SmartTranscript of House General - 2025-04-17 - 9AM

[Chair Marc Mihaly]: Good morning, everybody. Welcome. This is this is House General and Housing, and it is Thursday, April seventeenth, all day. We are going to start our day with testimony on Prop three, declaration of rights, great, elective bargaining. And we have three four witnesses. And, so what I think I'll do Sean, are you here? You're Sean. Oh. [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: I am. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Sean, what I'm gonna do is ask the committee to introduce itself to you and to the other witnesses. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Good morning, Sean. I'm Ashley Bartley. I serve Fairfax and Georgia. Good morning, Leonora Dodge. I serve Essex. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Joe Parsons, Newberry Thompson, and Grott. Tom Traubman. I represent Athens, Chester, Grafton, and Wyndham. Debbie Dolkin, Saint Johnsbury, Concord, and Kirby. [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: El Pezo, Chittman twenty, Olchester. Mary Howard, Rutland City, District six. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Good morning. I'm Elizabeth Burrows, and I represent Windsor one, which is her own West Windsor in Windsor. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Good morning, Sean. Welcome. I'm Mark Mahali. I represent Kalas, Plainfield, and Marshfield. What I would suggest is that you identify yourself and take it away. [Sean Stott]: Thank you very much. Good morning, mister chairman and and members of the committee. My name is Sean Stott. I'm the director of governmental affairs for the laborers Midwest region. My office covers eight states and the majority of two others, including Illinois, which is where I do most of my work representing our members who primarily work in construction, but also in our state's correctional institutions, county offices, city offices, school buses, and and many other, places of employment. It's an honor to appear before you, once again today to discuss Illinois' experience leading up to and its experience since passage of the amendment enshrining the protection of fundamental workers' rights in our state's constitution. Last year at a similar hearing, I referenced some of the similarities between our respective states worker protections, collective bargaining rights for public employees, prevailing wage requirements for construction workers, minimum wage rates that are nearly twice the woeful federal standard, and the fact that Vermont and Illinois are two of the twenty four states that allow workers and their employers to bargain on a relatively level playing field. You may recall that in twenty fifteen, Illinois came as close to losing that balance as it ever had. A newly elected governor made right to work for less laws, the centerpiece of his so called reform agenda. This was not something that he had campaigned on. In fact, the issue was not something that any any nominee for governor or from either major party had campaigned on in the last fifty years, if ever. But one month after taking office, the governor announced that he wanted Illinois to be a right to work for less state. Despite the fact that both chambers of the legislature were controlled by supermajorities from the opposite party And despite many legislators from his own party who were strong supporters of workers' rights, that governor refused to sign a state budget until he got what he wanted. For the next two years, our state was paralyzed. What spending authority state government had was limited to court man court ordered mandates and the rare continuing appropriation. Illinois's bill backlog quickly skyrocketed to fifteen billion dollars. Interest debt from late payments to state vendors alone topped one point one billion dollars more than the previous eighteen years combined. The state's bond rating was downgraded a combined eight times and hovered above junk status. Our social safety net was shredded. This standoff continued for two years and six days until July sixth twenty seventeen. After the dust settled, the legislature passed a bill prohibiting local governments from passing ordinances that restricted the negotiating process between employers and employees. Not surprisingly not surprisingly, that legislation was vetoed by the same governor and despite bipartisan support, an override attempt fell one vote short. That legislation was passed again and signed into law by a new governor in twenty nineteen. But as we all know, laws can change. Illinois worker advocates had watched in shock and lent our voices to the protests earlier in the decade as some of the strongest union states in the nation, our neighbors to the north and east, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana, stripped basic rights away from workers. And we had watched in real time as Missouri, our neighbor to the west, passed identical legislation in twenty eighteen only to see their voters reject that law by an overwhelming two to one majority just months later with a citizen's veto referendum. With all of these events and our own experiences still fresh in our minds, workers rights advocates sought to enshrine the most basic worker right in the in the state's constitution. Doing so in Illinois requires, first requires a three fifths majority vote by both chambers of the legislature, and then approval by approval by the voters. The Workers Rights Amendment not only received super majority support in the General Assembly, it received three fifths support among Republicans in the state senate, a significant share of GOP house members, and unanimous support among legislative Democrats. This level of support carried over to the voters as a whole, as nearly fifty nine percent of those who voted on the question in November of twenty twenty two supported adding language that is virtually identical to the proposal before your committee today. It's been more than two years since the workers' rights amendment has become part of the Illinois constitution, and [Speaker 4 ]: none of the criticisms that [Sean Stott]: of its opponents have come to bear. Workers have not been automatically admitted into unions. In fact, earlier this year, a decidedly anti union, quote, unquote, think tank posted a story on its website with the following headline, rapid growth in government jobs during twenty twenty four did little to fix the downward trajectory of union membership in Illinois. While that's slated and misleading posts cited annual data reported in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, according to BLS, Illinois ranks fifteenth in the nation with fourteen to fourteen point two percent of our workforce represented by union contracts in twenty twenty four. Though this represented a slight uptick from the twenty twenty three report, our national ranking actually dropped a spot from fourteenth. In terms of rate of union represented worker growth from twenty twenty three to twenty twenty four, Illinois' slight six tenths of a percent increase was tied for twelfth in the nation. Other states like Maine, plus four point five percent, Alaska, plus four point three percent, Oregon, plus two point five percent, Rhode Island, plus two point one percent, and Massachusetts, plus two percent, led the pack. States that do not have constitutional worker protections similar to those adopted in Illinois are under consideration here in proposal three. And just yesterday, the Chicago Tribune published a story outlining the challenges that workers have been experiencing since the passage of the workers' rights amendment. That being the couple of examples that they use in that story were state state attorneys in Cook County, our largest county, where Chicago is located. They have not been voluntarily recognized and are currently challenging a long standing court ruling that prohibits them from, from organizing. And then they're they also the the union that is seeking to represent them is also, seeking a change in law to, address that situation. And along those same lines, the some workers employed by the general assembly itself, which who are expressly prohibited by our collective bargaining law from organizing are asserting their rights under the constitutional amendment. But it was by no means an automatic thing. It is still ongoing a couple years underway through the court system. And unless and until the courts rule in their favor or, again, the legislature changes the law, those workers are are going to have, the same restrictions on their ability to unionize as they had before the constitutional amendment. Nor have businesses avoided or fled Illinois. In fact, businesses large and small continue to locate in the state. In twenty twenty three, the first year after passage of the workers rights amendment, private investment through the state's primary economic development programs was six point three billion dollars That number nearly doubled to twelve point five billion dollars in twenty twenty four. So if Illinois' workers rights amendment did not open the door to its detractors' hyperbolic predictions of universal unionization or business out migration, what has been the result of the amendment, and what could it mean for the people of Vermont? In a word, I would suggest stability. No longer would workers have would no longer would workers' right to a strong and effective voice in the workplace be at risk of being a political football blown around by the winds of one election's outcome to the next. The people of Missouri spoke decisively on this issue, a state that by no means shares the same political ideology of Vermont or Illinois, but not all states have citizen veto provisions. It took nearly twelve years for Michigan to officially overturn its right to work for less law, which finally took effect just last year. So workers rights amendment is also a statement of a state's values. It says that a state places a priority on the protection of workers and that they will always have the ability to discuss with their employers issues related to their pay, their benefits, and their safety at work, and do so on a relatively level playing field. Once again, mister chairman and members of the committee, it has been an honor to appear before you today. I I encourage you and and your panel to and the Vermont General Assembly to once again pass the workers rights amendment and send it to the people where I'm sure it will be approved in an overwhelming fashion. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions. [Speaker 4 ]: Questions. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Please go ahead. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Thank you so much, Sean. I had a question from testimony we had heard, I think, at this point last week. All the days are kinda blending together. But, specifically for Illinois, before this had been passed, what was what does certification look like for unions? [Sean Stott]: For public employees? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yes. [Sean Stott]: Yeah. We we have a a statute in Illinois that that authorizes voluntary recognition excuse me, card check recognition for public employees, both educational and noneducational employees. We have two separate collective bargaining laws covering both of those groups of peep of of workers. And so if a I don't wanna misspeak, but if if a bargaining unit can show that it has majority support through the display of of cards signed by workers in the bargaining unit, then those then the that bargaining unit will be recognized. Of course, there's also, you know, a process in involved there to determine who is eligible to be in the bargaining unit and who is not. And so there is some, there is some back and forth over over that to determine what the the appropriate unit should be. But generally speaking, that's that's the process. And, of course, we also have your your standard electoral process amongst the the workers if it goes to to that. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Okay. And thank you. And then so after the passage of after the passage, has that changed? I think one of my concerns is how broadly the language of the Vermont acquisition three is. I just was wondering if how we certify collective bargaining units if that would change. [Sean Stott]: Yeah. I mean, I obviously, I do not know the body of law that Vermonters have have passed over the years, but you know, our experience in Illinois is that things that predated the passage of the the constitutional amendment were were not overridden. But by, you know, by virtue of the example I mentioned from the the tribune article, you know, folks that did not have rights prior to the passage of the amendment did not automatically, you know, receive those rights on the day after the election. Again, I don't want to overstep. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't wanna insinuate that. But I I would assume that if there were to be, any changes, in in any processes, in Vermont as a result of passage of this amendment, that the the the general assembly would have to would have to effectuate those change via legislation. I I don't want that that that's had been our experience in Illinois. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Okay. Thank you. That that's very helpful. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Actually, I wanna just follow on with her questions. Specifically, is the ordinance in Illinois that defines the process by which a union can be recognized, has that changed since the passage of the has the legislature changed that since the passage of the constitutional amendment? [Sean Stott]: No. We've not had any any any significant changes to our our collective bargaining laws, and and certainly nothing related to the, you know, who's eligible in terms of the size of the bargaining unit. Back, you know, in in my early days for the laborers union, we were strong advocates of of amending the law to include more people, you know, in smaller units of government, but that was twenty years ago. We we had, in in the after math of the Janus decision at the Supreme Court, which, was prior to the constitutional amendment's passage. I mean, that was probably the most significant recent change that we've had to our collective bargaining law, and that would have been in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Actually, I'm I do have a question about the Janus case. Not so much a legal question, but just a what happened question. We have a law professor here who wrote a memo about proposition three a couple of years ago. And in the memo, he sort of reviewed the Janice decision. And in a footnote, which is I mean, I admit I'm not an expert in this at all, but in a footnote, what he says is that the nation's two largest public sector unions lost the vast majority of, I'm reading it, agency fee payers after the ruling. That is, I guess, people who weren't members of the union. I mean, really, like, ninety eight percent decline, that kind of thing. Then he said, however, there was little change in people of dues paying members. Is that been your experience? You wanna comment generally on Janus and what happened? [Sean Stott]: Yeah. We we the laborers represent you know, a small but significant number of public employees. We have not experienced a a large loss of of dues paying members. And, yeah, I can I can I can tell you that for a fact? You know, I I don't want to suggest that that other organizations are are trying to put a a a good spin on something that on a on a bad situation. But I will say that what they're what I have heard from them is that they have not received in fact, they probably if some have indicated they saw an uptick in in, in the dues paying membership, as after the in the aftermath of Janus. And that's just because folks recognized it again, take this with the, you know, with from its source, but, you know, they're indicating that they people recognize the the value of the representation that they were receiving and wanted to contribute to that. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Other questions from members of the committee. Well, thank you so much, Sean. Appreciate your testimony. You're welcome to stay with us if you like. [Sean Stott]: I I appreciate that. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I think things to do. [Sean Stott]: Well, I I have a I have an appointment a little bit, and I just got a notice that my computer's gonna reboot in two minutes and forty seven seconds. So I should have taken care of that. My apologies. [Speaker 5 ]: I pee your liver. [Sean Stott]: Thank you very much. Have a great day. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. David Machenberg, you're up next. [David Mickenberg]: Good morning. For the record, my name is David Mickenberg. I'm here on behalf of Working Vermont, which is a a coalition of public and private sector unions in the state as well as here for the Vermont Building Construction Trades Council, which represents the unionized construction trades. Here to mostly answer your questions, but have a few opening remarks, starting with, to strongly encourage you to support Prop three. I practice, just so you know, as an attorney and advocate for labor unions in Vermont, for about two decades now. That's included helping with organizing efforts, sitting in on collective bargaining sessions at the bargaining table, working on grievances, and advocating in the legislature for working Vermonters. My perspective, PRF three does three very clear things. It codifies in our constitution the right to organize a union, a right which most and the vast majority of Vermonters currently have either through federal law or state law. It codifies the right to collectively bargain, again, right, which, the vast majority of Vermonters currently have through federal or state law, and it prevents the passage of so called right to work laws in Vermont. As you heard from Sean, when something is not enshrined in your constitution those rights can be threatened and we'll hear testimony from others about what's happening around the country right now in terms of the threatening of the right to collectively bargain for teachers, for firefighters, for police officers. The support for these principles through last year and this year have been tripartisan. We've had overwhelming support in the Senate with the passage of this constitutional amendment twenty nine to zero last year, twenty nine to zero this year, and the house passed this amendment with overwhelming tripartisan majority last year. I think there were eight votes against it. I could be incorrect in that, but something along those lines. From my perspective, PR three would ensure that Vermonters current labor rights, the laws that we have on our books now are not eroded by future political action to the extent possible under state law. And our goal with PR3 is to ensure that whatever happens on a federal level or in other states that we know that, Vermonters now and into the future will have the choice to exercise their right to organize and once they do organize to not have their decision to organize underlined. So like the Reproductive Freedom Amendment, which allows for choice, but does not mandate what individuals may choose. PR three would not, as Sean mentioned in Illinois and I agree, would auto not automatically make every worker in Vermont a member of a union. I just wanted to just give an example of how difficult it is actually to organize. We could pass, and hopefully we will encourage you to pass this amendment, put it to the voters and have voters, prove this, what we think will be overwhelmingly. But even in in that instance, even for those that have the right to organize now, organizing, is not easy. For instance, this body years ago passed a law to allow childcare workers to get organized. Childcare workers, the unions that wanted that to happen, lobbied for that to happen. It's on the books currently. Childcare workers could be unionized in the state of Vermont right now. There was an old, there was a campaign that, a lot of resources went into and the childcare workers decided they didn't want that. That would be the choice of the workers. So the right to organize doesn't mean that people automatically organize. It's up to the workers to come together to decide whether they want that or not. This amendment from my perspective is very clear in the reference to employees' right to organize or join a legal union. What that means is if you're not an employee for the purpose of collective bargaining under current law, this law would not automatically make you one. And, to be clear, not every employee, and I put that in quotes, is entitled to the same rights under Vermont's labor laws. For instance, an employee for the purposes of being covered by workers comp statute, our workers comp statute, is not necessarily an employee for the purposes of unemployment insurance. There are different definitions of employees in our law, so there has been an implication that if you're an employee, you're automatically covered by this. That isn't I would say no, that's not the case. There are clear distinctions of law as to who is an employee under each category. For instance, in the workers comps, in the UI statute, they have the ABC test to determine who is an employee. It's the nature of the business test in workers' comp. So I do not agree with others' interpretations and implications that if Vermonters choose to pass this bill, that every employee in the state of Vermont would automatically gain the right to organize their bargain. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Can I interrupt? Sure. So that's actually one of my questions. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Sure. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: So I really quick. I supported this last year. I'm planning on supporting it again. I just wanna make sure I understand. And so as I had mentioned in my last question, the language itself is really broad. So Okay. Right now, somebody who is in a managerial who has access to confidential information may not have the right to join a bargaining unit. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yep. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Do you see this language or the passage of Prop three changing that? [David Mickenberg]: I don't think it changes any current statutory, exemptions right now. Would there be some In the future. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Sure. Okay. Yeah. But this Prop three does not [Speaker 5 ]: do that in your opinion? [David Mickenberg]: In my opinion, it doesn't change anything that's not that's currently in law. Okay. And I would also reference you too. There was a memo that was, passed around, Yonah Rosen from is the deputy general counsel. Yeah. From That's right. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Yeah. I I appreciate [Speaker 4 ]: it. [David Mickenberg]: She talks about the scope of employees and statutory exemption. So [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I guess I'd like to follow on this and discuss it a little more. I have to admit I'm puzzled by this conclusion. I do submit PR three. Yes. It's true. And I it's it became clear to me when Sean was testifying that a lot of the impetus behind the amendment in Illinois, and I assume here, was simply to memorialize the constitution, the right Yep. Because of horrible experience they had in Illinois. But beyond that, if I were just looking at the wording of this, I would assume that the purpose of this was in fact to brought be able to broaden those rights. Normally, when courts look at constitutions to interpret words, they go to the dictionary. They don't just look at they don't just look at current law. They assume that the constitutional provision trumps current law. And so they look at the whole thing. This is very broadly written. It seems to me to be sort of self executing. Why would a court ensure I mean, this doesn't say that the purpose is that employees as they are defined in current law. It doesn't say that. It just says employees. Mhmm. Why would a court look to our law with all of its exclusions and say, well, consequently, I assume that farm workers don't have the right to organize under this constitutional amendment. I don't have a hesitation at all that we have the right, that the legislature has the right if this passed Mhmm. To pass, laws dealing with the process of how, you know, card check, all of that stuff. Those would stand, I think. But it's hard for me to understand. It certainly doesn't seem to be automatic, and and I'm kind of dubious whether the court would interpret the word employee here by reference to all of the exemptions that are in existing law. [David Mickenberg]: Yeah. And I don't, fashion myself a constitutional scholar nor do I think I have that can speak for the Supreme Court. So obviously that would be something they would weigh. Maybe they would look at the plain meaning of employee. I mean, there is a constitutional provision in in our Vermont constitution about workers' comp and says employee. Does that mean that that automatically means everyone, you know, is covered under that definition, though that's been interpreted differently. So you're correct. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: This the court could [David Mickenberg]: possibly, interpret things differently. From our perspective and my underlying point to be clear is that I don't think it's an automatic that just because it says the word employee, that somebody is automatically going to be given the right to organize. Now if they are given that right to organize, we represent unions. We think that's a good thing. You know what I mean? So So you would I mean, wouldn't you argue if there were [Chair Marc Mihaly]: a case let's say some group that's excluded now, not because for obvious reasons they had access to confidential information or something like that, but a group of people like I'm just picking farm workers. Sure. As an example. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: It's a glaring omission. Yeah. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I mean, if they were to say the meaning of this is to clearly give every employee a right to organize. So any law to the contrary is void. I'm assuming you guys would say, yeah, that's what we meant. [David Mickenberg]: I would say that's what we support, and we support that. I don't know that it's so I don't think it would be automatic. They would have to make an argument, and I don't I'm not here prepared to make that argument to the Supreme Court, but they would have to make an argument as to why they're distinguished by the exclusion in, in, in law that the intent, that the definition of, they are not included as an employee under current law, they're not included as an employee in federal law. So there would have to be some, you know, they'd have to look at the historical basis for it. They'd have to look at the legislative intent when that law was passed. Did they actually want them to be considered? Did the legislature want them to be considered employees for in the most broadest sense? I mean, that would be an argument to be made. But my point is, I don't think there's anything in this language that makes it automatic. Could somebody bring a lawsuit to say, yes. I am under the plain meaning of what an employee is. I am I mean, I guess somebody yeah. So, they could, of course. And, but I don't my point is to alleviate some sense of or some fear or concern that people are gonna automatically be considered employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and organizing based on the current state of our law. I just would hope to alleviate that. And by way of example, that is not what has happened in Illinois. Now, Sean mentioned a couple of folks that are working in Illinois to establish that right, and we still don't know. Right. The import of this is to keep in place what we have and to prevent the erosion of, of our rights to collectively bargain and to, organize and to be free from right to work laws. So [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I do have another question, but the first I wanna ask if there are members of the committee who would like to ask David's question. [David Mickenberg]: David? Can I just add one more thing? To your point, let's say there was a Supreme Court case that happened and they, you know, interpret this in the most broad broad sense of the world of the word employee and that those individuals would be granted that right. Well, then to your what you said also, there's nothing in this amendment which would automatically create a process for that to happen. So to effectuate that right, there would have to be a statutory process to create the union. Certainly there's nothing that, you know, even if a Supreme Court were to rule that farm workers or others that currently don't have that right to organize would be allowed to. It would also be up to them to decide whether to organize or not. And I'll just make a point to that. Currently in the farm worker organizing movement, it's not about unionization. It's about economic leverage, the milk with dignity campaign. It's about using their so so just in terms of that concern of this group specifically, that has not been the trend neither in Vermont nor before more broadly around the country. So I will mention too, just so you know, when, when we, had testimony in the Senate, they specifically held this open. They were gonna sort of have testimony and then vote on it since there was general agreement, and they held open testimony for about two or three weeks so that organizations and others that were in opposition or had fears about the breadth of this would come in. None of that happened. There was no opposition, that was vocalized, in the senate at least during that process even though they were given time to do that. So I just think one of the the and you I interrupted you. You had another question. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Well, just to be clear, I'm not afraid of the breadth of it. I just think it's very broad. Is I do have a question should it about this Janus case. Yes. Happy to talk. Are you the one I should ask? [David Mickenberg]: I can I can try? Yeah. I've I've been involved with that. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. Yeah. I haven't read the case. Okay. My understanding of the case is that it held I'm just reading from Peter's memo. Public sector unions cannot require non member employees, pay dues or equivalent fees for services the union provides because compelling employees and support union activities would violate their free speech freedom of association. The court went further imposing the requirement that public sector employees must affirmatively opt into union membership rather than being automatically enrolled. Mhmm. I'm not quite sure. Could you explain how the last sentence, the last phrase of the of, Section one of the constitutional amendment that prohibits the application or execution of an agreement between an employer and a labor organization representing the employer's employees that requires membership in the labor organization as a condition of employment. How does that not violate Janus? [David Mickenberg]: Well Janus, given the supremacy clause Janus, that would only apply to private sector unions. This would not apply to public sector unions. So public sector unions under Janus was a public sector union [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Case. [David Mickenberg]: Case. Yeah. So that so right now, such agreements are not permissible. You can't require fair share fees Right. Given the Janus decision. You can under private sector agreements. And just to be clear, this is an agreement between an employer and an employee organization. They have agreed to require that for the purposes of, of formation of the union. So, it's distinguished from Janus in that Janus applied only to public sector. There was another case Harris v Quinn, which was the precursor to Janus, which did the same thing that Janus did for quasi public sector unions. So the childcare workers union that I mentioned, the home care workers union, which we also organized in the state of Vermont and is represented by AFSCME currently, they also would not be able to enter into such agreements to require membership in the union and there fair share fees to be paid. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: So what you're saying is that this phrase applies to private sector unions Yes. Not public sector unions. Yes. And But although aren't you also did I hear wrong saying [Speaker 4 ]: this isn't [Chair Marc Mihaly]: prohibiting it where the employer and the employee agree to it in a contract. In the private sector. But it's only in the private sector. [David Mickenberg]: Although the reason that we, and others may, you know, other attorneys in the room may see this differently, but the reason that we want this here, one, is to prevent right to work which is left up to the states now. But two, you know, Supreme Court decisions change and we would hope that in the future that Harris v Quinn, just like the case that was overturned by Harris v Quinn and the Janus decision, had been on the books for forty, fifty, sixty years, something like that. We would hope that since evolved, but that decision may, at some point in the future be seen as, not not wise. And so we would wanna have in our constitution the ability to enter into these types of business. Is is [Chair Marc Mihaly]: forgive me. I'm I I I'm educating myself here. Sure. Even under Janice, could an employer and an employee voluntarily in the public sector negotiate an agreement whereby all workers have to join the union? I guess not. No. No. Not. Okay. [David Mickenberg]: And then they can't they can't and just to be clear, just to understand, despite Janice, we still as as labor unions still have the obligation to represent all workers [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. [David Mickenberg]: That are in that bargaining unit. So we have not just the resource obligation but the legal obligation to represent, and that's why, it was so sort of offensive, the Janus decision and the Harris v Quinn decision was so offensive because we still are required to represent them, which we do. And so, the fact that somebody can get representation without having to contribute to the collective effort, for that representation is is somewhat, offensive. So, but it is the state of it is the state of affairs. So you can't have separate you can't have if there's a collective bargaining unit, you can't have separate agreements, with individual members. [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: Please go ahead. So if someone is not part of that union and at a particular employment and they strike. So those people that are not part of that union, they don't have to strike. [David Mickenberg]: So if if there's a business or or that's represented by a union and the union goes on strike, I don't think any and other I don't think anyone's compelled to strike. The union can be on strike, but individuals aren't compelled to strike. They could agree across the picket line and continue to go to work as an individual. So so the right to strike doesn't it doesn't require just because that particular business is represented by a union. It doesn't require that everyone participate in the strike. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: It doesn't require party. It doesn't require either union members or non union members Yes. Suit. Correct. Yep. So Were there any questions of David before we let this foreman go? I have a few other [David Mickenberg]: I I don't know. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I've gotten more. So I [Speaker 5 ]: guess a few other remarks [David Mickenberg]: just to make the put an emphasis on the point. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: So Actually, we have the time, so [David Mickenberg]: take Okay. Good. So as I mentioned, the primary purpose of proposition three is to not allow for the diminishment of the rights Vermonters have to organize collectively bargained and be free from so called right to work laws so called right to work laws. For those of us in the labor movement, we think codifying those rights is a good thing for workers, a good thing for employers, and a good thing for our economy. Just want to quote from a two thousand and one report by the Economic Public Institute that spoke about the benefits of unionization. They said, unions are not only good for workers, they're good for communities and democracy. There is a correlation between the higher levels of unions in the states and a range of economic, personal, and democratic well-being measures. In the same way unions give workers a voice at work with a direct impact on wages and working conditions, the data suggests that unions also give workers a voice in shaping their communities. Where workers have this power, states have more equitable economic structures, social structures, and democracies. And I've been in this committee in the past and talked about the trends around support for labor unions. So hardened by last year's vote in the House and the Senate. So hardened by this year's vote in the Senate and generally as from a societal perspective, labor unions bipartisan, tripartisan in this state, but labor unions from a bipartisan, tri partisan perspective here are trending higher than they have in decades. And so just wanna strongly encourage you to support Prop three in this committee and on the floor, and happy to continue the conversation and answer other other questions here into the future. [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: Thank [Speaker 5 ]: you. It's no secret how passionate I am about this, and I think you really articulated, many of those points. I appreciate it. For me, I feel like there's no better time than now. We have it in a sense of urgency that we support, you know, our work in Vermonters here and and with our values and and our state how strongly we believe in that. And I think that, for me, that's what is most important is that we make sure that we have this so that, you know, the future is so uncertain right now. And, this is really important to get across the line. So I appreciate, how well you articulated the emergency. Thank you. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Thank you. Other questions by the committee? Other statements, questions, thoughts? [Speaker 5 ]: I had a statement. Yes. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. David, thank you so much. Thank you. Alright. Unless you have pressing business, you might wanna hang around. Oh, I'm gonna be good. [Speaker 5 ]: Yeah. And keep it right. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: That way, we can make pull him back in and answer a question or something. Christopher Duby? Yes. Good morning. Well, you you saw the committee introduce itself. I did. You can remember. But I don't [Speaker 4 ]: know what [Chair Marc Mihaly]: names It won't be. It's right. [Speaker 4 ]: Mister chair and distinguished members, thank you for giving me the time to give you a couple of my thoughts on this historic piece of legislation. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: You wanna introduce yourself? So for the record, my [Speaker 4 ]: name is Chris Doobie. I'm the president of Professional Firefighters of Vermont. Recently retired from the Hackford Fire Department, almost thirty three years there. Been actively involved in union stuff from day one. Held numerous positions within my local and on the state, ultimately culminating to the level that I'm at. So [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Congratulations on your retirement. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. It was well it was needed. When you get grumpy doing your job, it's time to leave. Yeah. That was a great job. It was great, Rhonda. I enjoyed [Chair Marc Mihaly]: it. Yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: Don't get me wrong. I'm very laid back when [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: I testify, so I don't mean to offend anybody. [Speaker 4 ]: I'm not helping people, but it's thirty three years ago and you get, you know, that will go off at two in the morning. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Change is good. [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: Yeah. You know? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Change is good. [Speaker 4 ]: So again, Chris Ullie, professional of firefighters of law. So on behalf of our three hundred plus active and active retired members, the career members in the state of Vermont, I am honored to provide testimony today on this important and hopefully historic legislation that we amended for the Vermont Constitution. So the importance of passing this piece of legislation and ensuring the right to organize and collectively bargain is a major step in protecting workers in the state of Vermont. So being an active union member for over thirty three years, currently as the president of the professional firefighters, I often hear from leaders around the country of a tax on labor. There's been legislation that's been presented that restricts collective bargaining, such as the right to work, which is prevalent in over twenty six states in the country and the and the, territory of Guam. So let's be clear. Right to work is not right to work. It's right not to work. I can give you that the perspective of leadership from states, professional leaders on states around the country that tell me these horror stories. We'll start with New Hampshire. They deal with every legislative session of having to fight back right to work legislation. Luckily, it hasn't gained traction, but just the fact that they're fighting it takes a tremendous amount of effort. And it also detracts from addressing the important issues that are out there that need to be addressed when it comes to labor, safety, health, and so forth. So this constitutional amendment would hopefully curb that. We won't see that moving forward. Recently, I don't know if you heard, but out in Utah, they're a right to work state. They passed a bill that's signed into law, HB two sixty seven, that prohibits public employers from recognizing public sector unions as bargaining units and it prohibits them from collectively bargaining, to enter the collective bargaining agreements. So in the state of Utah that bill said that, you know, local two nine zero five, the Hartford Priore firefighters cannot negotiate with the town of Hartford. They banned from doing it. They forbid it from me being recognized. It also went on to exclude new members of the unions from obtaining retirement benefits under the public employees pension system out there. So it essentially gutted public sector unions. Mhmm. My colleagues out there yes, sir? Just to [Chair Marc Mihaly]: ask you a question. I don't if you don't know the answer, we'll get it from somebody else. But in a right to work situation, the union let's say there's a contract. The union has a contract. It's a right to work state. David testified just testified. The union, when they negotiate, let's say, wages, hours, whatever, those apply to both members of [Speaker 4 ]: the union and nonunion networks. Right? So, generally, that's correct. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I mean, assuming Yeah. Yes. If they're the same level of employee and etcetera, they would be covered. So I can [Speaker 4 ]: give you the perspective from Hartford where I work. And generally, that's correct. So we negotiated two percent COLAs, everybody in the town, two percent. Right. Not just the firefighter. Mike, we are also the FIFO. So we're pretty fortunate in the IFF that we have a [Chair Marc Mihaly]: hundred percent membership. Whenever we [Speaker 4 ]: have an election, it's usually a hundred percent. Right. We don't deal with some of these other issues. We're very proud of you. We're also a very bipartisan union. We work on both sides of the aisles. We do what's right for people. But to answer your question, yes. So it's pretty common to see that that when the union negotiates, it's that all like, with the fine department. So the fine department negotiates pay steps. Generally, the deputy chief will get similar stuff even though they're not in the union based on that. But [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I'm assuming that I don't know that in these ordinances, they don't create they don't allow a workaround of the union to say, we're gonna negotiate only on behalf of our union members and that anybody else who wants to have a contract, they can work it out themselves. So and David will be more versed in [Speaker 4 ]: this than I am. But I know that any training I take can through the IFF. So we have a duty to represent anyway whether you're in a union or not. Okay. Obviously, you know, probationary employees are a different body game, but we still even though they pay dues, we still advocate for them on a sense. But if you are a soft probation and then you choose not to join the union, we do have to represent them. Now I gotta be careful. It's so what degree does it come that you do have to represent? It's where the gray area gets. But we are forced to say, yes, you know, this individual, we felt that he was wronged on his overtime. So we have to go in and fight for that person even though they did not pay any fees to the union. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. Thank you. [Speaker 4 ]: And it goes the same. I mean, like I say, I I let me on my side in the state, all the unions represent thirteen career departments. They have a hundred percent of anticipation. That's not to say that in other states of the country, that's not the case. But, yes, they if they advocate and they get four steps over a four year, everybody gets it whether you're paying their dues or not, unfortunately. So Yes. So what's the [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: for the people who don't pay the dues Mhmm. What is the difference as far as benefit or though it's it's equal? Saying. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. Yep. So when we negotiate for instance, like I say, I'll use them on as an example. So when we negotiated to go into Beamer's group d, decent retirement system that have, you know, better pension because it's only eight fifty in twenty years, all people get that. So whether they're paying that dues or not, they're getting that retirement benefit. When we negotiate health care, they're getting that benefit. [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: And why would anybody wanna pay the dues, and why would anybody wanna join that union if they're getting the equal [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. I mean, that that's a that's a challenging question. I don't think I have the answer. I have an opinion on it. I I believe strongly in unions. Unions, a different on my testimony, I tell you that for working unions, you wouldn't have a forty hour work week. You wouldn't have paid time off. You wouldn't have the benefits you have out there. You would have child labor laws. A lot of you have held work by safety came from unions fighting in the early part of, you know, the nineteen hundreds and, hey, this is just unsafe. There's been a trend back and forth. It's almost like a pendulum I think that one time union is really big and all of a sudden, you get a sway that goes the other way. And now, you know, a lot of people say, why do I wanna pay union dues? Why do I wanna belong to this? I can tell you from day one, I pay union dues even though I was on probation. I felt it's important to have a say in my work, you know, to have that voice heard. Whether you win or lose, that's irrelevant. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: But at least your voice is heard. [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: But the person that hasn't paid the dues has [Chair Marc Mihaly]: a voice as well? They they [Speaker 4 ]: not yes and no to a degree. I mean, you have like I say, you have a duty to represent them because they're part of it. To what degree you do that gets into a gray area. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: And I would assume they don't have the right to control or vote. They Exactly. So unions like negotiating a has [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: to vote. That's it. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: No. That's it. Well, if the union's negotiating a contract and then the union negotiators bring the contract back to the membership, I would assume if you're not a member of the union, you don't get to vote. Yes or no if the union is signed. [Speaker 4 ]: One hundred percent right. Yep. They don't vote on what the issues are, how we ratify the contract. Again, this is I'm I'm probably not the expert in this. I have an opinion. But like I say, the firefighters union is all done one hundred percent. There's probably other people out here that, you know, with the labor and stuff that deal with that a lot more than I do. Yeah. We've always prided ourselves on that. We we kinda educate our members from the first day they get hired. You know, one of the important things that came out of Janus was legislation that we were successful to pass in the state that mandates that we, unions, have a time block of two, what, two or three hours during the orientation week specifically to let them know what the union does. Why it's important to be part of the union? What has the union done for you historically? And that's where we sell our side, you know, on the local side. You know, what is the state done? What's the local done? And it gets buy in from the young amendment to say, well, you know, I want to be part of this. You I wanna be part of this movement where we're fighting to get presumptive legislation for our members or safer work conditions and so forth. So it comes down to selling it, but there are states out there. I I hear it all fine that there are members and Janice is one of those where and I think and I don't hold me true to this, but I think the base of that was had to do with union dues and political action. Taking your dues and whatever two or three dollars that going to political action. And that, as you can see, the bill changed dramatically from originally what was proposed to what it ended up being. So a lot of just come down to us educating them on, [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: you know, when did one get the union. [Speaker 4 ]: Luckily, we haven't just approached that yet. Our people say, no. I'm not gonna join the union. So [Clerk Gayle Pezzo]: Thank you. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Alrighty. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: You have a question? I do have a question. It might be silly Mhmm. Because I've never experienced it. But what would happen if you have brand new firefighter and they say I don't want to join the union? [Speaker 4 ]: What would happen? I can't answer that. I mean, obviously, it's that's a prerogative. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Mhmm. [Speaker 4 ]: Fortunately, we we do a good job educating our members. They see the benefit of being part of that. And for the most part, we've never had that issue in the state. I could certainly do some research and ask if other states have had that. But in this state, we've we've been fortunate. Like I said, a lot of it comes down to educating our members and a lot of it is having that piece of legislation was passed after Janus were afforded the union to have two or three hours of time during that first week of orientation to let them know, you know, this is this is what the union is. This is what to do is cost. This is what we do. This is what you're gonna get out of it. And we lay it out, you know, a through z. You know, we fight for better wages. We fight to [Chair Marc Mihaly]: get you better retirement, better health care, safer safer clothing, whatever it may be. You know, Gail, just for your information and the committee's information, In this footnote in which is part of the record, Peter Teachout's memo. Peter Teachout's the Vermont Law School, Montelong graduate school professor who was asked to advise maybe the Senate committee two years ago and he's written a memo. Is that memo posted, Peter? I don't see it. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Okay. It's a [Speaker 4 ]: little posted. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: And that's the one I was reading from. And while almost all of the people who are non douche didn't chose not to join the union after the Janus case, you know, they they dropped out of the union. But interestingly, there was this is AFSCME. It's okay. That's this is all only deals with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, but that's a big union. And ASME retained ninety four percent of its members. So although some people, after Janice, concluded that, hey. You know, I get the benefits. Why should I pay the dues? Most of people, for whatever reasons, you know, whatever they might be, I'm not gonna comment on that, decided to stay a [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: member b. Yes? Can I follow-up with a theoretical question that may be somebody else if you cannot? So you hypothetically, because you haven't had this, you have somebody who joins, says, nope. I don't wanna be part of the union. When there's negotiation over pay, that wouldn't affect though. Correct? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Correct. Yep. Well, they they would get the benefit whenever contract. But we wouldn't [Speaker 4 ]: to be clear, we wouldn't they they couldn't have a say on union activity. We have to represent them. They're gonna get the same benefits that we fight for without paying that dues. Now interestingly on the Janus, mister Choeh, bring it up. Oddly enough, the IFF, our numbers have grown significantly since then by about I think the most recent numbers are between twenty five to thirty thousand new members that we've added. Even in the state, I brought on two local, Woodstock and and Colchester, and we have two or three more in the queue that are going full time to wanna organize with us. So the attempt was to gut unions. Actually, I think, at some instances, it worked the other way. The Janice has actually promoted more unique participation. So [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Chris, I I and then all the rest of this interrupted. You please continue No. [Speaker 4 ]: No. That's fine. That's fine. So going back on that, the Utah law, so they have similar laws in North Carolina and South Carolina, for instance. Public sector unions are forbidden from negotiating down there. A good friend is the president of the North Carolina professional firefighters. He usually retired from Asheville, and he said, yeah. It's been on the books for years where they cannot go to their employer and negotiate for contract work conditions, anything like that. Texas and Georgia have similar laws, but luckily, fire and police have been exempted from those, but not other public sectors. So if you're in the public works or teachers, they still are forbidden from negotiating in those states. So like I say, on the states have passed some legislation in Utah, but luckily they've installed. The two that come to mind has been Idaho and Montana. They're luckily to fight it back. Going back to the Utah, talking to the president out there. So they they can repeal that. They're in the process of doing it with a referendum, but it's a it's an uphill battle. I mean, they they're forced to have to go out and get a certain percentage of voters from each county, get it certified, go the whole route. So it's they're working on it. But just to show you how quick things can change with labor, if you look at that when that came in, they were intent you know, the bill is one thing that changed course. They knew when they come in and they never thought it would happen. But this legislation, if we're successful in the state of getting that and trying in our constitution, would prevent those horrible action ever happening in the state. And I think that's the important thing to look at. Like I said, right to work, while it sounds pro labor, is in fact anti labor. I can tell you that the states that have enacted this legislation, they see overall lower wages. Compared to states that don't have break to work. They see reduced benefits for employees. They don't have a strong health care, dental, retirement benefits. And they also see an increase in workplace related injuries and death. You know, one of the biggest advocates for workplace safety and health are the people that are on the floor. Cutting them out of that discussion, to me, is is criminal because you're allowing industry to dictate, you know, what your conditions are. Who knows firefighting better than a firefighter, you know? So those are some of the issues we see. So when employees are allowed to organize and collectively bargain, they're able to address these inequalities, and they're able to provide a safe of work environment and equipment along with better pay and benefits. So like I said, proposal three does not dictate or require anyone to unionize. That is still an individual's personal right. It does, however, prevent legislation hindering or preventing unionization and collective baggage from ever being instituted or brought forward in the state, which is a major major win, not just for organized labor, but for labor in general. So Lamar has always tried itself on being a leader on freedom and rights, and this will only sort [Chair Marc Mihaly]: of by that position. We did [Speaker 4 ]: it with marriage equality. We did it with abortion rights for for females. So for me, this goes right in line with everything else. It'll be your most fundamental right to decide if you wanna organize or not. And as you said, I mean, people ask them, do they have to know? Nobody's gonna put a gun to your head, so you're gonna join the union. That is surely your personal prerogative. It's up to me as a union leader to educate you on why you should be in there, but I'm not gonna force you to join by any means. The pros will also show that Vermont appreciates its workers and their rights. So the ability for unions to thrive and workers to have a collective voice on workplace issue benefits all. Like I said historically, this voice is addressed and promoted many positives for workers. Reduced work out to the current forty hour work week that a lot of people see. But the case of firefighters, we're still on the FLSA, you know, federal workers do a ninety six hour work week for firefighting. A lot of Minnesota Valley still do a fifty six hour work week. We are working on that. You see workplace safety improvements, which included child labor laws protecting, you know, what we currently have for our children working. They improve benefits such as health and dental care. So in closing, I want to thank you all for the time to speak on this historic and important piece of legislation. And hopefully in the very near future, I'll be able to brag while I'm in my state and provincial meetings by helping out as a tribe in this constitution, the right for workers to organize and collectively bagging for the conditions that they were. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yes. Thank you so much. Do any members of the committee before we let him go, any member of the committee have questions for the guy? Here's your shot. Yeah. Come on. I got thick skin soap. [Speaker 4 ]: Okay. Thank you for your time. And as Thanks. You know, any questions, feel free to reach out to me and hopefully I can answer them. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Great. Thank you very much. Our next I'll tell you what. Let me just I think what I'm gonna do, Rebecca, if you are you here? I'm here. Would you mind waiting a little while we take a break? No problem. Thank you. Let's say it's we've been at this an hour. Let's take a break. Ten minutes and be back here at ten fifteen. K?

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House General - 2025-04-17 - 9AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: