Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0582.011 1996-1998 4< ~ F M~ wea, i ~ -~~C1 ' HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STATE OF HAWAII _ ~ (~[~Ff~I[-p "1~ , STATE CAPITOL HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 Y 'r ~018~__.._._L ~ _ County CoW~oW TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 185-97 Submitted by Representative Dwight Takamine Mr. Chairman and members of the County Council, Good Morning and thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of Resolution 185-97. Let me first acknowledge that I do not claim to have any special expertise on the County Budget or fiscal situation. That is a matter on which I defer to you. However, since Chapter 89, the Collective Bargaining Law is a creature of the State Legislature, I would like to offer a few comments for your consideration. The State Collective Bargaining Law was adopted in 1970 and is intended to promote "harmonious and cooperative relations between government and its employees and to protect the public b~ assuring effective and orderly operations of government. The law further states that this policy is "best effectuated by (1) recognizing the right of public employees to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining, (2) requiring the public employers to negotiate with and enter into written agreements with exclusive representatives on matters of wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, while at the same time, (3) maintaining merit principles and the principle of equal pay for equal work among state and county employees. The intent of the law was to place public employees on an equal footing with private sector workers, who already had the right to organize and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining. However, given the nature of government and the need to protect the public's health and safety, limitations were imposed on those rights. As an example, for those public employees who decided to exercise their right to strike, the "essential worker" provisions in the law limited that right to strike, to protect the public's interest. Similarly, to protect the public's interest, a specific process for resolving impasses is established under section llp~t~h0. 5 ~2./~ _ P'?le loo. P O f Presented ~o~N~-~~- Ket. 'lb: - ,~r. rite DEC 1 7 1987 - t'd141r collective bargaining law. Section 11 does provide for a mediation and fact-finding process to be complied with to resolve any impasses ; and for certain bargaining units (including units 3 and 4) , an arbitration process to resolve any disputes . The process is a fair one , that attempts to provide a means of resolving differences between the parties , while minimizing the possibility of disruption or interruption of services for the general public. I understand that both collective bargaining units engaged in collective bargaining , did negotiate in good faith , and that a final agreement was submitted to the general membership of those units for ratification . I further understand that the final terms were ratified by the membership of both units 3 and 4, and that the final terms agreed to , represents a "2 . 23% across-the-board increase" . Clearly, as policy makers , you should not be expected to merely rubber stamp any collective bargaining agreements arrived at between the bargaining representative and the public employer. At the same time , we need to be mindful that should funding for such agreements be turned down at the final step of the collective bargaining procedure , it raises questions about the process . Any public employee who felt that they had relied on the process , and acted in good faith would at a minimum, question the integrity of the process . I submit these comments for your consideration and again , I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you . Thank you very much .