The Vermont House has killed legislation that initially intended to ban teachers' strikes and the imposition of contract terms by school boards. The measure, amended to merely mandate a study of collective bargaining between teachers and school boards, was defeated on the floor Thursday.
House bill 76 was defeated 104-43.
The original version of the bill would have banned teacher strikes, imposition of contracts by school boards and instituted binding arbitration. After hours of debate on Wednesday the original bill was voted down and amended to create a study group to determine alternative incentives to resolve labor disputes. That version was killed Thursday.
Vermont School Boards Association Executive Director Steve Dale finds it remarkable that the bill went to the House floor for consideration in the first place. “Historically any changes in collective bargaining law generally were not seriously considered. So this indicated a very different environment.”
Vermont National Education Association spokesman Darren Allen believes many people equated their dislike of strikes and impositions with the way current state law is written. “What was so remarkable was the extent and the passion of the debate on both sides of this issue that played out not only in some committees but played out on the floor of the House. I think part of it is that nobody likes strikes. Nobody likes impositions. Teachers don’t like either and school boards don’t like either. But those tools are used so infrequently. And the presence of those tools, I think that’s what the legislature heard pretty loud and clear, the presence of those tools is one of the main reasons that thousands and thousands of contracts have been negotiated over the decades and only, only very rarely do they end up in strikes or impositions.”
The School Boards Association opposed the original version of the bill because it is against binding arbitration. Dale says they preferred an amendment that had been offered. “We believe binding arbitration would be poor public policy. If you by law require binding arbitration you are giving away the most fundamental decisions that effect 80 percent of your budget. Binding arbitration is not the solution. We strongly supported what came to be known as the LaLonde amendment which banned strikes and impositions effective in July of 2016 and would have had a work group try to come up with ways to incentivize both parties to bring to conclusion negotiations without using binding arbitration.”
The Vermont NEA is adamant that the collective bargaining process is not the problem and Allen says they will not give up binding arbitration. “We don’t want to give up the right to strike. But we will give up the right to strike if school boards give up their right to impose working conditions and both sides submit to binding arbitration. There has to be an end game. If both sides give up their ultimate rarely used tool to force an end game. There has to be an end game and binding arbitration is the fairest end game there is. Other states use binding arbitration. Vermont already has it. It’s voluntary and both sides could use it at any time they want to. So on the overarching question do we need a change in Vermont’s collective bargaining laws? We say no. If there is a desire to change each sides’ end game we see only one path and have only seen one path.”
While the bill has died in the House there is a possibility it could be revived in the Senate. Both the Vermont NEA and the School Boards Association were doubtful there would be further movement this biennium.
