Maine Stater : October 29, 1987

Page 1

O c to b e r 2 9 , 1 9 8 7

B

a t t l e

W

i t h

J u

E

m p l o y e e C By Stephen L. Leech, MSEA Associate Executive Director

o

d

i c i a l

D

e p

a r t m

U P S

e n

t

O

v e r

t r a c t September 21. MSEA was advised that the Chief Justice subsequently vetoed the agreement. State Court Administra­ tor Dana Baggett alleged that “Murphy’s Law had taken jurisdiction over their computer system,” producing errone­ MSEA members who work in Maine’s Court System have ous cost figures on which they based their agreement. now been working for four months without a contract. For most of MSEA’s other members that might be within the October 6. MSEA again filed a Prohibited Practice bounds of toleration, based on past experience if it weren’t Complaint alleging the Judicial Department had violated its for the unfortunate and unique circumstances which in this duty to bargain “in good faith”, requesting that the MLRB case can not be tolerated. Executive Director enforce compliance with the law by July 9. After more than five months of bargaining and after honoring and executing the September 17 agreement, and the deadline for introduction of new proposals, Court by making the employees whole for all monies lost due to negotiators put forward a proposal which would have stripped delayed payment of salary increases, including retroactive court employees of all rights to participate in the political payments back to July 1, 1987. process, not only at the workplace but in their personal and community lives as well — with the sole exception of their Those are the unfortunate and (in my experience and right to work. knowledge) unique events which we must now wait for the MSEA filed a Prohibited Practice Complaint with the Maine legal process to catch up to and correct. Labor Relation Board. On September 14, the Executive Director of the Board found ‘‘After reviewing that complaint, With regard to its outcome, the collective bargaining the response, affidavits and documentary evidence, we process is always uncertain. While it is born from a conclude that the complaint, on its face, sets forth a prima legal/pciitical procass is conducted, within a facie case relative to a violation of the parties’ ground rules framework, to succeed in serving the interests of both and, thus [is] a violation of the duty to bargain in good parties it requires broad adherence and respect for certain faith.” standards of conduct, ethics and good faith. It is the Judicial August 7. With the assistance of mediator/arbitrator James Department’s disregard for thee standards, as well as alleged Carignan, Dean of Bates College, the parties reached violation of the law which for the long term is most tentative agreement, providing general salary increases of: troubling. 5% on 7/1/87; 2% on 7/1/88 and 2% on 1/1/89, and a Whatever the final outcome with regards to the terms of an study committee approach as an alternative to immediate eventual settlement (signed, sealed and delivered), equally arbitration of the political rights issue. important is the resurrection and protection of that essential August 18. The Court System advised MSEA that the balance temporarily destroyed either through an ignorance of Study Committee on political rights was acceptable but that the responsibilities to the collective bargaining process or a the Court’s Executive Committee, chaired by Chief Justice lack of responsibility and accountability bred by a sense of McKusick, was vetoing its own negotiating team in the area of superior authority. the general salary increases as costing more proportionately Our Court members have publicly expressed for the first than MSEA Executive Branch settlements. (Because of front time with one voice their disappointment and anger at being loading the 9%, this is in fact the case; however, both court the victims of such treatment. They will need the agreements cost considerably less proportionately than the unconditional support of MSEA's membership and friends in Executive Branch Settlement with the Maine State Troopers the weeks and months to come. Association).

'

" ............... \

R e s o lu tio n s .............................................p .3 Legislative Guide U p d a te d ........................................PP-5-8 MSEA C a n d id a te s .........................P -4 ,p .7 V

/

o

u

r t

n

September 17. The parties reached a second tentative agreement providing general salary increase of 2% on 7/1/87; 5% on 1/1/88 and 2% on 7/1/88 and the same political rights study committee as in the first agreement. This agreement was reached with the full knowledge, approval and authority of the Chief Justice. It should be pointed out that both of the above agreements were reached in the spirit of compromise wherein the employees sacrificed a childcare reimbursement program offered by the Department and had agreed to several management proposals to amend certain protections and rights which currently exist in the contracts. — — I n s id e ...

C

M

a i n e ’s

W

W

o r t h w

h i l e

o r k e r s ’ C

C

Court employee members Joan Millett (left) and Penny Whitney wearing black arm bands to protest court withdrawal from two tentative agreements. Court workers across the state wore the armbands on October 9. O u tra g e d Maine court employee Penny Whitney sent this letter to the Lewiston Sun, printed October 16, 1987. Her words put the issue precisely and represent the court bargaining team’s feelings as well as those of many employees across the state. To the Editor: I read the article in the Oct. 10 Lewiston Daily Sun regard­ ing the court employees' contract. I must say that I am outraged. The source of my rage comes from Dana Bag— continued on p. 9

o m

h a n g e s

B e n e f i t C u t s ? It was March 25, 1985 all over again at the Augusta Civic Center, as the Maine legislature’s Labor Committee heard testimony on October 21 from a large number of speakers on the issue of “reforming” workers compensation in Maine. In 1985, it was Governor Joe Brennan’s bill and thousands of injured workers, employers, and other interested parties filling the auditorium to listen to the arguments for cutting benefits. This year, it’s Governor John McKernan’s proposal, and most of the same folks were there. In 1985, there were changes enacted to the Workers’ Compensation system following a rough political debate, chiefly among the Democrats. This year, the political landscape is different, and it’s evident. This time around there has been slick, intense lobbying and public relations by well-organized employers, and threats to leave the state by insurers. Another key difference: the Governor is a Republican, lined up against a Democratic

p e n s a t i o n

o r

A

n o t h e r

S y s t e m R

o u n d

: o f

Senate and House leadership. The struggle this time may leave more political wounds. An angry press conference called on October 19 by Senate President Charles Pray and House Speaker John Martin in reaction to Governor McKernan’s hastily presented bill first noted the lack of assurance by insurance carriers that they would stay in the workers comp business in Maine even if legislation was enacted. Pray and Martin further emphasized that “We disagree strongly with the Governor’s legislation as drafted. In the area of employee benefits, the cuts are both harsh and deep . . . when the benefits run out, what happens to these people and their families?” Whether there is a real or manufactured workers’ compensation crisis in this time of prosperity and low unemployment for Maine is an integral part of the debate. To read the dozens of employer-sponsored advertisements in — continued on p. 4

IIA IA ir

P T AT C

I ID D A D V


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.