Binding Arbitration Bill Dies; Local Officials Express Relief

A General Assembly bill that would require binding arbitration in contract disputes with teacher unions passed the Senate but was not brought to the floor of the House for a vote before the session ended earlier Friday morning.

East Greenwich Town Council President Michael Isaacs, School Committee Chairwoman Deidre Gifford and Town Manager Bill Sequino all went to the State House to when it was heard on the floor of the Senate.

Under the proposed bill, in the case of a contract negotiation stalemate, both union and School Committee members would agree to abide by the decision of an independent three-member panel of arbitrators.

Isaacs and Gifford both testified before the Senate on Wednesday, but to no avail. The Senate passed the bill 20-17. Both senators who represent East Greenwich - Republicans Dawson Hodgson and Glen Shibley - voted against the bill and were very happy Friday that the session ended without any House vote.

“It’s just a bad bill,” said Shibley. “It was bad on top of bad.”

Shibley said that everyone from the cities and towns was against it, citing that officials from all four towns in his district (Coventry, West Warwick, Warwick and EG) were against the bill.

“I offered a series of amendments to try to improve the bill. Each of them was rejected,” said Hodgson. “I feel that the Senate leadership was under a great deal of pressure to deliver on some kind of labor bill.”

Hodgson said he just didn’t see the need for a binding arbitration bill, since the process generally works. Supporters of the bill had said that it would outlaw strikes, which take place nearly every year in some city or town in Rhode Island. Hodgson and others say that strikes are already illegal in the state. Typically, when teachers in the state go on strike, a judge will order that they return to work and that both sides continue negotiating.

Town officials are similarly pleased that the bill did not pass both houses.

“Binding arbitration would remove the authority for settling teacher contracts from locally elected officials and teachers,” wrote Gifford in an email. “As we move forward in partnership with our teachers' union to implement education reform in East Greenwich, there will inevitably be areas where we disagree, and will need to work through compromises and solutions.  

“We do not believe that sending these issues to an arbitrator is the best approach. I firmly believe that all of us in EG want to work together to put the best possible contract in place, and keeping the responsibility for doing so in the hands of our elected officials and our local union is the best approach.”

For Isaacs, the potential financial consequences were the problem. “We opposed the bill because it would invariably lead to more expense to taxpayers. That has been the experience for taxpayers in Connecticut [where there is a binding arbitration law for teacher unions].”

He went on: “Binding arbitration would take away the single highest expense in our budgets. The result would be higher property taxes.”

State Board of Regents member and East Greenwich resident Betsy Shimberg said she was “relieved” that the bill did not pass and explained why she thought it was a bad idea for three reasons.

“First, it takes decisions from districts and unions out of the public eye and gives it to an arbitrator who may or may not know about education issues. Second, I think arbitrators might not have the incentive to make the tough choices.”

Finally, she said, “I think it’s important for districts and unions to sit down at the table and come up with compromises. We have to continue to live together. We have to continue to stand at the deli counter together.”

East Greenwich teachers union representative Donna Hayes was not available for comment.