Inside
MEETING
NOTICES
See
Page 4
Volume 114
Number 2
January 18, 2013
Portland
The time is now to reform filibuster rules in U.S. Senate
Filibuster reform will be first thing
on the docket when the U.S. Senate
convenes on Jan. 22.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon,
along with Senators Tom Udall of New
Mexico, and Tom Harkin of Iowa, are
leading the charge for reform. They
told reporters during a briefing on
Capitol Hill on Jan. 3 that they have the
votes needed to make change happen.
There are 55 Democrats in the Sen-
ate, and Udall says he has 51 votes.
Under the U.S. Constitution, a ma-
jority of each house have the power to
change its rules on the first day of the
legislative session by a simple majority
vote. The Senate convened the first ses-
sion of the 113th Congress on Jan. 3 —
and the three Democratic senators in-
troduced SR 4. Here’s what it would do:
• Clear the path to debate —
Those objecting to legislation would
only have one opportunity to filibuster
legislation. Specifically, the ability to
bring up a bill for simple debate (the
motion to proceed) would not be sub-
jected to a filibuster.
• Restore the “talking filibuster”
— Those wishing to filibuster legisla-
tion must actually hold the floor and be
required to actually debate the legisla-
tion. It would end “silent” filibusters
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon is leading the charge for filibuster reform
that would require senators to actually stand and speak on the floor if they
are opposed to a piece of legislation or presidential appointment. The Senate
will debate the issue Jan. 22.
where one senator quietly objects and
is not required to take the Senate floor.
• Put filibuster supporters on
record — 41 senators would have to
affirmatively vote to continue debate,
rather than forcing 60 senators to vote
to end debate.
• Expedite nominations — The
process for approving nominations
would be streamlined, shortening the
amount of time required for debate
once a nomination is brought to the
Senate floor.
Historically, the filibuster was in-
tended to protect the minority party’s
interests on extraordinary issues, and it
was rarely invoked. But in today’s con-
tentious political climate the filibuster
has been used in record numbers
(nearly 400 times in the 112th Con-
gress) to block votes and debate, and
the requirement for 60 votes to end a
filibuster has proved virtually insur-
mountable. For example, much of the
legislation organized labor has fought
for to restore collective bargaining
rights and to create jobs — from the
Employee Free Choice Act, to the
Bring Jobs Home Act, the American
Jobs Act, and many more — never re-
ceived a Senate floor vote because of
the filibuster threat, even though the
legislation had majority support from
senators.
For these reasons, SR 4 is endorsed
by the AFL-CIO and some 50 progres-
sive groups — in a coalition called Fix
the Senate Now.
Action on the resolution was post-
poned, however, because another fili-
buster reform proposal was introduced
— this one by Sens. John McCain (R-
Ariz.), and Carl Levin (D-Mich.). It is
backed by six other senators.
Merkley said the counterproposal
“does nothing to take on the secret,
silent filibuster that is haunting this
body.”
The AFL-CIO and Fix the Senate
Now say the alternative proposal is a
recipe for continued gridlock. “It lacks
transparency and accountability; it al-
lows continued minority veto of all leg-
islative matters; it continues to provide
multiple chances to filibuster legisla-
tion; and it keeps the obstructionist sta-
tus quo for many executive branch and
judicial nominees.
“We will be pressing Sen. Reid
[Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of
Nevada] to stand firm in support of real
reform, including the ‘talking fili-
buster,’ ” the coalition said in a press
release.
Sen. Reid employed a parliamen-
tary procedure that allowed him to hold
off making any rule changes on open-
ing day. Under the procedure (he called
for a recess at the close of the first
day’s proceedings), each day is still
considered as the “first day” of the new
Congress, under which the Senate can
change its rules by a simple majority.
While in “recess” Reid is meeting
with Minority Leader Mitch Mc-
(Turn to Page 5)
Transit Union Local 757-TriMet conflict accelerates
By DON McINTOSH
Associate Editor
Every time you think the relationship
can’t get any worse between TriMet and
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Lo-
cal 757, it does. Oregon’s largest transit
agency and the union that represents
2,000 of its workers and 1,200 retirees
have been in continuous combat since
2009 — in the workplace, in the Ore-
gon Legislature, in the legal arena, and
in the court of public opinion.
The issues of contention range from
petty and personal to serious and sub-
stantive: Management has stripped
away perks that had been added over the
years — from the profits from the em-
ployee break room vending machines
which paid for an annual picnic, to the
right of union staff to purchase the
agency’s group life insurance at their
own expense. TriMet gave bus supervi-
sors a quota of high-risk fare enforce-
ment confrontations, without the train-
ing or backup that fare inspectors
receive. But by far the biggest source of
contention has been TriMet’s effort to
shift health insurance costs to workers.
TriMet bus and train operators and
mechanics earn wages that top out at
about $22 an hour, plus pension and
health benefits. (Until 2009, TriMet
workers had fully-paid insurance for
themselves and their families, with min-
imal co-pays.) But in 2009, TriMet in-
sisted on reducing benefits to a “90/10”
plan, in which employees pay 10 per-
cent of health care costs. When the
union didn’t agree, the two sides
reached impasse in bargaining for a new
contract, which led to binding arbitra-
tion. In the end, the arbitrator picked
TriMet’s proposal. But the union is
challenging the arbitrator’s decision.
Administrative law judge Wendy
Greenwald heard arguments from both
sides Jan. 8 and 9. Under an expedited
process, her conclusions will go directly
to the three-member Oregon Employ-
ment Relations Board (ERB), which ad-
judicates public-sector labor disputes in
Oregon.
But TriMet isn’t stopping there. In
December, the agency announced that
it will push in the next round of bar-
gaining for an 80/20 plan, in which em-
ployees pay 20 percent of health costs.
Both sides are gearing up for battle
on multiple fronts. To fund their fight,
Local 757 members at TriMet voted to
approve a special dues assessment be-
ginning this month that will raise up-
wards of $40,000 a month.
It may seem strange, but when the
Oregon Legislature meets next month,
TriMet plans to ask legislators to make
it legal again for transit workers to
strike. In Oregon, most public employ-
ees have the right to strike, but some,
like police and firefighters, are barred
from striking; their contracts are settled
by binding arbitration when labor and
management can’t agree. In 2007, law-
makers added transit workers to the cat-
egory of barred-from-striking employ-
ees, at Local 757’s request. The union
expected that members would achieve
better results by having a neutral arbi-
trator pick the most reasonable of the
two proposals. Washington has a similar
provision for transit workers.
But in practice, binding arbitration
was much messier than expected.
TriMet didn’t bargain seriously before
it declared impasse, ERB ruled: Man-
agement waited until the very end to de-
tail its most important proposals, in-
cluding its wage offer, and then sent to
arbitrator David Gaba a “final offer”
that it had never shown the union in ac-
tual bargaining. Not once but twice,
ERB ordered TriMet to play fair and
submit a proper final offer to the arbi-
trator. The legal back-and-forth took so
long that the arbitrator’s decision was is-
sued 32 months into the 36-month con-
tract.
And the arbitrator’s decision, which
might have been expected to be final,
opened up a new can of worms. Gaba
felt that the employer’s health care costs
were too high to justify picking ATU’s
offer. But he also identified items in
TriMet’s offer that could be illegal and
possibly unenforceable, including the
need to bill workers for years of retroac-
tive health premiums — and provisions
that broke promises to retirees.
Local 757 urged members not to co-
operate with attempts to collect the back
premiums, and TriMet called that ille-
gal in charges that were added to the
union’s appeal of the arbitrator’s ruling,
creating the consolidated case that
Greenwald heard.
Since the dispute began, ERB has re-
peatedly ruled that TriMet violated the
law, even ordering TriMet to pay union
attorney fees on two occasions.
Meanwhile, the arbitrator-imposed
contract has now expired, but bargain-
ing over a new agreement has yet to be-
gin. Local 757 says it wants bargaining
(Turn to Page 7)