EDITORIAL: Collective bargaining reform bill must apply to SEIU

The strength of recently passed collective bargaining reforms is about to be tested by Clark County’s two-year dispute with the SEIU Local 1107. If the law doesn’t apply to this case, then the Legislature wasted its time passing it.

One of the core provisions of Senate Bill 241, which was signed into law by Gov. Brian Sandoval and took effect June 1, is a prohibition on pay increases for public employees if their bargaining unit’s contract expires and a new contract is not in place. That section was intended to address so-called “evergreen” clauses, which previously allowed a contract’s compensation increases to roll over in the event of a labor dispute. This allowed unions to drag out contract negotiations and bargain in bad faith without having their members suffer any financial repercussions. Lawmakers wanted to restore some balance to the bargaining process, compel unions to more quickly agree to contracts and, ultimately, put the interests of taxpayers before those of labor leaders.

A second provision of SB241 allows a government to pay its employees for union work if the union reimburses the government or offsets the cost of that work through negotiated concessions. Again, the intent was to dial back taxpayer subsidization of union activities that are hostile to taxpayers.

Clark County wasted no time in putting the law to use this month, freezing the pay of SEIU members, whose contract expired in 2013 as their impasse headed toward binding arbitration. That prompted the stalling SEIU to claim its old contract renews year to year and therefore hadn’t expired. The union even filed a complaint with the state’s Employee-Management Relations Board, but its premise is laughable. After all, if the contract hadn’t expired, why was the union seeking a new one? Have they been exchanging offers with the county for two years just for giggles?

The SEIU has such little understanding of SB241 that it responded to a final-hour contract offer from the county with a counteroffer that doesn’t comply with the law. The county offered to allow the SEIU to continue to enjoy paid union leave on taxpayers, but sought the elimination of longevity pay for future hires as a concession to offset the cost. The union countered with an offer that preserves union leave and longevity pay for future hires, and requires more generous pay raises than the county’s offer. Where’s the concession to offset the cost of union leave? There isn’t one.

The pay freeze for SEIU members won’t last long. They’ll take a pay cut of more than 1 percent effective July 1, when state pension contribution rates increase. And their union’s leaders are holding their salaries hostage over the preservation of longevity pay, an outdated benefit that rewards employees for sticking around at least eight years, for people who aren’t even employed by the county yet.

The SEIU is hoping the Employee-Management Relations Board will order the county to ignore SB241. And if the union doesn’t get a favorable ruling, it probably will ask a judge to rule the law doesn’t say what it says. That can’t be allowed to happen. Taxpayers can’t afford it.