« Maine Senate rejects bill to give legal standing to ‘unborn children’

Human skull found in Hancock likely from old grave site »

Lawmakers back off contentious labor union bill

By Kevin Miller, BDN Staff

Posted June 06, 2011, at 2:28 p.m.
Last modified June 06, 2011, at 6:45 p.m.

AUGUSTA, Maine — Republican leaders agreed Monday to shelve for the year a contentious labor bill that riled Maine’s unions and heightened tensions with Democrats in the final days of the legislative session.

Members of a legislative committee voted to postpone action on a controversial “right-to-work” bill, LD 309, that could have stripped public sector unions of their ability to collect service fees from state employees who opt out of joining the union.

The vote came four days after hundreds of union members crowded the halls of the State House to protest the bill and less than two weeks after GOP leaders surprised many by reviving a controversial measure that many assumed was dead for the year.

Republican leaders on the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee said it was evident, following Thursday’s public hearing, that there was considerable confusion about the bill, which they attributed to several versions of the measure.

But they also acknowledged the deep concern the legislation caused among both lawmakers and labor advocates in the closing days of the 2011 session.

“I think it is going to provide us an opportunity to be appropriately thoughtful and cautious before we take any action,” committee co-chairman Sen. Chris Rector, R-Thomaston, said about the decision to resume discussions of LD 309 next year.

Union representatives, meanwhile, offered a different reading for why the GOP majority was backing away from a bill strongly supported by the administration of Republican Gov. Paul LePage.

“I think what we’ve seen here today is Republicans and Gov. LePage recognize they didn’t have the votes to support this bill,” said Chris Quint, executive director of the Maine State Employees Association, the largest union for state employees.

The legislation would have ended the practice known as “fair share” in which the state deducts “service fees” from state employees who opt out of joining one of the unions. The bill would only have applied to state employees and public sector unions.

Those fees are intended to cover the costs of bargaining and grievance representation — services the unions claim benefit all employees, regardless of whether they join.

Currently, the state deducts the union service fees from the paychecks of nonunion members. More than 2,700 state employees — or 26 percent of the pool — currently pay the $6-per-paycheck service fee after declining to join the union.

Bill supporters argued such “garnishment” should not be automatic year after year but, instead, should be negotiated as part of collective bargaining between the union and administration officials.

Maine’s labor unions had been gearing up for a fight over the issue of unions collecting fees from nonmembers, especially after LePage said he and other Republicans were “going after” unions’ ability to collect those fees. But lawmakers last week quietly killed a more sweeping right-to-work bill that would have applied to private sector unions.

In a statement released Monday, House Speaker Robert Nutting, R-Oakland, said after discussions with various parties, “it became apparent that some serious concerns needed to be addressed.”

Nutting also responded to allegations that the LePage administration was pushing the Legislature’s Republican leadership to pass LD 309 in order to gain an upper hand in the upcoming contract negotiations with the state employee unions.

“A strong accusation has been levied that this bill was meant to interfere with negotiations between the governor and the state employee unions,” Nutting said. “This couldn’t be further from the truth, and the decision to hold this over until next session should make that 100 percent clear.”

Some of the bill’s critics said statements from administration officials suggest otherwise, however.

Dan Billings, LePage’s chief legal counsel, told committee members last week that a New York attorney hired by LePage — at $295 an hour — to help the administration negotiate a new contract with the state employee unions was consulted on the bill.

“He was part of the discussion of this bill and what makes sense,” Billings told the committee. “We had a national expert on labor law at our disposal and we thought it was wise to get his input on the proposed legislation.”

Matt Schlobohm, executive director of the AFL-CIO in Maine, speculated that lawmakers were not comfortable carrying the governor’s water. And while his union would have preferred the bill be killed outright, Schlobohm was pleased with the move to postpone action on the measure.

“The didn’t have the votes now. They’re not going to have the votes in an election year,” Schlobohm said.

That sentiment was echoed by Sen. Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, who was the only committee member to vote against carrying over the bill until next year.

“I don’t support it this year, and I won’t support it next year,” Jackson said before the vote.

The committee’s recommendation now goes to the full House and Senate for consideration.

Similar articles:

Anonymous

Of course they did …………………………… we know who our lawmakers work for.

Now before some, get their knickers in a twist, and start by stating how much we ALL benifited from the organized labor (unions) let’s not forget that most of this waqs done in the early 1900′s.
Anonymous

I beleive there is an error in the article. Under current law it is legal for unions and employers to agree to a “fair share” being paid to the union representing the workers.

Under the “right to work” bill, employers and unions would be prohibited from making such agreements.

So now, the “fair share” must now be negotiated whenever a contract is up for renewal and is not “aotumatic year after year….”.

I imagine unions would be glad to agree to prevent it from being automatic year after year. It isn’t that way now.
Anonymous

I beleive there is an error in the article. Under current law it is legal for unions and employers to agree to a “fair share” being paid to the union representing the workers.

Under the “right to work” bill, employers and unions would be prohibited from making such agreements.

So now, the “fair share” must now be negotiated whenever a contract is up for renewal and is not “aotumatic year after year….”.

I imagine unions would be glad to agree to prevent it from being automatic year after year. It isn’t that way now.
Anonymous

I beleive there is an error in the article. Under current law it is legal for unions and employers to agree to a “fair share” being paid to the union representing the workers.

Under the “right to work” bill, employers and unions would be prohibited from making such agreements.

So now, the “fair share” must now be negotiated whenever a contract is up for renewal and is not “aotumatic year after year….”.

I imagine unions would be glad to agree to prevent it from being automatic year after year. It isn’t that way now.
Anonymous

I beleive there is an error in the article. Under current law it is legal for unions and employers to agree to a “fair share” being paid to the union representing the workers.

Under the “right to work” bill, employers and unions would be prohibited from making such agreements.

So now, the “fair share” must now be negotiated whenever a contract is up for renewal and is not “aotumatic year after year….”.

I imagine unions would be glad to agree to prevent it from being automatic year after year. It isn’t that way now.
Anonymous

I beleive there is an error in the article. Under current law it is legal for unions and employers to agree to a “fair share” being paid to the union representing the workers.

Under the “right to work” bill, employers and unions would be prohibited from making such agreements.

So now, the “fair share” must now be negotiated whenever a contract is up for renewal and is not “aotumatic year after year….”.

I imagine unions would be glad to agree to prevent it from being automatic year after year. It isn’t that way now.
Anonymous

Thank you unions!

We also owe you a debt of gratitude for the booming prosperity of our mills and the awesome new deal the EMMC nurses just inked!

Hooray for unions, the best thing to happen to Maine since the ice storm!
Anonymous

Next year might be better in a liberal state like Maine. Union power is getting weaker and weaker. Time is not on the side of the unions.
Anonymous

Next year might be better in a liberal state like Maine. Union power is getting weaker and weaker. Time is not on the side of the unions.
525_44

Let’s see what next year brings…
525_44

Let’s see what next year brings…
Anonymous

Wow, a Republican controlled legislature can’t even bring this to a vote. Should have been a slam dunk…
Anonymous

The Republicans are too busy trying to figure out how to ruin Medicare.
Anonymous

At least the ice storm “CREATED” jobs …………………………
Anonymous

if unions don’t represent the best interests its workers, who will? big business? republicans?
Anonymous

Even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary you still believe. Your indoctrination is complete.
Anonymous

Don’t forget FREE TRADE , just to be realistic!
Anonymous

The public doesn’t have an appetite for LePage’s attacks on working people, and enough legislators have figured that out. They don’t have the votes for this now and they won’t next year either.
Anonymous

Good.
Anonymous

Thank you BDN for your daily, on-the-spot coverage of what is happening in Augusta. The PPH needs to take a page out of your playbook.
Anonymous

Thank you BDN for your daily, on-the-spot coverage of what is happening in Augusta. The PPH needs to take a page out of your playbook.
Anonymous

Thank you BDN for your daily, on-the-spot coverage of what is happening in Augusta. The PPH needs to take a page out of your playbook.
Anonymous

So because the “Unions” don’t like it, the bill is considered contentious? Hey BDN, put your spin on the headline for those of us that are in favor of limiting the power of unions.
Anonymous

So because the “Unions” don’t like it, the bill is considered contentious? Hey BDN, put your spin on the headline for those of us that are in favor of limiting the power of unions.
Anonymous

So because the “Unions” don’t like it, the bill is considered contentious? Hey BDN, put your spin on the headline for those of us that are in favor of limiting the power of unions.
Anonymous

Wrong. Revisionist history might work with your like-minded brethren, but unions have been prevalent, continually relevant as proven in the above article, and reached their highest membership in the fifties. Nice try.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_5_125/ai_91808043/
Anonymous

Don’t like unions? Don’t join one. Work at Walmart or Marden’s and you’ll never have to worry about unions.
Anonymous

We can get rid of the smell of this legislature next year. Too bad we’ll have to wait 3 more years for the other doofus.
Anonymous

It would be great to get the unions to get off their duffs and go out in the crowd to solicit, seduce, entice and persuade people to join the union instead of having that joining forced upon them.
Anonymous

Riddle me this batman…
What exactly a public sector union is supposed to be protecting their workers from?

“There are no stockholders, no investors, no group of people that are looking to make more money for themselves while at the expense of ‘the worker’.

Since the profit motive is not used when carrying out tax-funded services, it doesn’t really make sense for public workers to organize against “profits over people” managers.

It is only through profits that unionization actually makes some kind of sense.

(I want to get it out there that I’m am not against the concept of unions. Unionization is grounded in our right to contract. Any group of people that want to join together and contractually agree to collective representation is fine by me as long as the process is completely voluntary.)

The union, which is supposedly there to give equal power between workers and management, ends up having a lot of clout. Since the legislative bodies are in effect management, they weaken the ability of effective bargaining because it is open to political pressures.”
“The Problem with Public Sector Unions”; Shaun Bowen; 3-31-2011

++++

I go back to this quote from the executive director of the Maine AFL-CIO…
“It’s very clear the votes won’t be there to pass this in an election year.”

The wheels on the bus go round and round…
I’m forced to pay taxes, which pays public workers’ salaries, which pays union dues, which go to political candidates who raise my taxes to pay salaries, which pay union dues, which go to political candidates, and so on and so on……
Anonymous

“It’s very clear the votes won’t be there to pass this in an election year.” – executive director of the Maine AFL-CIO.

++++

“Public sector unions are getting their money through taxation, donating it to politicians, and then getting those politicians to give them more tax dollars. This is basically public funding of political campaigns. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

To break it down, I’m forced to pay taxes, which pays public workers’ salaries, which pays union dues, which go to political candidates who raise my taxes to pay salaries, which pay union dues, which go to political candidates, and so on and so on……

One look at the campaign contributions and its obvious which party they seem to favor. So it should come as no surprise that whenever the Democrats are in control, we always see a rise in domestic government. For example the creation of all the czar offices under the Obama Administration and Clinton’s attempt to pass universal healthcare. This is not to say that Republicans are at no fault — many are either too spineless, inept, or also on the payroll of these groups to actually stand for cutting government.

Union leaders have figured out this cycle pretty quickly and taken a lesson from their corporate buddies: It is much simpler to buy politicians than to deal with business leaders. Perhaps this is why, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 6.9% of the private workforce is unionized where as 36% of the public sector is unionized. This is part of a major shift that has gone on since the 60′s.”
“The Problem with Public Sector Unions”; Shaun Bowen; 3-31-2011
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

When you take on the unions, you get bullied into submission.
Anonymous

Do they change your diaper too?

I look out for my own best interests. What are you so scared of, the boogie man?
Anonymous

Do they change your diaper too?

I look out for my own best interests. What are you so scared of, the boogie man?
Anonymous

Do they change your diaper too?

I look out for my own best interests. What are you so scared of, the boogie man?
Anonymous

Do they change your diaper too?

I look out for my own best interests. What are you so scared of, the boogie man?
Anonymous

Look at the numbers my friend. All over the country from Mass New York New Jersey Indiana Wisconsin and Ohio and even Illinois & California public unions have been restricted, forced to give backs etc. By the end of this year they would have spent so much money with little return they will be weakened for the 2012 campaign and won’t have as much influence. The public sector unions are among the walking dead.
Anonymous

I thought President Obama took a half a trillion from medicare? Looks like he did a pretty good job already.
Anonymous

Let me clarify for you and “your like-minded brethren” ………………… I was referring to organized labor (unions) work for safety, “FAIR” wages & benefits.

But since you brought up about membership let’s finish the paragraph …………. unions grew until reaching their membership peak in the 1950s. Since then, union membership as a percentage of total employment has declined to the point that, at the end of the century, scholars are asking whether unionized labor is irrelevant in American society.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

Just curious, what do you mean when you say “working people”? Are these people just union workers or do you mean all workers? I need clarification because I go to work every day and have since age 14 and I have never belonged to a union. Does that mean I am not a working person?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

Just curious, what do you mean when you say “working people”? Are these people just union workers or do you mean all workers? I need clarification because I go to work every day and have since age 14 and I have never belonged to a union. Does that mean I am not a working person?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

Just curious, what do you mean when you say “working people”? Are these people just union workers or do you mean all workers? I need clarification because I go to work every day and have since age 14 and I have never belonged to a union. Does that mean I am not a working person?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

Just exactly what is the best interest of the members? Making deals that are short sighted and will ultimately bankrupt the business/State? Unions are basically bullies that OWN the democrats and call on them whenever the going gets tough. Democrats are beholding to the Unions because of the very generous campaign contributions that come their way year after year after year after year. BIG LABOR is just as bad for this State and country as BIG BUSINESS is.
Anonymous

The problem is some workers don’t want to be in the union but are forced to pay the dues.
Anonymous

The problem is some workers don’t want to be in the union but are forced to pay the dues.
Anonymous

The problem is some workers don’t want to be in the union but are forced to pay the dues.
Anonymous

The problem is some workers don’t want to be in the union but are forced to pay the dues.
Anonymous

The problem is some workers don’t want to be in the union but are forced to pay the dues.
Anonymous

The problem is some workers don’t want to be in the union but are forced to pay the dues.
Anonymous

BgrDN blocking comments again!!!!!!!!!! Whats up editor???
Anonymous

Why can’t he work for his own government without a third-party taking some of his paycheck?
Anonymous

Why can’t he work for his own government without a third-party taking some of his paycheck?
Anonymous

Why can’t he work for his own government without a third-party taking some of his paycheck?
Anonymous

Why can’t he work for his own government without a third-party taking some of his paycheck?
Anonymous

Mind-boggling that this is an issue. No American should have to pay a tribute to an outside party to work for their own government.
Anonymous

Mind-boggling that this is an issue. No American should have to pay a tribute to an outside party to work for their own government.
Anonymous

Mind-boggling that this is an issue. No American should have to pay a tribute to an outside party to work for their own government.
Anonymous

Mind-boggling that this is an issue. No American should have to pay a tribute to an outside party to work for their own government.
Anonymous

Mind-boggling that this is an issue. No American should have to pay a tribute to an outside party to work for their own government.
Anonymous

I can see it now a non union person going in asking for a raise an gets fired . A non union person has to pay more for insurence than a union person has to an i worked in a place were that happen .
Anonymous

I can see it now a non union person going in asking for a raise an gets fired . A non union person has to pay more for insurence than a union person has to an i worked in a place were that happen .
Anonymous

My reply to you was to point out your misinformation. I accomplished my task. Further discussion was neither solicited or necessary. Thanks though.
Anonymous

Then they have the choice of not working in a union shop. And they benefit from union negotiation. If they do not want that, the private or non profit sector awaits them.
Anonymous

Those who do so for ideological reasons only are few and far between. To the vast majority it is a paycheck. And without that union, the 3rd party would be LePage garnishing retirement accounts and upping eligibility, maintaining a longer probationary period in which he could then lay people off and if they wanted to work again, go on probation again with no retirement benefits and no voice. Their goal is to distract you with the union and pick your pocket while you waste your time venting about something that’s in your best interest.
Anonymous

You don’t count. The unions aren’t interested in the real working Mainer, just the ones they exploit for profit through fear mongering and intimidation.

Don’t you see we NEED the unions. Look at how badly employees at companies like Cianbro have it…
Anonymous

Perfectly correct. An incestuous relationship between unions and the people they negotiate contracts with. The only loser is the taxpayer.
Anonymous

Perfectly correct. An incestuous relationship between unions and the people they negotiate contracts with. The only loser is the taxpayer.
Anonymous

Wise move. Hopefully wisdom will prevailm next year.

Business

Previous story:

Next story:

Lawmakers back off contentious labor union bill

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Marketplace Coupons

BDN Blogs

Wicki Biz

Bangor Daily News

About Us

Subscribe

Advertising

On Facebook

On Twitter