Item 2F: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

HB 2748 Ms. Wilson said HB 2748 prohibited a public employer from terminating or laying off an employee who did not speak Spanish. The committee asked questions clarifying the details of the bill. Ms. Mullett noted the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing. She did not anticipate the bill having much impact on the City. The City did not have a large number of positions that required a second language. Mayor Piercy recommended that the committee monitor the bill. Ms. Taylor did not want to oppose the bill. Mr. Poling was inclined to oppose the bill because he envisioned a situation where junior individuals with needed qualifications were laid off before senior employees with fewer qualifications. He did not object to monitoring the bill, however. Ms. Ortiz thought the issues involved were complicated and pointed out there were few positions where people were compensated for speaking another language. She indicated support for monitoring the bill. Ms. Wilson said the bill said merely stated that it was an unlawful employment practice for an employer to terminate or layoff an employee because they did not speak Spanish. Mr. Poling moved to change the City’s position on the bill from Oppose to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2831 Ms. Taylor thought the City should support the bill, which included temporary employees in the definition of “appropriate bargaining unit” for the purposes of collective bargaining, or at least not oppose it. Ms. Mullett said the bill included elements similar to elements in bills the City had opposed in the past. For example, the definition of “temporary employee” was similar to HB 2545, which the City opposed, the element prohibiting a public employer from hiring permanent replacements was similar to HB 2546, and the element related to the bargaining process was similar to HB 2709, which the City opposed. She said the bill would place more restrictions on how the City could conduct business. The City currently did not have temporary employees in its bargaining units and adding them would increase the organization’s labor costs. Ms. Taylor said that employers such as universities “got by” by hiring temporary employees. She thought that temporary employees should have some rights and further maintained that their temporary employ- ment was sometimes an abuse of their rights. She noted her own experience as a temporary employee at a community college. Ms. Mullett said the City’s contract with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) addressed how long individuals could be used as temporary employees. She noted that most of the City’s temporary employees employed at the Hult Center and at recreation programs. Ms. Mullett said that the City did careful compensation comparisons for temporary employees. Ms. Ortiz supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor preferred to support the bill rather than oppose it. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 11, 2009 Page 2