Obama put in some hard work to get it up there too.