Northwest labor press., December 19, 2014, Page 19, Image 19

...Lame-duck Congress changes law on union pensions
(From Page 1)
Even then, the U.S. Treasury Depart-
ment can override the vote and go for-
ward with the cuts if it concludes that
impending plan insolvency poses “sys-
temic” risk to PBGC.
The legislation was supported by the
Building Trades of North America, as
well as Associated General Contractors;
United Association of Plumbers and
Pipefitters; International Union of Op-
erating Engineers; International Union
of Painters and Allied Trades; United
Brotherhood of Carpenters; Service
Employees International Union; and
United Food and Commercial Workers,
as well as Kroger Corporation.
“This is a tool for trustees of plans
that can be made solvent long-term,”
said Randy DeFrehn, executive direc-
tor of NCCMP, the multi-employer
trade group that originated the pro-
posal. DeFrehn said a bailout, or other
fixes, might have been preferable, but
when the Democrats were in charge of
the House, his group was unable to get
anywhere with proposals for the gov-
ernment to step in to guarantee the
PBGC. “I think the Republicans did
this because they don’t want … PBGC
to go bankrupt and have to write a $40
or $100 billion check in the future,” De-
Frehn said.
DECEMBER 19, 2014
On the other hand, the proposal was
opposed by the Teamsters, Machinists,
Boilermakers, United Steelworkers,
Laborers International Union, AARP,
and the non-profit Pension Rights Cen-
ter — mostly because of the principle
that it’s wrong to cut promised benefits
after a worker retires.
Normally, legislative proposals go
through committee hearings, and are
subject to amendments and votes. In
this case, the pension legislation took
the form of Amendment 1 in the House
Rules Committee to H Res 776, a bill
governing consideration of HR 83, a
massive bill to fund the entire federal
government. HR 83 was known as the
“CRomnibus” because it combined a
“Continuing Resolution” (an agree-
ment to maintain current funding lev-
els when Congress can’t agree on the
correct new level) and an “omnibus”
appropriations bill (appropriations for
11 separate parts of government, all
voted on as one bill.)
The closest Amendment 1 got to a
Congressional debate was a Dec. 10
hearing in the House Rules Committee,
at which Democrat Alcee Hastings of
Florida confronted Miller, citing the
AARP and quoting Machinists Presi-
dent Tom Buffenbarger. Hastings said
it would be the first time in 40 years
since the passage of the legislation
known as ERISA that Congress would
allow plans to cut pension benefits to
those already retired.
Miller responded vigorously: “Right
now, if we do nothing, those very same
retirees that you’re worried about have
a very high likelihood of losing all of
their benefits, or going to the PBGC
and getting a maximum benefit of
$12,000 a year,” Miller said. “They
have one pool of money. Can they
make it go for a longer period of time
for a greater number of people, or do
they just have to go with the dictate that
they all go to a minimum benefit? And
if enough of them go to the minimum
benefit, the ambulance that’s carrying
them runs off the road — the PBGC
goes bankrupt, and they get nothing.”
“It’s been great listening to this de-
bate over the soul of the Democratic
Party,” scoffed Oklahoma Republican
Tom Cole.
Soon after the exchange between
Hastings and Miller, HR 776, attaching
pension reform to the appropriations
HOW THEY VOTED:
All four Oregon Democrats in the House (Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne
Bonamici, Peter Defazio, and Kurt Schrader) voted no. Eastern Oregon Re-
publican Greg Walden voted yes, as did Southwest Washington Republican
Jaime Herrera Beutler.
In the Senate, Oregon’s Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden voted no, as did
Washington’s Maria Cantwell, but Patty Murray voted yes.
In October, over 100 union sheet metal, electrical, plumbing and me-
chanical contractors signed a letter calling on Wyden to support the Solu-
tions Not Bailouts proposal. But Wyden objected to the process: “Legislation
this complex and controversial requires thorough review and analysis,”
Wyden said in a statement. “In fact, no one in the Senate, including the com-
mittees of jurisdiction, had the opportunity to review the bill.”
bill, passed 9-4 in House Rules. Then
HR 83, the CRomnibus, passed the
House 219-206 on Dec. 11, with 162
Republicans and 57 Democrats voting
for it, and 67 Republicans and 139 De-
mocrats voting against. Next, the Sen-
ate approved HR 83 by 56-40 on Dec.
13, with 32 Democrats and 24 Republi-
cans voting for it, and 22 Democrats
and 18 Republicans voting against it.
DeFrehn said the work of rescuing
union pension plans isn’t done.
“We’ve put a tourniquet on a gigantic
gaping wound, and now what we need
to do is provide a path forward so we
can have a secure retirement system.”
Unions lukewarm on Portland street fund
A proposed Portland street fund has
found less than enthusiastic support
from organized labor.
Unions, particularly the building
trades, often come out in support of
public investment in jobs and infra-
structure. In this case, Portland Mayor
Charlie Hales and Commissioner Steve
Novick are proposing a business fee
and a progressive income tax that —
after administrative costs — would net
roughly $34 million a year to fund
pavement maintenance and street
safety improvements. But COPPEA,
the independent union that represents
city transportation engineers, has been
the only union to testify in favor of it at
City Hall. One other union, Laborers
Local 483, approved a conditional res-
olution of support after some debate at
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS
its Nov. 18 general membership meet-
ing. [Local 483 represents workers at
the Portland Bureau of Transportation
who’d actually do much of the mainte-
nance work.] The Northwest Oregon
Labor Council voted Dec. 8 to support
it, but with conditions, and it was not
unanimous. The conditions are that
there be a labor seat on the fund’s over-
sight committee, and that the street
projects be covered by the requirement
to pay prevailing wage. Meanwhile,
the Columbia-Pacific Building and
Construction Trades Council has not
taken a position on it.
Of course, the proposal isn’t cur-
rently headed for a ballot, and Portland
City Council doesn’t need union say-so
to move forward. But the Oregon Fuels
Association has pledged to refer it to
voters by working to gather 21,000 sig-
natures within 30 days of the ordi-
nance’s passage. If that happens, City
leaders are sure to come to labor ask-
ing for help defending the street fund.
As outlined by PBOT, Portland
businesses would pay a fee of between
$3 and $144 a month under the pro-
posed ordinance, depending on square
footage, number of employees, and
gross revenue; non-profits would pay
50 percent of the for-profit rate. Resi-
dents, meanwhile, would pay based on
income: $5 a month for a couple mak-
ing $40,000 to $60,000 a year, $7.50 a
month for a couple making $60,000-
$75,000, and $10 a month between
$75,000 and $100,000, all the way up
to $75 a month for couples making
more than $350,000.
The push for more street funding
comes after the City Auditor published
a pair of reports in 2013 that faulted the
City of Portland for neglecting street
maintenance. The audits found that
funding for core services like maintain-
ing streets has been displaced by new
transportation commitments taken on
by the City, including the Sellwood
Bridge replacement, the Portland Mil-
waukie Light Rail line, and expansions
of the Portland Street Car. The auditor
recommended that the City spend an
additional $75 million a year for 10
years on street maintenance — in order
to avoid more expensive repairs later
on. The proposed street fund wouldn’t
even come close to that: It would spend
about $15 million on street mainte-
nance like sealing and repaving, and
slightly less on safety improvements —
like sidewalks around David Douglas
High School, street medians, and flash-
ing beacons at dangerous intersections.
At a Nov. 20 breakfast hosted by the
Northwest Oregon Labor Council,
Mayor Charlie Hales told labor leaders
(Turn to Page 21)
PAGE 19