|
UPDATE: The House passed S.95 on third reading. Attempts to amendthe language regarding certification of state funds failed. Saturday s session was meant to be a gavel in, gavel out affair inthe House of Representatives, after all, the reps are all but donewith their business for the year. But there s no telling what can happen in a floor debate and onSaturday, a little bill designed to protect employees turned intobig deal and became the catalyst for several hours of debate. S.95, a piece of Senate legislation that is similar to a bill thatwas drawn up in the House, prevents employers from using creditreports as part of the hiring process for new workers. Anotherprovision allows school employees to be paid over a calendar year.So far, so good. It was the third provision of the bill that sent the body into afrenzy of discussion and amendments. It required community mentalhealth agencies that receive state funds to certify that none ofthe money is used to restrict or interfere an employee s rightswith respect to unionization. Turns out the reporter of the bill, Rep. John Moran, D-Wardsboro,had what appeared to be a conflict of interest, and other lawmakersquestioned whether the bill was directed at his former employer,Health Care and Rehabilitation Services of Southeastern Vermont,one of the state s community mental health agencies. HCRS was involved in a labor dispute a few years ago, and Moran, asubstance abuse counselor for HCRS, was one of the union memberswho was involved in the fight waged by the United Nurses and AlliedProfessionals Local 5051. In 2007, HCRS filed a formal complaint with the House RulesCommittee against Moran, regarding what the organization saw as aviolation of his conflict of interest limits under House Rule 75. The letter alleged that Moran had used his position as a lawmakerto put pressure on his employer. An attorney for HCRS wrote: Rep. Moran s public advocacy —wielding the influence of his legislative position — for hisown financial gain — is gross misuse of that office; it ispossibly slanderous as well, notwithstanding the legislativeimmunity doctrine. HCRS laid off Moran, who worked on a per diem basis, a few yearsago. He now works at the Brattleboro Retreat. Moran says he s done nothing wrong, and he has nothing to gainfrom the legislation now under consideration. Besides, Moran says,he was never a union organizer, he was just a member of the union. Once I was elected as a legislator (in 2007), I dropped away fromactive participation in the union, Moran said. In the House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee, ofwhich Moran is a member, lawmakers took testimony in March aboutthe salary levels of the upper management of HCRS and grilled theCEO of the agency about how much money was spent on lawyers tofight the union. The agency spent $1.1 million in salaries foreight executives in 2009. That year, HCRS spent more than $500,000on the legal expenses for Jackson Lewis, a Boston firm that has areputation for union busting. On Saturday, Rep. Helen Head, D-S. Burlington, suggested that thelanguage of S.95 be broadened to include all employers who receivegrant funds from the state. The legislation would apply tomunicipalities, schools and other entities. Employers would have tocertify that no funds were used "to interfere with orrestrain the exercise of an employee's rights with respect tounionization." The bill passed and is up for third reading on Monday. The remarks of Rep. Chris Pearson, P-Burlington, were journalizedfor the record. How ironic to have blatantly anti-union motions brought forwardon a Saturday, Pearson said. After all, it was unions that gaveus the very concept of our treasured weekends. Over the weekend, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns sent outan action alert asking local officials to contact their legislatorsand ask "why such a certification is necessary on top of allthe requirements already in place for state dollars granted tomunicipalities." According to the League, "every" city and town in thestate receives grants of state funds, "town highway aid beingamong the most widely distributed." Karen Horn wrote: "It seems redundant and unnecessary torequire a new certification that the municipality is complying withlaws already in statute or grant conditions already in place,particularly when it is unclear what ‘records' shall berequired upon request to attest to such certification." The Secretary of Administration would be responsible for thecertification records. The Shumlin administration opposes thelegislation. On Monday, the House approved the bill on third reading. Attemptsby Rep. Oliver Olsen, R-Jamaica, to amend the bill failed. Editor's note: This story was updated at 9:19 a.m. April 30with new information from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. We are high quality suppliers, our products such as Dental Lab Tools , China Dental Face Mask for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits Dental Saliva Ejector.
Related Articles -
Dental Lab Tools, China Dental Face Mask,
|
