Bill(s): Municipal Relief Commission Legislation (HB 1971 - An Act Providing Relief and Flexibility to Municipal Governments)

 

Sponsors: Municipal Relief Commission, Chairs Rep. Paul Donato and Sen. Stanley Rosenberg

 

 

Good morning Chairman Eldridge and members of the Committee. I want to start by saying that my personal thoughts and prayers are with Chairman Donato and his family during this challenging day, as are the thoughts and prayers of the working men and women I'm privileged to represent. For the record I am Bob Haynes, President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, the state’s largest labor organization, representing 750 local unions in the building trades, public and private sectors that represent approximately 400,000 working families – many of whom work for the very municipal governments this legislation seeks to impact, and all of whom rely on the municipal government services provided by our brothers and sisters in the public sector. I want to begin by saying we are not simply workers; we are also taxpayers, every single one of us, and we expect to get the most value for our tax dollar. We don’t support waste or inefficiency, and are as frustrated as anyone by the mismanagement – let me repeat and emphasize: mismanagement – that has caused the crisis in the private sector, in state and local governments, and until recently on the federal level. We want our government to work. We want our government to be efficient and effective. We want our public services to be reliable and valuable. And we are committed to paying our fair share in taxes and assessments in order to ensure a quality, functional government.

 

I want to praise the Municipal Relief Commission, chaired by Representative Donato and Senator Rosenberg. That commission was fair and transparent and prudent in its deliberations and discussions, despite overwhelming exterior pressures to hurry up and jam quote-unquote “reforms” through the system. It is important that we remember that the very crisis we are facing at this moment is more than likely a temporary crisis. We must take pains not to make permanent changes to the Commonwealth unless they are unquestionably the best ones to make for both the short-term and long-term well-being of our families and our communities.

 

I also want to state, on behalf of all unions representing public employees, that of all the stakeholders that are participating in how to find solutions to the crises we face, the unions are the ones who have come to the table to surface ideas, and to be reasonable about the concessions and sacrifices we know must be made in order to survive these turbulent times. We have been at the table. At the table is where we live and breathe as unions. And what brings us to the table is collective bargaining. While others have continually moved the goal line further and further away, it is the union movement representing public employees who have been steadfast in the outcomes we seek. We have only sought one thing and one thing alone: that this legislature respect the law of the land. And the law of the land is collective bargaining.

 

Despite the MMA’s insistence that they be able to just call the shots, and despite the fact that the MMA continues to move the goal line, it is incredibly vital that you protect the workers’ rights to collectively bargain when considering this legislation. It never ceases to amaze me how the only consistency the MMA shows is that no matter how much they get, it’s never enough. We dealt with the MMA as recently as 2007, negotiating coalition bargaining and the Chapter 32 Section 19 provision to allow municipalities to negotiate into the GIC. We were reasonable and played by the rules, and have abided by that legislation. But before we even had a chance to see if that law works, there was the MMA again, crying wolf, denigrating unions and collective bargaining, telling you – the legislature – that what you did wasn’t good enough.

 

And here we are again. After a Special Commission on Municipal Relief, having given abundant time and audience to the MMA, made careful, well-thought-out recommendations to help our municipalities, there was the MMA with a 5-page diatribe criticizing the commission’s works hours before the report was even released and even before the legislation was finalized. I urge you to remember that this crisis was caused by mismanagement in this country and by incompetence, greed, and callousness by decision-makers. And now here’s the MMA asking for more ability, for a brighter green light to mismanage the situation, and impose their will on workers. Well I’m here to tell this committee and everyone in this audience that the Special Commission on Municipal Relief should not be criticized for ensuring that workers retain a voice and for abiding by the law of the Commonwealth. They should not be criticized for rightly believing that workers should be able to collectively bargain. Just because management doesn’t like dealing with us, doesn’t mean they should be able to throw a tantrum in the papers and likely at this hearing, and urge you to wave a wand and make us go away. We’re not going away and we demand that our rights to collectively bargain be sustained and be respected. And we thank the Special Commission on Municipal Relief for all your work in that regard.

 

I want to praise the commission on supporting revenues in its report and in this legislation. The Massachusetts AFL-CIO supports the local options taxes for hotels/motels/vacation rental properties, as well as local options on the meals tax. We also understand the need for the telecommunications and satellite tv tax proposals in the bill, another example of our IBEW Verizon workers being willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I applaud the dedicated revenue source you’ve found for funding critical police training by increasing the Vehicle Inspection Fee for the first time in decades. I also commend the recommendation to create a Local Aid Stabilization Fund as an answer to the over-reliance on state funding by our municipalities that resulted from Proposition 2 ½. The commission did a wonderful job surfacing revenues to help with the need to make up for the shortcomings of very regressive and inadequate property taxes. The need for revenues is crystal clear and I am glad to see them in this bill.

 

In terms of reforms I just wanted to take a minute to compliment the commission’s recommendations on finding better ways and efficiencies to fund our Special Education system in a manner that is fair for communities, families and special needs students. Also I applaud what has been recommended on procurement, reverse auctions, municipal lease limits, affordable housing excess profits, online electronic billing, and many of the other efficiencies and improvements you seek to add to our cities’ and towns’ toolbox.

 

In terms of collective bargaining I must add that there are provisions in this legislation that concern me. First, in Section 36, the fact that the bill seeks to eliminate Chapter 150E and collective bargaining rights during regionalization efforts concerns me greatly. This legislation does not need to erase or override collective bargaining in order to encourage regionalization. Cities and towns can regionalize until their hearts are content, and they don’t need collective bargaining to vanish to do it. In short, regionalization does not require the abolition of collective bargaining rights for union workers. Regionalization should mean cutting down on duplication. Regionalization should not mean cutting services. You cannot eliminate rank and file positions without cutting services. Rank and file workers must have their collective bargaining agreements respected and I would urge you to strike Section 36 in its entirety. It is unnecessary and goes against the spirit of the commission report and the support of this legislature for collective bargaining.

 

Lastly, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is what to do about municipal health care. I would congratulate the commission on doing the ultimate job of a legislative body. The commission came up with something that made neither side happy. The truth is that the current law, despite MMA crying wolf, is adequate. The truth is there are just as many, probably more, instances of management deciding not to go into the GIC, than there are cases of unions standing in the way. One need only look at North Adams where the workers actually protested to get into the GIC, and the mayor stood in their way.

 

I know that you have heard and will hear today a number of different ideas from public employee unions about the best ways to handle municipal health care. I just want to say generally that setting a benchmark means that unions negotiate in a tightly constrained box. Negotiations are already tough enough without being forced into a box and without a benchmark being held over our head. I would urge the committee to ensure that the legislation dictate the calculation of a benchmark in the fairest, most comprehensive and complete manner possible. Let’s make sure that the benchmark doesn’t facilitate a complete cost shift onto the backs of the workers. But we are under no illusions that the status quo will remain. So let me say this: please do not cave into the same old song by the MMA. Don’t give them plan design. Don’t give them carte blanch to do whatever they want to our workers. The rising cost of health care is not the fault of workers. And it’s quite clear that we have sacrificed over and over again to address health care costs. Countless unions have made major concessions to keep their share of health care costs down. We have taken zero after zero, given up vacation, given up holidays, given up work rules, and made concession after concession in contract after contract to keep health care. We should not be punished now for prioritizing health care during past contract negotiations. I realize we are likely to be forced to negotiate in a box, but please at the very least let us negotiate. Let us collectively bargain, even if it is in a box.

 

In closing, I urge you to remember who has been consistent and reasonable throughout this and every other debate of today’s major issues. Unions have merely asked that you allow us to continue to hold onto the rights of collective bargaining that are provided to us by law. We have not moved the goal line. We have not told you that what you do is not good enough. We have come to the table, come to the meetings, and come to the hearings, with real, honest suggestions and real, honest recognition that sacrifices must be made, including paying more in taxes from our own pockets. We may not be 100-percent happy or even 100-percent in agreement, but all we’ve asked for is that you protect our collective bargaining rights and I urge that you do so in your final piece of legislation. Thank you.