|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Proposition 2˝ again under assault!
State Representative Martin J.
Walsh has asserted that an arbitration bill he has been pushing
for a decade on Beacon Hill would install more financial
safeguards for cities and towns during labor disputes. But
government watchdogs argue that Walsh’s proposal would actually
do the opposite, by eliminating the requirement that the city
council approve arbitration awards for police and
firefighters....
The campaign maintained that
the threat of binding arbitration could force compromise. But
the campaign could not explain how the shift would better ensure
that a community could pay for an arbitration award. Under
Walsh’s proposal, an arbitrator’s ruling would be final, and the
city council would have no say.
“That’s a major difference
from current law,” said Michael J. Widmer, president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a budget watchdog funded by
businesses and nonprofits.
“Taking the city council out
of the equation gives much more power to the arbitrator. It’s
really a step backward for financial accountability to the
taxpayer. It would seriously weaken the city’s hand.” ...
Walsh wrote the bill with the
state firefighters union and first filed it in 2002, according
to his campaign. The measure has never gained traction on Beacon
Hill, although Walsh has refiled it five times, most recently in
January. The firefighters union, which has been one of the
staunchest supporters of Walsh’s mayoral campaign, put forward a
virtually identical proposal as a statewide referendum that
never made the ballot.
Critics have questioned
whether Walsh could fairly negotiate union contracts. He is a
longtime labor leader, and unions have spent at least $872,000
on his mayoral bid, according to the Office of Campaign and
Political Finance. But Walsh has said he would have the upper
hand in labor negotiations because unions listen to their
own....
The two main elements of
Walsh’s bill — last offer and binding arbitration — were once
used in Massachusetts to settle labor disputes with police and
fire unions.
In 1980, voters approved a
sweeping initiative known as Proposition 2˝, which
restricted how much cities and towns can increase property taxes
each year. To help control costs, Proposition 2˝ ended
last-offer and binding arbitration.
A subsequent law restored
limited arbitration rights, but it required that any award be
approved by a city council or other local legislative body to
ensure the city or town can pay the bill.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Walsh’s push for binding arbitration draws criticism
|
|
Barbara Anderson's CLT
Commentary
Dear Citizen for Limited Taxation;
Here we go again . . .
As you know, CLT put Proposition 2˝ on
the ballot in 1980, where it was passed by voters. Since it's almost
impossible to succeed with a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts,
our ballot question was a statute (law), which makes it subject to
repeal or amendment. It's due to our members' ongoing support ―
empowering CLT staff's eternal vigilance ― that Prop 2˝ is still law
after 34 years.
Our major concern is not that there
will be a direct, obvious, outright assault, like repealing it.
What we have to watch for ― constantly
― is a change in some obscure but essential provision that will lead to
later arguments for repeal or major change. The last time this happened,
in 2010, the Massachusetts Municipal Association tried to exclude
abatements from the levy limit, which would have effectively doubled the
allowed annual increase in property taxes. Alerted by a friendly
assessor, we were able to stop this. (See
details below.)
Now we have one of the two remaining
Boston mayoral candidates trying to restore an outrageous state mandate
that was repealed by Proposition 2˝.
As the Boston Globe reports, state
Representative Marty Walsh, one of the two Democrat candidates for
mayor, is pushing a bill to restore compulsory binding arbitration for
police and fire unions.
Compulsory binding arbitration was one
of the reasons that Massachusetts property taxes were the highest in the
world when we created our ballot question. School board fiscal autonomy
was another. The first meant that if the community and the union
couldn't agree on a contract, it went to compulsory arbitration, and the
decision of the arbiter was binding. In practice, we were told by
municipal officials, it always favored the union. This drove up costs,
which were covered by unlimited property taxes.
School board fiscal autonomy meant
that Town Meeting/City Council had to give the school committee any
amount it desired and demanded.
If property taxes were to be limited,
it was only fair to municipalities to give them some control over their
budgets; so Prop 2˝ abolished both compulsory binding arbitration and
school board fiscal autonomy, while also forbidding new unfunded state
mandates on the cities and towns.
In time there was a change on the
police and fire issue, also noted in the Globe article, that restored a
type of arbitration, but with the requirement that city councils and
town meetings approve the decision or send it back to the negotiating
table. This seemed fair enough.
But returning to the era of final
binding arbitration, with no town meeting or city council approval,
would be a major violation of Proposition 2˝, and a guarantee that the
next legislative assault will be on the levy limit, as higher property
taxes will be "needed" to cover the contracts.
The issue has come up during the
mayoral election because an arbiter just awarded a 25.4 percent pay
hike, over six years, to Boston police patrol officers. The Boston City
Council is expected to balk at this. Walsh's bill would let the raises
go through without Council approval.
If Boston wants to elect Marty Walsh
mayor, that's its voters' business: but as a state representative he
shouldn't be pushing legislation that would raise property taxes not
only on Boston taxpayers, but across the Commonwealth.
CLT will find out more about this
legislation's chance of passing when Beacon Hill is open for business on
Monday, and keep you informed.
|
 |
 |
|
Barbara Anderson |
History of the 2010 Assault on Proposition 2˝
|
Apr 21, 2010 |
House leadership attacks
Proposition 2˝; Urges major tax hike  |
|
Apr
23, 2010 |
CLT's 'prevent defense'
winning another one for Prop 2˝ |
|
Apr
25, 2010 |
Taxpayers demand a
Section 8 discharge for stealth tax |
|
Apr
27, 2010 |
Taxpayers win a big one;
CLT saves Proposition 2˝ again! |
|
Apr 29, 2010 |
More news and commentary
on CLT's latest taxpayer win |
|
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Walsh’s push for binding arbitration draws criticism
By Andrew Ryan
State Representative Martin J. Walsh has asserted that an arbitration
bill he has been pushing for a decade on Beacon Hill would install more
financial safeguards for cities and towns during labor disputes. But
government watchdogs argue that Walsh’s proposal would actually do the
opposite, by eliminating the requirement that the city council approve
arbitration awards for police and firefighters.
The ruling of an arbitrator would be final and binding under the bill
from Walsh, who is a finalist in the race for mayor of Boston. In an
interview this week about the proposed legislation, Walsh said that “the
biggest piece is the fiscal piece, which is not in the current
structure.”
“Today, the award is voted up or down” by the city council, Walsh said.
“Binding arbitration would give us the ability when an award comes out
to see whether a city or town would be able to sustain the increase.”
Under current law, arbitrators must consider what a municipality can
afford. Walsh’s bill includes that same provision, but his campaign
could not identify any new fiscal safeguards in his legislation.
The campaign maintained that the threat of binding arbitration could
force compromise. But the campaign could not explain how the shift would
better ensure that a community could pay for an arbitration award. Under
Walsh’s proposal, an arbitrator’s ruling would be final, and the city
council would have no say.
“That’s a major difference from current law,” said Michael J. Widmer,
president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a budget watchdog
funded by businesses and nonprofits.
“Taking the city council out of the equation gives much more power to
the arbitrator. It’s really a step backward for financial accountability
to the taxpayer. It would seriously weaken the city’s hand.”
That view was shared by three other specialists in government and
municipal finance who would speak only to supply background information
and without attribution.
Walsh wrote the bill with the state firefighters union and first filed
it in 2002, according to his campaign. The measure has never gained
traction on Beacon Hill, although Walsh has refiled it five times, most
recently in January. The firefighters union, which has been one of the
staunchest supporters of Walsh’s mayoral campaign, put forward a
virtually identical proposal as a statewide referendum that never made
the ballot.
Critics have questioned whether Walsh could fairly negotiate union
contracts. He is a longtime labor leader, and unions have spent at least
$872,000 on his mayoral bid, according to the Office of Campaign and
Political Finance. But Walsh has said he would have the upper hand in
labor negotiations because unions listen to their own.
His proposal to change the state’s arbitration system came under
scrutiny this week after a panel ruled that Boston Police patrol
officers deserve a six-year contract that city officials say would
amount to a 25.4 percent pay hike.
The issue highlights a stark philosophical difference between Walsh and
his opponent, Councilor at Large John R. Connolly, and Mayor Thomas M.
Menino.
Connolly and Menino have called on the Boston City Council to exercise
its authority under the law and vote against the award, forcing both
sides back to the bargaining table.
In a follow-up statement Thursday, Walsh’s campaign reiterated that he
believed arbitration should be a last resort and pledged that as mayor
he would do everything possible to avoid it. He has called the patrol
officers’ pay hike “out of line” and urged both parties to voluntarily
return to negotiations.
But Walsh has not called on the City Council to reject the arbitration
ruling, suggesting that it would violate a basic tenet of collective
bargaining. Asking the City Council to vote against the award would be
contrary to the proposal he has been pushing on Beacon Hill.
The overwhelming majority of union contracts are settled voluntarily,
said Ira Sills, a prominent labor lawyer who represents predominantly
private-sector unions, including some at the Globe. The prospect of
binding arbitration, he said, could encourage labor and management to
reach an agreement and eliminate political theatrics.
“City councilors are not experts in the details of collective
bargaining,” said Sills, who also teaches at Northeastern University
School of Law. “They are in practice driven by political
considerations.”
Current state law delineates 11 factors arbitrators must consider,
including a city’s ability to pay for the contract. Walsh’s bill has
almost the same list.
“His bill has only 10 factors,” said Samuel R. Tyler, president of the
Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a fiscal watchdog funded by business
and nonprofits. The factor Walsh cut would effectively clear the way for
binding arbitration. The city council would no longer have a say.
Harvard Law School professor Arnold M. Zack agreed that the threat of
binding arbitration can encourage both sides to settle voluntarily,
which is always the goal.
But Zack was troubled by another significant change contained in Walsh’s
proposal. The bill would require arbitrators to choose between the last
offer made by a union or the last offer by the city, instead of
splitting the difference.
“The last best offer is striking because it increases hostility between
the two parties,” said Zack, a past president of the National Academy of
Arbitrators, who has mediated about 5,000 labor-management disputes
since 1957. “It gives a victory to one side or the other when the
outcome ought to be compromise.”
Sills, the union lawyer who teaches at Northeastern, had a different
perspective. He said that a last-offer provision can discourage
unreasonable proposals and bring parties closer together.
The two main elements of Walsh’s bill — last offer and binding
arbitration — were once used in Massachusetts to settle labor disputes
with police and fire unions.
In 1980, voters approved a sweeping initiative known as
Proposition
2˝, which restricted how much cities and towns can increase property
taxes each year. To help control costs, Proposition 2˝ ended
last-offer and binding arbitration.
A subsequent law restored limited arbitration rights, but it required
that any award be approved by a city council or other local legislative
body to ensure the city or town can pay the bill.
In 2010, the Boston City Council threatened to reject an arbitration
ruling that would have given firefighters a 19.2 percent pay hike over
four years.
Firefighters returned to the bargaining table and ultimately agreed to a
lengthier deal in which they made some concessions.
In 2012, the Holbrook Town Meeting rejected an arbitration award for its
fire union, and Saugus voters rejected an arbitration ruling for police.
Earlier this year in Northampton, an arbitrator’s ruling would have
given roughly 50 firefighters a 7 percent pay hike over three years.
Voters had just approved a property tax override to close a budget gap
that would have forced the town to lay off four police officers and
almost a dozen teachers and would have closed the public pool on summer
weekends.
The Northampton City Council rejected the arbitration award, forcing the
mayor and firefighters back to the bargaining table. They agreed to a
deal for an 8.5 percent pay hike over six years.
Northampton city councilor David Murphy bristled at Walsh’s proposal to
eliminate the council vote and give ultimate authority to an arbitrator.
“They don’t have to pay the bills; we do,” said Murphy, who heads the
council’s Finance Committee. “We know what we can afford and what we
can’t.”
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|