John C. Post Lodge #44

Fraternal Order of Police

Proposed Senate Bill FiveProposed Senate Bill FivePotential Effect On Our MembersPotential Effect On Our Members

Senate Bill #5Senate Bill #5

Addresses Public Employee Collective Bargaining Law

AffectsState EmployeesState University EmployeesPolice & Fire SupervisorsLocal Government EmployeesTeachersAnyone covered under ORC 4117 (Collective

Bargaining)

2

3

SERBMediatorFact Finder

Fact Finder must hold interest of public and employer’s ability to Pay to be primary.

4

Eliminates Step IncreasesPay Increases based on MeritEliminates LongevityOvertime Rate guided FLSAProhibits Pension Pick-ups

Time Line for Senate Bill 5

February 8, 2011

475 page Senate Bill 5 introduced before the Senate Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee. Senator Shannon Jones sponsors the bill Huge changes to the current collective bargaining law

ORC 4117 that had been in effect since 1983. No copies of the bill were provided to the Committee prior

to the introduction of the bill. FOP was denied access to drafts of the bill as well.

No interested party meetings before introduction of the bill

February 15,17,and 22

22 hours of testimonyProponentOpponent

Testimony was curtailed before everyone who signed up was given the opportunity to speak.

March 1, 2011

99 Pages of Amendments Brief overview of the changes.

Not comprehensive in any regards Legislators had not been afforded the opportunity to

review the amendments prior to this date. Senator Jones did offer to answer the Committee’s

questions. Questioning was difficult with such short notice and the

length of the amendments. Once Committee Members began to ask questions, the

meeting was adjourned.

The 99 Page Amendments

March 1, 2011 was the first glance anyone had of the amendments.

Greater limitations on Public Safety Bargaining Significantly more harmful to labor

management relations than the bill itself. No additional proponent or opponent

testimony was heard by the Committee in regards to the amendments.

Significant Insurance Change

The original Bill mandated 20% employee share for Health Premium

The amendment reduced this to 15%.This matches the 15% that the senators pay for

their own health care.No negotiation for Plan Design

March 2, 2011

The Morning Less than 24 hours after receiving the amendments to review Senate President Tom Niehaus removes Senator Bill Seitz (R)

Cincinnati, from the Committee. Seitz is well respected senatorial veteran Wants collective bargaining reform Believes Senate Bill 5 was far too sweeping. Did not support

Senator Seitz was replaced on the Committee by Senator Cliff Hite (R) Findlay Hite had heard no testimony on the bill or amendments.

With his vote the bill was voted out of the committee.

Later on March 2

Senate leadership removed Senator Scott Oelslager (R) Plain Township from the Rules Committee Extraordinary MeasureOelslager had voted against the bill. His removal allowed the bill to move to the

Senate Floor by a 7-5 margin.

March 2--Senate Bill 5 Passes Senate

A request for the bill to be read to the floor of the senate was denied

No further testimony was provided to the members who were not on the committee

Senate Bill 5 was passed by a 17-16 vote.

Provisions of SB 5

As it stands coming out of the Senate

Pension Pick Ups

PROHIBITS PENSION PICK UPSPENSION PICK UPS SAVES THE

EMPLOYER MONEY FOR EVERY 1% RAISE IN WAGES = 1.24%

AFTER ROLL UPS

Seniority and Fairness

NO AGREEMENT MAY PERMIT LAYOFFS BASED SOLELY UPON SENIORITYOpens the door Age DiscriminationProtected Class DiscriminationHuge financial liability for Local GovernmentAllows political favoritism

Privatization

ALLOWS PRIVATIZATION CONTRACTING OUT ANY PUBLIC

EMPLOYEE SERVICESJob Security for employees is completely

gone.

Staffing Levels

No longer able to negotiate in reference toShiftFacilityPiece of EquipmentSupervision Span of Control

THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUEEspecially with 4-man Staffing of fire

apparatus

Fair Labor Standards Act Guidelines

Mandates FLSA Overtime Calculation This eliminates

“Call in Pay” “Court Time”No rate over 1 ½ can be paid

Requires 171 hours in a 28 day cycle before overtime is paidPaid leave does not count toward 171 hours

Basis for Pay Increases

Mandates merit-based payPolice and Fire moved away from this

standardTo eliminate corruptionEliminates Quotas (Which are Illegal)Cannot define merit pay

Layoff Due to Township Annexation

Seniority no longer a factorReduces job security

Past Practices

Past Practices not protectedRequires re-negotiating every article of

every contract

Changes in Benefits and Pay Outs

Longevity Eliminated for DROP Capped for at 3 days for other employees

Vacation Cap 5 weeks max 240 hour max accrual (<20 year employee)

Holidays limited to 12 annually Personal Days -3 days annually Sick leave buy back capped at 500 hours

Changes in Negotiation

Prohibits direct dealing for union with elected or appointed officials but permits direct dealing by employersSeriously limits ability to compromise

Eliminates SERB Unfair Labor Practice Investigations

Why change collective bargaining

Gives local governments ability to control personnel costs

Local Government Fund could be cutSenator Jones in SB 5 hearing stated

she did not know potential savingsOhio Dept of Administration Services

provided estimate of cost savingsODAS used 3 provisions in cost analysis

Provisions used in Cost Analysis

Limiting state and local government payments for health care

Eliminating Step PayEliminating Longevity Pay

Projected 2010 fiscal year savings using 3 provisions

State would save $216,871.804 or $3,739 per state employee (58,005)

Local governments would save 1.12 billion

Breakdown of projected savings for the State of Ohio

Health Insurance $25,555,572Step Pay $75,965,060Longevity Pay $115,351,172

Local government projected savings

Health Insurance $132,200,000Step Pay $392,700,000Longevity $596,400,000

Flaws in projected savings

Many public employees pay 15% or more for health insurance currently

Many public sector unions such as Dayton FOP have worked with mgt to drive down costs

Public employers generally have same insurance carrier and plan design for all bargaining units. Rates are based upon number of participants in plan.

In Dayton, several of the cost savings measures were the result of the Unions directly communicating with the Legislative body and working things out informally. SB 5 prohibits this communication

Assumes step increases of local government employees are equal to state employees

Step increases actually save employers money. In Dayton, we expanded the number of steps to reach top pay to 78 months. This has saved Dayton millions of dollars.

The 1.12 billion projected savings is based upon paying 20% of the total premium costs. This was amended to 15% but ODAS did not recalculate the projected savings.

Not every public sector employee receives longevity and if they do, it may not be equal to what state employees receive

Some of the benefits of the 3 provisions were negotiated where there were trade offs with management which resulted in savings to the employer

The estimated savings is flawed in that SB5 would not go into effect until after the expiration of any current CBA. Some unions have contracts that will not expire for up to 3 additional years. The ODAS assumes uniformity in its projections. How can this be a savings to local governments?

There will be a Referendum where the citizens will vote in November. Once the petition is completed with the required signatures and filed, a moratorium is placed on SB 5 until voted upon.

Negative Impact on the Local Government Fund

Dayton received approximately 13 million in Local Government funds in 2010

It is unknown how much the Governor will slash the LGF but it is estimated to be 15%. This would cost the City of Dayton 1.95 million.

Every local government would be adversely impacted by a reduction in the LGF. There would be no immediate savings of personnel costs from SB 5

What has public employers stated about collective bargaining?

The threat of binding arbitration places management at an unfair disadvantage.

Employers can not afford the agreements they are saddled with by the Conciliator

Governor states out of state Arbitrators are giving awards to unions that the local governments are unable to pay for

Conciliators must be from Ohio ORC 4117.14 (G)(13)

Conciliators must take into consideration certain criteria before making an award such as comparable work performed in the private sector, interests and welfare of the public, ability of the public employer to finance and effect of adjustments on the normal standard of public service.

Response to criticism of collective bargaining

Mediation has proven to be more economical and efficient means of settling disputes in the private and public sectors

Most public sector negotiations never reach Binding Conciliation.

From 2008-2010 there were 4394 contracts negotiated.

Of the 4394 contracts negotiated, only 385 (8.8%) went to Fact Finding and 69 (1.6%) went to Binding Arbitration

Of the cases that went to arbitration and involved healthcare premiums, Arbitrators ruled for the employer an average of 82.6% of the time from 2008-2010

Of the cases that went to arbitration and involved wage adjustments, Arbitrators awarded an average wage increase of 2.8% from 2008-2010

Why the need for Binding Arbitration

Public safety is prohibited from striking Prior to collective bargaining labor strife was common

in Ohio In 1972, Ohio tied for 4th in the nation for strikes by

safety forces In 1973, Ohio rose to 2nd in strikes by safety forces From 1976-1979, Ohio led the nation in safety forces

strikes In 1980, Ohio had 15 strikes by safety forces involving

2300 workers and costing 6800 working days

Prohibiting strikes will not assure they will not occur

Police and Firefighters are professions where you have no private sector comparables

Over the past decade the average yearly deaths for police is 163, average yearly assaults 58,821, average injuries is 16,041

What is the biggest change in collective bargaining

Current procedure under ORC 4117 Notice given to SERB 60 days in advance of

expiration of current CBA Parties exchange proposals Tentative agreements Continued negotiation on issues not resolved If at an Impasse, Mediator can be used If Mediator is unsuccessful, proceeds to Fact

Finding

Fact Finder is selected using “alternate striking”

Fact Finder receives written and oral presentation on proposals submitted

After reviewing all evidence presented, Fact Finder issues an Award

Fact Finder decides on an issue by issue basis

Fact Finder can select either sides proposals or choose his/her own recommendation

Upon receipt of the Award both sides review and the vote to accept or reject Award

Requires 3/5 of the total membership or legislative body to reject Award

If Fact Finder’s report is rejected, it proceeds to Conciliation, often called binding arbitration

Each side presents their last “best offer” to the Conciliator. The Conciliator has to select on an issue by issue basis either sides proposal. He/she can’t make recommendations as can the Fact Finder

Forces both sides to be realistic in last best offer

New provision of SB 5

SB 5 keeps the same basic procedure with some changes up to Conciliation

SB 5 eliminates the third party neutral Conciliator

The legislative body of the public employer then becomes the Conciliator

The legislative body is in essence one of the two parties to the proceeding

SB 5 creates a system where management is one of the parties at the table negotiating the contract but then has the final say on which proposal to take.

Removes any incentive of the employer to bargain in good faith

Basically turns negotiation into just a conversation because union has no leverage at all. This will contribute to a rapid lowering of morale, coupled with dwindling numbers of officers due to local government funds being cut equals a situation of unparalleled stress on public safety personnel.