Lobby Day Part 5: HB 1645 Collective Bargaining

Around 3 p.m. on the Jan. 19, the Labor Committee opened the public hearing on HB 1645, "AN ACT prohibiting all public employees from participating in collective bargaining."  This is another bill put forward by Rep. George Lambert and Rep. Andrew Manuse.  

First to speak was Rep. Lambert from Litchfield, who tried to explain that he made a "freshman mistake" in letting the legislative services write this bill for them.  He wanted to eliminate the "exclusivity" of unions.  His intent was to allow people who wish to enter into a contract with the state to do so, and those who do not would not.  He also said he believes in the "Constitution Article 2: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that includes a right to a job."  Well that may be his interpretation, but nowhere does the Constitution guarantee you a job. So after Lambert continues to confuse Right To Work and Collective Bargaining issues they move to the next Sponsor wanting to speak for this bill, Rep. Manuse.

Rep Manuse starts off by saying that he, respectfully, believes "union involvement in the public sector has gone too far." He continues his testimony by saying "this bill has nothing to do with public sector employees, whom I respect and trust in their important public service roles. This is a bill about public sector unions." Here is something you may not know, Rep. Manuse: Public Sector Unions are Public Sector Employees! Just wait; it gets better.  Rep. Manuse continues later by trying to explain that Public Employees are not taxpayers and a Net Loss to the State!

Now, I’ve heard some public sector employees say they, too, are part of the tax base, that they, too, are taxpayers. This sentiment is not altogether true. In reality, public sector employees’ contribution is still a net loss to the people in general. For example, say they make $100 from the government (i.e., the taxpayer) and then they pay $10 in taxes. This still requires $90 out of the tax base to support these public workers’ salaries. For this reason, public sector employees cannot argue that they are truly net positive contributors to the tax base. (1) 

So it is obvious to me that this is a person who does not believe that any public employee, who he says he "respects," has any value in our society. 

In a small surprise the next speaker, Rep. Jasper, shocked many people when he rose on behalf of himself to oppose this bill.  He talked of being a selectman in Hudson and at that time the town had only one union.  He continued on by saying that his goal was to ensure that the town treated the non-union employees the same as union employees.   He remembered a year when the town budget included a section that gave all the non-union employees a 10 percent raise. He said that Hudson moved to Town Council form of government and that council really took it to sticking it to the non-union members.  He said that he was "happy to see the people from the Hudson Fire Department here ... and I would never take away their ability to negotiate with us (town government.)"  He closed by saying that "they (public employees) do not deserve this."
.
After a definite shift in momentum in opposition to this bill, Rev. Gail Kinney got up and spoke in opposition to the bill.  She stated, "This is not a path New Hampshire wants to go down," and she is right. She continued to talk about the "Voices of the Workers" and "their rights to be able to discuss wages and working conditions."   After quoting from Martin Luther King, Rev. Kinney received a two-minute standing ovation from the crowd.  While the crowd was feeling better, the committee was unhappy with the time delay and applause.  They called a brief recess to allow people to calm down, before starting again 10 minutes later.

Another funny moment was when SEA/SEIU 1984 President Diana Lacey got up and said: "If Rep. Manuse says that I am not a taxpayer, then the State owes me nearly a quarter of a million dollars in taxes."

This personal account of collective bargaining went on for at least three hours before AFT-NH President Laura Hainey was called up to speak. Before she read her testimony, she held up in the air a large packet of papers.  Hainey said that she was holding over 5,500 signed and online petitions telling the committee not to repeal the collective bargaining rights of NH public employees.  She talked about how Rep. Lambert wants to "Fix" collective bargaining.  She said: "The truth is there is nothing to fix, he is trying to correct a problem that does not exist."  However, the best line of all was her closing statement: "Although we may disagree from time to time, I appreciate the work that you (the committee) have to do and know that you will cherish New Hampshire Values. I ask the committee to defeat this bil l... AND Rep. Lambert, your 15 minutes are up!"

Shortly after 7 p.m. the hearing finally closed on HB1645.  In all of the Labor Committee Hearings on 1/19/12 only one person got up to speak in favor of the bills being offered, other than the sponsors.  Are these attack on public employees really what New Hampshire wants, or is some corporate agenda pushing our legislators to pass laws against them?

1: http://amanuse.rlcnh.org/2012/01/19/testimony-of-rep-andrew-j-manuse-for...