custom ad
NewsMarch 20, 2003

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Supporters of the State Employees' Protection Act say that two of the bill's three provisions are unlikely to stir controversy. The third, they admit, is certain to rile organized labor. That provision would bar labor unions from unilaterally imposing so-called fair-share fees on employees who are not union members but whom such organizations are legally obligated to represent. ...

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Supporters of the State Employees' Protection Act say that two of the bill's three provisions are unlikely to stir controversy. The third, they admit, is certain to rile organized labor.

That provision would bar labor unions from unilaterally imposing so-called fair-share fees on employees who are not union members but whom such organizations are legally obligated to represent. Non-union workers could voluntarily pay the fees, which typically are about two-thirds the cost of full union dues.

"This is not designed to be an anti-union bill, though I know it is perceived that way," said state Rep. Richard Byrd, R-Kirkwood.

Byrd, a sponsor of the proposal, said state workers should not be forced to financially support an organization to which they do not belong.

However, state Rep. Dan Bishop, D-Kansas City, said the measure would discourage workers from joining unions and paying dues since it would allow them to enjoy representation for free.

"They are deriving a benefit, but they are not paying for that benefit," Bishop said.

The House Judiciary Committee, which Byrd chairs, heard the bill Wednesday. House Speaker Pro Tem Rod Jetton of Marble Hill and Majority Floor Leader Jason Crowell of Cape Girardeau are among the many Republican cosponsors.

The other components of the bill would extend to state employees protections already enjoyed by private sector workers.

One would prohibit state agencies from retaliating against employees who seek workers' compensation benefits for on-the-job injuries. Such retaliation is already illegal for private companies.

Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!

The other would address conflicting decisions by state appellate courts related to protections under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The federal law protects the jobs of workers who need to take leaves of absence to deal with family and medical emergencies.

The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District in Kansas City has said state workers may invoke the act. However, the Court of Appeals Eastern District in St. Louis has ruled to the contrary. The eastern district court's jurisdiction includes Cape Girardeau, Madison and Perry counties.

Under the bill, Missouri would waive its sovereign immunity and allow state employees to take advantage of the family leave act.

Recent efforts by the Service Employees International Union to collect fees from non-members they represent in the Division of Probation and Parole prompted the provision to make such fees strictly voluntary.

SEIU spokesman Grant Williams said Missouri state workers, who are facing a third straight year without raises, are among the lowest paid in the nation. The proposed effort to block fair-share fees is an effort to keep state workers from effectively organizing, he said.

"State workers have not had a voice here in years," Williams said. "What has happened to state employees in Missouri cannot stand."

The bill is HB 593.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608

Story Tags
Advertisement

Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:

For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.

Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!