« Protecting Kids from Online Porn | Main | Sizemore to Challenge Gordon Smith? »

March 22, 2007

Two Sides to the Debate on SB 400

It isn't every day that you get a clear example of the very different perspectives of Republicans and Democrats on a particular issue. But today, we have a great example of two very different views of organized labor as explained in dueling press releases from the two parties in response to the defeat of Oregon SB 400. Oregon AFSCME had named it a top priority for this session. At least some Republicans were calling it the "Union Thug Bill."

The Republican explain their successful effort to kill the bill here:

“This was a failed attempt by House Democratic leadership to expand union power,” said House Republican Leader Wayne Scott (R-Canby). “Last week, they raised costs on our local school districts and community colleges. This week, they tried to raise costs on our cities, counties, police departments, fire departments and other ‘first responder’ agencies.”

“Fortunately, enough House Democrats agreed with us that SB 400 was bad for Oregon.”
Oregon law already requires mandatory bargaining for safety issues that have a direct and substantial effect on employees’ on-the-job safety. SB 400 would have bypassed the traditional policy-making process by forcing local governments and public safety agencies to bargain staffing levels, operating procedures, equipment purchases and other important management decisions.

“SB 400 would have fundamentally shifted the discussion from the public arena of policymaking to the closed door room of the bargaining table,” said Rep. Vicki Berger (R-Salem).

The bill was opposed by the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police, the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, the Oregon Fire District Directors Association, the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties, Oregon Public Employer Labor Relations Association and the Mid-Willamette Valley Mayors Coalition.

Meanwhile, in the battle of the dueling press releases, Democrats explained their dismay over the bill's defeat here:

House Republicans killed a historic public safety bill today that would have restored the rights of firefighters, police officers and corrections officers to negotiate with employers on issues related to safety. Democrats say the change is important because public safety officers are prohibited by Oregon law from striking. Previous to a change in the law in 1995, employees were allowed to negotiate on issues.

“As a former police officer, I know that no one has a stronger right to negotiate on safety issues than those who protect the public safety,” said Rep. Jeff Barker (D-Aloha). “The first-hand knowledge of those who are on the front lines for our communities is critical to creating a work environment that reduces preventable, on-the-job injury or loss of life.”

“Today, House Republicans once again put their thumbs in the eyes of those first responders who work so hard to keep our families and communities safe,” said House Majority Leader Dave Hunt (D-Clackamas County).

For years, House Republican leadership promised public safety advocates that they would make the bill a priority, only to let the bill die each session without a debate or vote. House Republicans killed the proposal again today after first attempting to block an up-or-down vote on the bill with endless debate and parliamentary ploys.

Probably no surprise to our readers, I think I would side with the Republicans on this one. I just don't see this doing anything to enhance safety; it looks to me to be all about power. I've come a long way in my support of organized labor, but at a point I sometimes wonder if they haven't been so successful at protecting workers that they are now inventing problems in order to justify their own existence.

But honestly, I'm open to hearing other points of view on this legislation. Was shooting it down the right thing to do?

Posted by Becky at March 22, 2007 03:43 PM