BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT BILL NO: SB 931
Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair Hearing date: May 9, 2011
SB 931 (Vargas) as amended 4/25/11 FISCAL: NO
PROHIBITS THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS BY PUBLIC AGENCIES TO DETER
THE EXERCISE OF GUARANTEED PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
HISTORY :
Sponsor: American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 3299
Prior legislation: None
SUMMARY :
Would prohibit public agencies from using public funds to pay
external consultants or legal advisors to counsel the
employer on how to minimize or deter the exercise of
guaranteed public employee rights related to
employer-employee relations, and exempts certain payments, as
specified.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS :
1)Existing law :
a) establishes the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) which
provides a statutory framework for local government
employer-employee relations;
b) establishes the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) which
provides a statutory framework for state
employer-employee relations;
c) establishes the Educational Employer-Employee
Relations Act (EERA) which provides a statutory
framework for public school employer-employee relations;
d) establishes the Higher Education Employer-Employee
Michael Bolden
Date: 5/04/11 Page 1
Relations Act (HEERA) which provides a statutory
framework for employer-employee relations at the
University of California (UC), California State
University (CSU), and Hastings College of Law;
e) defines "recognized employee organization" as an
employee organization that has been formally
acknowledged by the public agency as an employee
organization that represents employees of the public
agency;
f) provides for negotiations between a state or local
public employer and representatives of recognized
employee organizations concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and
g) provides that public agencies and employee
organizations must not interfere with, intimidate,
restrain, coerce or discriminate against public
employees because of an exercise of their guaranteed
statutory rights related to employer-employee relations.
2)This bill would :
a) prohibit public agencies from using public funds to
pay external consultants or legal advisors to counsel
the employer on how to minimize or deter the exercise of
guaranteed employee rights under the MMBA, Dills Act,
EERA, and HEERA, and
b) exempt payments for representation of a public sector
employer before a court, administrative agency, or
tribunal for arbitration, or for engaging in collective
bargaining on behalf of the employer with respect to
wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of
employment.
COMMENTS :
1) Arguments in Support
According to the author:
Michael Bolden
Date: 5/04/11 Page 2
"In the United States, there exists a multi-billion
dollar union-busting industry, comprised of thousands of
attorneys and consultants specializing in training and
counseling clients on effective 'union avoidance.' The
same 'union avoidance' specialists are often retained
for legal services and representation for employers in
the realm of labor and employment law. Regardless of
how these firms receive payment and the exact category
of services contracted for, employees of state-funded
agencies are public employees and should not be
subjected to employer relations matters influenced by
outside advisors specializing in 'union avoidance.'"
According to the sponsor,
"Public agencies should not use scarce public funds to
circumvent public employees' guaranteed rights to a
voice on the job. Public employees are harassed,
intimidated and threatened with unnecessarily antagonist
legal action for conducting themselves in a manner that
is protected by law. Public agencies such as the
University of California hire outside legal counsel who
specialize in "union avoidance" to coach management on
ways to circumvent worker rights. It is vitally
important during this time of economic hardship that all
public funds are handled responsibly and invested with
the best interest of the state in mind."
2) Arguments in Opposition
According to the Association of California Water Agencies:
"Most public agency employers who consult for services
from an employment attorney are not seeking to curtail
employee rights or the right of its workers to unionize.
There are public agency employers who act in good faith
but do not have expertise on staff to deal with
Michael Bolden
Date: 5/04/11 Page 3
negotiating with unions and as such are required to seek
outside counsel. In addition, many of the issues that a
union is able to negotiate on behalf of its members are
matters which may bind the public agency to a contract
worth millions of dollars. We believe it is
inappropriate to expect the ratepayers of a water agency
to be held liable for contracts in which their best
interests were not taken into account."
3) SUPPORT :
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), Local 3299, Sponsor
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, Co-sponsor
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union (ATU)
California Conference of Machinists
California Nurses Association (CNA)
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council (Teamsters)
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
4) OPPOSITION :
Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD)
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA)
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA)
California Hospital Association (CHA)
California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
League of California Cities (LCC)
Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC)
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
(RCSSA)
#####
Michael Bolden
Date: 5/04/11 Page 4
Michael Bolden
Date: 5/04/11 Page 5