2007 House Bill 4533 (Allow teachers union to bargain for privatization ban )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Andy Meisner (D) on March 27, 2007, to repeal a law that makes a school districts decision to enter third party contracts for the provision of noninstructional support services an issue that school employee unions may not include in collective bargaining negotiations with a school employer, as when a union seeks to include a provision in a school district’s contract with employees that bans the district from privatizing bus, custodial, or food services.
- Referred to the House Labor Committee on March 27, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on May 15, 2007, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Arlan Meekhof (R) on July 24, 2007, to tie-bar the bill to House Bill 4306, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HB 4306 would exempt public school construction or repair projects from the state "prevailing wage" law, which prohibits awarding contracts to contractors who submit the lowest bid unless the contractor pays "prevailing wages," which are based on union pay scales in a particular part of a geographic region. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on July 24, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Rick Jones (R) on July 24, 2007, to not repeal the prohibition on school unions making the outsourcing of non-instructional services a collective bargaining issue, but instead to modify so it so that the union could negotiate for an opportunity for current union employees to be able to bid against a potential outside contractor to provide the same service. The amendment failed in the House (49 to 57) on July 24, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the House (60 to 46) on July 25, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on July 25, 2007. Passed in the House (59 to 46) on July 25, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on August 1, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on August 1, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

1) Re: What sense does this make? [by crazycajun on December 26, 2008]

perhaps too low skilled to look for other work when the conditions of your chosen profession change for the worse. perhaps low skilled enough to pay someone to keep your job for you (the union) then get upset when the union is seen for what it truly is, and backs out of helping you.

perhaps too low skilled to realize that you have spent thousands of dollars on protection that you will never see because all of it went to elect shrillary.

THAT low skilled.

yes, you may have a degree, but you sure didn't see THIS coming, did you? of course not.

you are a maintenance man with a mechanical engineering degree???? what a waste of a valuable resource... typical.

Line

2) Re: What sense does this make? [by lowskilled on December 25, 2008]

Who are you to call people low-skilled? I have a mechanical engineering degree which I use in my maintenance position. What degree do you have? Please don't write if you have no idea what you are saying. Better yet, look in tyhe mirror!

Line

3) What sense does this make? [by Anonymous Citizen on July 27, 2007]
The state is constantly in fiscal trouble, and schools are struggling to make ends meet. This bill will put schools even further behind because they are squeezed behind paying exorbitant wages and benefits for low-skilled employees and the states lack of financial support. None of the schools that have privatized have done so as their first option. It is primarily because of finances. If the state took care of school funding, this bill would not be necessary.

What sense does it make to tighten school funding and create a costly bill like this one?
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation