by F. Vincent VernuccioFirst published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, where Vernuccio is Visiting Fellow. 

Twenty-eight years after Governor Doug Wilder signed it into law, the Virginia General Assembly lifted the ban on public sector collective bargaining. As of May 1, localities in Virginian could give government unions a monopoly to represent all employees at a particular worksite.

However, the law passed in Richmond is unique from other states as it sets virtually no guidelines on what government unions can bargain over and how they can be formed. Thankfully, it also does not mandate public sector collective bargaining, allowing localities to keep the status quo that the Commonwealth has had for decades.

First and foremost, it should be pointed out that localities can reject public sector collective bargaining. There is good reason to do so, as simply administering the process is expensive. In fact, localities that are considering allowing bargaining are estimating hundreds of thousands or even seven figures for ongoing costs for negotiations and compliance. This spending will not go for better wages or benefits for current public employees or better services for citizens —it is simply to hire more employees to administer the infrastructure of bargaining.

The costs alone could be a large reason that, while the state law allows public employees to petition their local elected officials to vote on allowing bargaining, those representatives will vote no and keep the process that has worked in the Commonwealth for generations.

However, there may be some instances where a locality will allow public sector collective bargaining. For this reason the Thomas Jefferson Institute recently published “Recommendations and models for local collective bargaining in Virginia.”

While voting “no” or not voting at all if not required is the best option for Virginia localities, this “toolkit” outlines options for forming unions, protections for public employees, complying with state laws, and what topics a locality should bargain over (or not bargain over) if it must vote yes.

These include complying with Virginia’s secret ballot protection law, ensuring public employee votes to form a union are done securely and employee privacy is protected. Because unions will have a monopoly to represent all employees (even those who do not wish to join the union or be represented by it), the union should need a majority of all workers (not just those voting) to vote yes before they are given the privilege of collective bargaining.

Future employees should also not be locked into today’s decisions in perpetuity. Unlike some other states where unions were voted in generations ago and simply remained, public employee should have the right to periodically vote on whether to keep the union at their workplace, vote it out, or select a different union.

Ordinances should also be specific about complying with the spirit and letter of Virginia’s transparency laws, ensuring that collective bargaining negotiations are conducted in the open, similar to other public meetings affecting Virginian taxpayers and citizens.

The Supreme Court has said that everything government unions do is political and public employees have a First Amendment right to choose to pay union fees or not. Public employees should be informed of these rights before any money is taken from them. Further to prevent misunderstanding or fraud, any ordinance should include language similar to a recent Indiana bill requiring public employers to confirm with the employees that they wish to pay dues before money is deducted from their paychecks. Alternatively, the locality could follow the lead of states such as Michigan which prohibit union dues being deducted from some public employees’ paychecks.

While public employees who work for the union may need to do some union business during the workday, they should not receive their taxpayer funded salaries during this time. Public employees should be allowed to use vacation time or take unpaid time off while doing union business but paying these employees to do union work on the taxpayer’s dime should be forbidden. Similarly, unions should pay fair market value for office space in public buildings or the use of government equipment.

The people’s local elected officials must have the final say over both budgetary (required by state law) and policy issues. The employer’s negotiating team and the union may agree to a tentative contract but it should not go into effect until the local elected body approves it. Similarly, arbitration, where an unelected arbitrator or arbitration panel writes the final contract, should be avoided.

Local ordinances allowing for public sector collective bargaining can also specify what unions can and cannot bargain over. The best model is Wisconsin which allows government union to bargain over wages only but limits that to inflation without a voter referendum.

If the locality must for whatever reason allow a broader scope of bargaining there are several things that should be expressly prohibited.

These include:

Seniority pay systems. The ordinance should ensure that good employees can receive raises for how hard they work. Local governments should not be constrained from compensating employees based on skill, effort and competence rather than merely “time served”;

General staffing and personnel decision. Determination about who can be hired and staffing levels should be left to the employer;

Layoffs and last in first out. Ordinances should prevent a collective bargaining agreement from dictating newer employees be laid off before more senior employees regardless of performance;

Ancillary services. Localities should be free to do competitive bidding and should not be locked into buying services such as insurance from a specific provider because of a collective bargaining agreement;

Other issues that should be off the bargaining table include the school calendar and scheduling; discipline and grievances; pensions; performance evaluations; and school curriculum.

Many of the above issues are already prescribed by state law, especially for education employees and may not be bargained over anyway. As with any large-scale contract, local counsel should be consulted before allowing any specific subject in a collective bargaining agreement.

Allowing public sector collective bargaining will be a very difficult, time consuming, and expensive process. The easiest and most cost-effective route that protects public employees and stops a third party from coming between them and their employer is for localities to keep the status quo and vote no. If this is not possible local elected officials should first attempt to follow Wisconsin’s lead. If they must allow larger bargaining the several subjects outlined in the toolkit should be considered to be specifically taken off the table.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “Virginia Law Leaves Public Unions Unbound”

  1. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    I’m surprised that pension and retirement benefits are not part of this post. My understanding from California is that the politicians try to win over the various public sector unions with promises of glorious retirement benefits. This has two benefits for the politicians – it buys votes among the public unions and it postpones the need to fund the promises until the future. No need to raise taxes today.

    Of course, time marches on and those benefits must be paid. The best that spendthrift localities and states can hope is that some calamity will befall the US and the federal government will send bailout money to the states that can be co-opted for use in funding the public union retirement deficits.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Localities would have to leave VRS to set up their own pension systems going forward. I’m not aware of any law that prevents that, but if it exists, there’s that Dillon Rule again! I would think the voters of a locality might see the danger of departing from VRS….maybe not. I think the pension issue, for teachers, cops, and even local clerical workers, will remain with VRS and the General Assembly. Not that unions won’t put pressure there.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      heckfire, if we run deficits to pay for tax cuts, why not?

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Localities would have to leave VRS to set up their own pension systems going forward. I’m not aware of any law that prevents that, but if it exists, there’s that Dillon Rule again! I would think the voters of a locality might see the danger of departing from VRS….maybe not. I think the pension issue, for teachers, cops, and even local clerical workers, will remain with VRS and the General Assembly. Not that unions won’t put pressure there.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Some (many?) localities, such as Richmond and Fairfax County, have their own retirement systems. However, the school systems in both those localities use VRS for their teachers. This may be a common pattern throughout the state.

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    I’m surprised that pension and retirement benefits are not part of this post. My understanding from California is that the politicians try to win over the various public sector unions with promises of glorious retirement benefits. This has two benefits for the politicians – it buys votes among the public unions and it postpones the need to fund the promises until the future. No need to raise taxes today.

    Of course, time marches on and those benefits must be paid. The best that spendthrift localities and states can hope is that some calamity will befall the US and the federal government will send bailout money to the states that can be co-opted for use in funding the public union retirement deficits.

  3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    The union dues for Loudoun and Fairfax will rise. They will need that money to win the arm wrestling match at the collective bargaining table. LCPS has committed $2,000,000 and FCPS has earmarked $1.600,000. The stakes are high.

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Another misleading, at best, headline. State law does not leave public unions “unbound”. In fact, the whole point of the post is to list numerous ways in which localities can bind public unions.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Can, but so far have not…..

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        That is up to the locality, not “state law”.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    So interesting things are starting to happen with localities:

    1. – some are “declaring” themselves to be “sanctuaries” for various things meaning they WON’T enforce some laws.

    2. – In Virginia’s case, (and some other states) – decisions about implementation of some regulations or laws is delegated to the locality. In Virginia, for instance, the decision on how to operate the schools for Covid (and other) and now, the decision to allow collective bargaining.

    This continues the idea that the States – AND localities are “laboratories” for governance.

    And of late, it will actually let people themselves decide WHERE they want to live and work.

    If you don’t want public employee unions , undocumented immigrants, or “woke” schools, but you want full gun rights, etc, you now have choices. In Virginia, probably 3/4 of the localities will hew to more Conservative values and preferences.

    Of course some will elect to earning their livings in the evil cities then commute to their gawd-fearing”sanctuaries”.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Why Larry … you just wrote a great commentary for further dismantling Virginia’s strict implementation of Dillon’s Rule.

      Glad you now see the light.

      Anything that dilutes Richmond’s power is good for Virginians.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Why Larry … you just wrote a great commentary for further dismantling Virginia’s strict implementation of Dillon’s Rule.

      Glad you now see the light.

      Anything that dilutes Richmond’s power is good for Virginians.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Even home rule has Dillon aspects to it though.

        We don’t want separate drivers licenses or car licenses for each county and we’d like murder to be the same crime in Fairfax as it is in Wise.

        And we’d probably not like major highways and interstates to be build, signed and operated per jurisdictions. You’d want doctors to be licensed the same way and standards for things like x-rays, ditto. And though some would be okay with each county having it’s own SOLs , I bet most would not like it.

        So virtually every state has some Dillon.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The best school systems in the US – Massachusetts and New Jersey both have had public sector unions for decades.

    ” If Massachusetts were a nation, it would share the top spot in reading with eight other nations worldwide. In science, the state’s students and those from 10 nations came in second, trailing only students from Singapore. In math, 11 other nations were ahead of the Commonwealth. The results come from the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), a triennial international survey designed to assess how well 15-year-old students can apply their knowledge and skills.”

    https://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=24050

    1. Brian Leeper Avatar
      Brian Leeper

      They also weren’t former Confederate slave states. That probably has about as much to do with their school performance as the existence of public sector unions there.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        the oft-implied claim is that unions “protect” poor workers, poor productivity and lower quality products.

        1. Brian Leeper Avatar
          Brian Leeper

          And they would in places where poor workers abound…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            you mean you don’t have a mixture of good and poor workers in most places?

            Not sure of your point.

            Unions can actually help weed out poor workers and protect good workers from bias and abuse from “poor” superiors by establishing standards and specific metrics upon which to judge performance as opposed to arbitrary and vague standards from individual superiors who have a long history of abuses (also).

            Unions protect workers from bad bosses.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Unions protect bad workers from good bosses. Think Derek Chauvin. That comment is pure nonsense, Larry.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Maybe to you. I’ve seen it happen – more than once.

            But I also agree – especially in the case of police – but would additionally point out to you that you don’t need a police union for the police to protect bad cops… happens all the time… not a union thing per se.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    One of the lesser understood aspects of teachers in Virginia is that many of them work according to a “contract”. Perhaps some have heard of disputes where it is said that teachers will “work to the contract” as in perhaps in unison, somewhat similar to actual collective bargaining.

    Sounds like this may more formalize an already existing practice.

    1. John Martin Avatar
      John Martin

      what are you trying to say? Working the contract has been very rare, just so you know. And what is wrong with it anyway? It is implied in employment contracts that the employee will routinely go above and beyond what they got hired to do? Virginia sucks for workers and right to work has a lot to do with that.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Oh you got me wrong. I think the “contract” cuts both ways and is legitimate and helpful to the workers and YES, it demonstrates that many, perhaps MOST teachers in Virginia actually do go ABOVE and BEYOND their required duties – all the while the “anti” folks are fear-mongering unions.

        So yes, John, stick around and make your points – we need voices here to counter the rancid right “stuff”!

        😉

Leave a Reply