One Hundred Days, part 6 Reel 1
The week of February 11 and food prices across the country are projected to rise by 20 percent. The legislature deals with a sales tax pro-wrestling and the fuel supply. A citizen speaks to the General Assembly and I will press looks at collective bargaining. It is weeks x 100 days. And he thanked her and he countered. They are union or they
are in a way or a lawyer. The issue in the Senate the governor and the fuel supply in the house the sales tax professional boxing and wrestling and a newsman's shield law. Here is Dean Borg. Good evening in the Senate this week assumingly minor bill prompted some heated partisan debate. During the early stages of the energy crisis about a year ago the governor the chairman of the Commerce Commission the state geologist and the state director of civil defense set up an emergency supply of heating fuel which could be distributed to other communities needing some to tide them over. Well that emergency supply action wasn't illegal but an interim Study Committee of the legislature decided that they should write an authorization for such action into the Iowa Code. It was only a two sentence bill to get the
job done. The first part authorized the fuel pool. But the second sentence caused some trouble. It read like this. The governor may cooperate with the federal government in implementing mandatory allocation and rationing programs for refined petroleum products. The Democrats question that word rationing. They suspected that could mean rationing at the gas pumps and they weren't about to concede that power to the governor. I recognize and acknowledge the severity of the energy crisis that is with us today. And I think that legislatures as well as the Congress and the executive branches of government must make appropriate responses. The question is though whether the nature of the response proposed in this bill is an appropriate
delegation of blanket authority to the executive to employ mant a rationing program. The debate rankled on until Sen. Joseph Coleman of clear move to defer action so that some amendments could be drafted. The Senate did defer action until the next morning and at that time there were several amendments attempting to confine or define the governor's power. And that provoked further debate on that topic. Now we had agreed and passed out of Study Committee and as sponsor this bill we make up the membership of that study committee and from the Senate side passed out a bill to legalize the state oil pool. Nothing about rationing nothing about granting the governor sole authority to institute any kind of rationing program he so desires. I am not saying that that is unnecessary. What I did say is that if it is necessary if we as a legislative body believe the governor needs that type of authority I don't
think we should do it. And in passing over it with one or two words and another type of a proposal more than likely what we ought to do is come up with a comprehensive rationing proposal that gives the governor the type with already the deal he probably would need and yet retains our right as a legislative body to have some say in it. Maybe I got a little more faith in our gov than you have but I'm not running away having lost the office of governor. I think it's even an election year and everything else and I think he's going to be very cautious what he does about rationing or anything else. I don't think you have to have the fear of giving this kind of power that are words this bill will cease to exist after Bob Ray ceases to be governor. I always go on the premise that we've passed legislation if we are to not elect terms I'd hate to think that we even have a candidate for governor to day. We got quite a few and we got a lot of them and I hate to think that any one of them would misuse this power in any way I in the wildest stretch of my imagination I could think anyone would
miss you this power even in later years. I just can't even imagine that I got it or that's the exact comment that congressmen and senators for years have been making in Washington about presidents one right after the other of both political parties are still trust and look what happened that power they have is that he may have all that and give it to him. This doesn't give the power to ration or set up a rationing program gives the governor the authority and power to cooperate with the federal government in implementing a mandatory program. Mr. President members of the Senate speaking to the matter of definition of the word mandatory. I don't consider that it necessarily means was the senator from the story. Mentor that will you sunder from the world of Yoko green good it seems to me that it
could be interpreted as being synonymous with emergency and that the governor would conclude that circumstances might mandate a rationing system. There was an amendment adopted it was authored by Senator Lucas to Koester him home. It altered the bill to clarify that the governor needed a federal mandate to initiate a rationing. With that stipulation either the Congress would establish the guidelines for rationing or of course the Iowa legislature could implement rationing if they deemed it necessary. But the governor's power would be curbed. Senator Coleman of Clare offered an amendment which would require the governor to send monthly reports on the amount of the fuel pool to the Iowa legislature. But that amendment was defeated the majority of Republicans said the information was available anyway. The main bill authorizing the fuel pool but limiting the governor's power to ration fuel particularly at the gasoline pumps passed forty five to four. And one of the four senators who voted against the bill
says he feels it all was unnecessary and the day after the debate Senate reporter Sara fracture talked with Senator Norton of Rolleston about his objections. Over the past two years we have had a program that was administered by the governor in a state agencies that met this need. I see no reason that it couldn't continue as it is present. The second part of the second part of the bill authorizes the governor to cooperate with the federal government in an allocation clams. I think it's a little extraneous to pass legislation to require the governor and empower him to cooperate with the federal government. Obviously this would be necessary. Senator Haldeman of red oak explained why he thinks the fuel pool bill was necessary. November 5th. First of 173 is last November the federal government the Federal Energy office stated that mandatory
a state shall have a state consisted of X amount of. Percentage of middle disco heels. And since then they've gone to all our petroleum products present again with a bit of meat. So now that we have a mandated state prove that we have to operate and there was really nothing in the code except to prevent us from doing it but there was nothing in the code said we could actually do it and I feel a little bit better having this in the code stating exactly what we can do and what we can do when the fuel pool was established last year it was considered a good thing. The question is What if a gov response to an emergency in an illegal manner or abuses his power. And what kind of emergency powers should a governor have anyway. We asked Senators Haldeman and known about that to me. The energy crisis as was pointed out in his bill debate yesterday changes in its route from day to day as to what happens in allocations and the input and implications of what's happening. It has been we have to have some emergency
powers to be able to move quickly and we demonstrate in legislature we can move quickly on a 55 mile an hour speed limit. Unfortunately And in that respect. But. We need to have some checks too and I don't want to see I want to but then as I look into the code as we see some of the provisions in the code really do have broad emergency powers with no chair. But I prefer to see an emergency powers given with a legislative check is very difficult to anticipate type emergencies we have. But if it is a true emergency certainly the governor should have authority to deal with it and he should not be subject to criticism and until he has been directed by the legislature. OK if you say be subject to criticism but not necessarily criticism of what if you did something that you thought violated individual's rights what would the standard do when you came back in session then I think that would be the proper time to limit the powers until that time I think you should have a free hand to deal
with unforeseen circumstances. In other words what you're saying is that in the limit or authorizing certain powers that a man can kill he does something right or wrong. I'd be willing to take it on faith. The debate over what power the governor should have is destined to be debated again in the Senate. In view of the possible emergencies because of the energy crisis the Senate Energy Committee is now discussing how state government can best respond to immediate crises. And that means somehow establishing a plan that maintains the balance of power between the executive and the legislature. Also in the Senate this week came permission for extra long trucks to come in to Iowa's border cities. Now Governor Ray generally opposes authorizing longer trucks on Iowa roads but will accept this border city approach both the fuel pool and the border city truck bill still must pass the Iowa House. The House this week took up the bill that would repeal the sales tax on food and prescription drugs and in
doing so ran headlong into a storm of controversy that bill already amended to exempt prosthetic devices such as artificial limbs passed in the Senate but it passed there only after a long and arduous debate. The controversy really hinges on two differing philosophies of taxation and those philosophies tend to split roughly along party lines. Democrats generally favoring exemptions for specific items at the checkout counter or a rebate at the end of the tax year. And Republicans generally favor a reduction in the rate of sales tax on everything. Well in other words one approach would not tamper at all with a rate of taxation but would exempt certain items. And the premise there is that low income families would benefit the most. The second approach would lower the rate of taxation on all items. With this in mind then it's understandable that both parties were a bit confused when Republican Governor Robert Ray in his condition of the state address last month recommended that what had up to then been the Democratic approach that is namely
exempting food and prescription drugs from the sales tax. But Senate Republicans accepted the governor's approach and passed the bill with only minor modifications in the upper chamber but the independent mood of the House Republicans showed up when the bill hit that chamber. I have been accused of not cooperating with the governor. I'll say that the governor being an attorney is not familiar with the problems of administration of or for that a retailer has in business. I think he is a little bit more out of touch with the constituency than those of us in our who go home every weekend and face our constituents. I believe that basically we should cut back in our overall tax take from the consumer. The cry has been that we are spending we're losing money. We're not losing money we're just not charging the consumer as much. And I think that this would by reducing it from three
to a two and a half on everything at the rate we would be pumping 46 million dollars a year back into the Iowa economy and that's not small potatoes either. Yesterday we saw you support the Democratic leadership in a move to reconsider exempting fuel and electricity. Why did you why did you favor that. Well that's very simple I am basically opposed to singling out food and drugs in this particular climate. The fuel consumption is important all important to the people and the fuel bills of most people equal or in some cases even exceed what they spend on groceries it's a necessity of life. And I just think that if we are going to go part way then let's be realistic and include the necessities of life which are not only food
prescription. It was fuel but also clothing store and water charges. The House debate on the sales tax issue opened with a flurry of amendments mostly to take the tax off specific items such as aspirins even garden seeds. But then came a sign of the energy crunch How about removing the sales tax from heating fuels. The idea was first defeated then reconsidered and then it passed. Opponents contended it created a bigger mess in an already complicated bill because who could tell whether the heating fuel was being used for lighting the driveway or drying clothes or cooking. Those favoring the sales tax exemption on heating fuels claimed it was an equitable tax reduction for all citizens. So the bill which started out in this legislative session to exempt food and prescription drugs from Iowa's three percent sales tax. Now also carries exemptions for prosthetic devices like false teeth and for heating fuels including electricity. It now goes back to the
Senate where majority leader Clifton Lamborn doubts the bill in its present form will pass. So it appears that any change in Iowa's sales tax is still a ways off. Earlier this week on Monday the House took action on a bill affecting professional boxing and wrestling in Iowa. There is an interesting story and interesting man behind it. I have tremendous people. Boys are a lot for what I did. Big gyre. I brought a slab of my drive character. Why that's a race you're going to get the same treatment you know in the mornings the women love me. The husbands are jealous and the rest was afraid of this fantastic hunk of machinery. But the people in the mines are beautiful. They bring the horns in the aisle of balloons and really makes you through the attic. I don't like that word great right. People like you Mike I want to hear.
There once was a fighter named Hayes who boxed in his earlier days he drafted a bill and marched on the Hill and wanted in two out of three. For every man 1000 off 64 year old Ralph Hayes was that he couldn't promote wrestling in Iowa. Pro wrestling is about 1 percent Spartan 40 percent performance 50 percent business and the rest of group therapy. The name of the game is getting the wrestlers. Ron Hayes had worked for wrestling promoters in a few years ago wanted to go it alone where they came to loggerheads was in deciding where he would do it. Brown had some of Iowa's larger cities in mind. The promoters who control the wrestlers on the other hand were. Thinking more in terms of a time where during a tag team match there'd be more people in
the ring than around and around thought that was unfair and made a federal or in this instance a state case out of it. The fact that he wanted to settle his beef from the general assembly does not distinguish route A's from ninety nine percent of the state. What is remarkable is that he all but pulled it off. This is due in large part to his fortuitous meeting with professional lobbyist. Now they are those guys at the Capitol who enigmatically smile as if they knew something no one else does which they do. Namely how the legislative process works. They taught Ralph about committees and subcommittees and then armed with a few facts and a pleasant demeanor. The average citizen is only a roll call away from participatory democracy. Oh wonderful. I didn't know anything in fact I would defer to much now have a card and find I want to send a card I said no we don't have to have it what is that and they helped me out and they were wonderful to me.
Ralph did well for the first time out in 1971 largely on the strength of his lobbying the State Boxing and Wrestling Commission was born of course there was no money appropriated to run it. And Melvin signed or as the secretary of state got stuck with the commissioner's job that turned out to be more of a referee's job. Two members of the advisory board were Ralph Hayes and Alphonse Bay Busiek non-O a Des Moines restaurant owner of a business non-O had been a wrestler himself and did not share Mr Hayes truculence towards the promoters. Well the first two years of its existence the most amount just sports events were not regulated by the commission. They were in the commission between rounds Hayes and Babe is it now. Recognizing that there is more than one way to pin a promoter Ralph Hayes went back to the Hill a year ago this time with a bill called the Senate file 86. Was that the intent of the bill to keep outside promoters out of Iowa.
Well that's what I thought I thought that week a week a whene'er state because all our states say you must be a bonafide resident Missouri or Nebraska and all are stated. In fact I copied in the Indiana law word for word and it said three years. The final bill states that anyone promoting professional boxing or wrestling matches in Iowa must have been a resident for at least one year. Since I was not exactly the Borscht Belt the boxing there been only five legal matches in the States since 1900 and since the only active wrestling promoters are based in surrounding states. The intent the Senate file 86 is clear. A year ago it was introduced in the Senate and went into the complicated committee process which is not interesting. And the day before adjournment stander the floor and was My God passed by the Senate. Ralph Hayes had completed a miraculous cap trick that is to say. He had successfully
exercised his God given right as a private citizen to petition the government. This year the bill was shored up when the House of Representatives and two weeks ago came out of committee and it was debated and passed. Last week they hauled it back for a little rewrite. Representative Phil Hill of Polk County among others had noted that there were some questions about constitutionality and a governor's veto for the immediate implementation of the law would cancel county fair matches already scheduled for next summer. It was also noted that the soon like wording made it relatively easy for an out-of-state promoter to dodge the residency requirement. They tightened up the language set a start date in 1975 and added the rest of prosody craws which allows out-of-state promoters into while and only if the promoters home state replies in kind. The bill finally cleared by a vote of sixty eight to 14 and is back in the sand. What follows is an edited version of House members. Blowing off a little steam about
Senate file 86. You will hear is somewhat confusing allusion to pizza pie which refers to a registered Tribune article that asked Babe visit non-O to comment on al his apparent success on the Hill. Well they couldn't print or suggest that like a good pro wrestling match the underdog has pulled it off again. But I think what you're. Trying to do your trying to brings bring some of these other hoodlums in and I'm trying to get them to have a license. I don't think that this is a deal that bill was passed good enough. The man who worked for it was very damaging to the work good and all of a sudden we got a bunch of guys here and I would either want to have some hoodlums come in here to run the show and say what's going to happen. We're going to bow down to their will and say Yes Mr. Speaker ladies and gentlemen of the house as you know the other day I oppose this bill I still oppose it. And I want you all know that I don't even eat pizza.
I think Mrs. Lipski hit the nail on the head when this thing first came out on the floor. It's nothing more than a personal vendetta and it's been lobbied for several years and has finally made it out your ass here to approve a bill to keep out some unknown evil nonresident. From the state of Ohio as concerns boxing and wrestling No one has even told us that there's a problem in the area that I've heard in the discussions. I think this is one of those bills that the gentleman from Jackson refers to as a rinky dinky bill. You know I don't like the implications that have been cast upon this Build a day. I'm no big fan of rassling and boxing but I do feel that we should have a sense of fair play and if this bill passed the other day it should have more reason to pass
today. It did come out of state government and I didn't think it was any rinky dink. I would again hope that with the passage of time some of you might have reconsidered your vote when you voted for this bill originally. I don't think anything can be added to that which Mr Nielsen said. But I would just urge you to please please think about what you're doing and vote no on this bill. John from Jasper Mr. Roorda Mr. Speaker ladies and gentleman very briefly this bill is better than it was without the amendment. It is still not good enough to pass this house I urge your vote against Chuck Nice gentle from Mr. just say. Mr. Speaker ladies and gentlemen Regrettably I was absent
on the first occasion when this nonsensical bill passed. It seems clear to me that. Some of the members of this body are running bills out here for a lark I can't believe that wherever serious about these people ask me what is happening in the general assembly and will and I confess it I am forced to admit what is happening. I'd like to show just a few of them. So far this honorable body has addressed itself to some really monumental topics we've lowered the speed limit we've tabled the shooting of morning and we prohibited. We have painted a sewer grate. Point of order is going to raise I believe the man should stick with a hook for the house and not
be rambling on if he wants to make a speech someplace do it on a point of personal privilege. John Lennon confined his remarks to the bill. I may do that too on a point of personal privilege in any event Mr Speaker the Bayeux is is still constitutionally objectionable. It has and it serves no purpose for the state and I think it is time this body got down to the business of passing laws that are of merit and will help the citizens of the state and stop the nonsense I urge you to vote no and get on with important business.
Speaking of business of fabulous non-firing also known as the body beautiful is taking on writing also known as the good guy. They were brought to Iowa by one of the three cloven hooves wrestling operatives who were based in Illinois Missouri and Iran. None of the states have reciprocity. Two of them Illinois in Nebraska simply do not allow Rama's they promoters and Missouri doesn't care who promotes wrestling as long as they acquire a license and an interstate Monsour for bombing the promoters themselves and Doris the idea of restricting interstate competition. But and that it is difficult to enforce. The problem in Iowa of course is that at present there are not active wrestling firms to protect promoters and surrounding states have in the finest tradition of American business informally sectioned up the state for fun and proper. Operating pro-wrestling is an expensive proposition. A top performer can earn a
hundred thousand dollars a year. This match was booked by the gun carriage company in Missouri. They put on 26 shows in the mine last year and in addition to paying two state taxes each time has been 30000. How is that. That's out in tarring him and a thousand dollars have the mind register interview on the biggest. Over half of the promotion dollar though goes to TV. That's what's been wrestling in the first place. And though neither the promoters nor the TV stations will tell you the amount it is somewhere conservatively in the range of an arm and a leg. In storage it is not cheap to get Andre the Giant and Tokyo jello into the same range and that considerable capital requirement is probably why there is no large wrestling promotion out there in Iowa. If there were Senate mile 86 I never would have seen the light of day. An Iowa farm would be defiling or borders of surrounding states. The other way
around. Semi Final ADC is a pair for the legislative and the free enterprise in general and around phase in particular the promoters say that if it is an accident alarm they will move a man into Iowa and if that avenue is closed they'll stay out. As for the legislature there are a couple of reasons to view this POS some from the bay. First there is the I'm going formal assumption that with any sport Richard Turner was split a hair and rated junior league ball or close of church for that and the second concern relates directly to Senate violations that they define 975 there are no Iowa based wrestling terms and if I then foreign promoters haven't found a loophole in the law are then seen. There may be a temporary dry up of pro-wrestling or if that happens the legislators maybe hearing from these kids who know where they live
and will not be nearly as a line around a urban area. Turner dirty girl I am busy last week. Also in that chamber a so-called newsman she will know a bill was introduced and the associate editor of the Waterloo courier Bill Severn has an opinion on subject. My good friend Representative Dennis Freeman of Storm Lake last week filed a bill in the house the sheild newsman from being required to reveal their news sources at the risk of being lynched by my fellow newsman. I must go on record as being opposed to this kind of legislation. All of it already has been adopted by a number of states and is under serious consideration by a congressional committee. The first problem you encounter in drafting a larger project
newsman as a matter of. Definition who is a newsman under the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. All citizens are guaranteed their right to express their views either verbally or in writing. Anyone who has access to a typewriter and a mimeograph machine could qualify for the legal protection shield laws provide against interrogation by the courts even if he's a member of the Mafia. An argument for this newsman's privilege the knowledge is sometimes drawn with the priest confessor or the lawyer client privilege. But there is a vital difference. The priest a lawyer bound by total silence. They may not claim the privilege while proclaiming that confession. The newsman's probably just something else. The right to proclaim anything. And I answer nothing. This is a privilege granted no one else. Every other citizen having knowledge of crimes or misdemeanors save only if he is themself
accused is obligated to answer before grand juries. Courts of law or even in many cases before congressional inquiries finally of going to jail if he refuses. I doubt that is good public policy to create a class of citizens immune from these responsibilities by reason of occupation. The greatest threat to freedom of the press and pride in the so-called shield laws revolve around the question of who is in the title. Do I blind the shield. This calls for a tight definition of who is a qualified newsman under the law and who is not. The next logical step in the minds of the lawmakers would be government licensing of those who qualified. The very thought of lights on. Think of news people by government should be abhorrent to everyone. For what the government can give the government can take away. Under licensing government officials could put any news man or woman out of the news whenever they report and actions that put the bureaucrats in a bad light.
Finally there is no need at this time for an I was shield law bonafide news reporters in this state have not been subjected to any serious harassment by the courts by prosecutors or by legislative investigative committees. In the event such Rassmann should develop the news media has a more powerful tool its at its disposal then a shield law would provide. And you can be sure they will use it. On balance shield laws pose. More potential dangers to freedom of the press than I can ever prevent. In the Senate this week a public hearing is scheduled it will be Monday at 3 o'clock it will deal with appropriations for law enforcement academies now if you want to speak on that contact Senator Winkleman. On Tuesday the Senate to schedule to debate the governor's proposed and very controversial Department of Transportation. On Wednesday the House takes up the bill and collective bargaining for public employees and we'll have more on that on aisle press later in this program. I've seen in the past few weeks that Iowa
legislators can be humorous angry boring eloquent confusing even in lightning at times. But what we didn't know is that Iowa legislators can also be sentimental. On Thursday in honor of St. Valentine's Day the Senate and House calendars that's the daily listing of bills ready for debate and either chamber the House calendars in the Senate calendars were printed in red ink with a border of red hearts and arrows. Now that's red ink on the calendars not in the budget. I'm going Borg and I'll see you next week in the third. It's interesting to note that one of the items that were viewed before that our legislature this year is with regard to 65 foot trucks and if that isn't an old story I don't know what is. It seems like every legislature comes to town and listens to the truck lobby
and argues back and forth and we get some word from the leadership and and various people that the economy is going to collapse if we don't allow 65 foot trucks and I think that we should allow 65 trucks. One hundred sixty five trucks if they want. And my solution is just give Interstate 80 to the trucking industry and let him have it. You're going to have a speed law says 55 miles an hour. And so we can ride on the secondary roads and let the trucks maintain Interstate 80 let them fill the truck holes so that when they tear it all up and just let them have Interstate 80 I think it will it would save a lot of our time I'm sure and a lot of money because this is going to go on and on and on that there won't be a solution on it. Or they might think that they're going to conserve a little energy in it almost falls into the same category as daylight savings time it's a little ridiculous. Daylight hours are exactly the same as they have ever been. And. It's about
as ridiculous and I'm not against daylight savings time. It might do something for me. It certainly isn't going to conserve energy though and when anybody is foolish enough to think that they can put daylight savings time in and save 10 million gallons of gas or 10 million barrels of oil or whatever they think they're going to serve has got to be about as ridiculous as the reasons sometimes for the 65 foot trucks. But there are enough trucks on Interstate 80 now so that there isn't hardly room for a car owner and with a 55 mile an hour student you might just row private drive secondary roads and if the frets are. Recorded Thursday February 14. The subject of collective bargaining for public employees with Gaston Bryce Oakley
Republican representative from Clinton and floor manager of the collective bargaining bill back newsmen are Jim Grant's nerd reporter for Kay WWL in Waterloo. Frank not I associate editor of the Cedar Rapids because that and last back state editor for the Burlington Hawkeye. Moderator is Jim Flansburgh political writer for The Des Moines Register. I didn't I didn't feel that leaving him. Mr. O'Quinn was the Farm Bureau against this. No I think that the Farm Bureau has taken the position that two things One that the. People out in school districts and all feel that the collective bargaining bill as presently constituted some kind of a threat to the autonomy of school boards a position which I don't agree with and wouldn't support a bill if I thought it was going to hurt education. Secondly the argument that it's going to cost a great deal of money to the state in order to not only administer it but in
that it automatically means higher wages and higher fringe benefits. They feel that it's evidently going to harm the tax base and the quality of education. They can speak for themselves but that's the only thing that I get out of their opposition to this bill. And I think that the arguments that we present on collective bargaining when it comes out on Wednesday. I hope we can meet those objections when I open them. With that question because I want to do point out that the most powerful lobby in the state is against the bill. Now would you explain to us what it would do barring Bill I think if you have to look first of all the context of where we are in the state right now there's no question but what when you have 100 60000 public employees out of almost a million not agriculture employees in the state most of whom are organized under other laws whether they're the National Labor Relations Act whether the railway act whether they're under the
executive order in the federal context you realize that the desire for these people to ask the people of Iowa to do this for them they want to have an opportunity to through secret ballot determine whether or not they want to voluntarily associate themselves in declaring a exclusive bargaining agent to sit down with their public employer to discuss things of mutual interest including wages hours and other terms and conditions of employment. Now if you accept that premise. Then in a in approaching a bill and put in a building gather the important thing is that it be bilateral that is the balance between employer and employee so that neither has a particular advantages at the bargaining table. They truly can through the process of negotiation come up with a contract. So when we looked at this bill it's been looked at for a number of years. We thought number one it should be comprehensive in nature that is that it should not exclude large
segments of the public and ploy these except for supervisory people managerial people and certain other agencies. Secondly we thought that it should have broad scope that is the place in which to find the disagreement should not be over whether something is negotiable whether or not it should be included in the contract. We also thought that in order to run this you had to have a strong public Employment Relations Board that is a board which would be rather independent which could arbitrate and help the parties through this law develop a contract themselves. In order to do that. I think and we feel that you have to prohibit strikes and you have to make some penalty for stress. Do tell us how that board will be selected I think that would be interesting for everyone to know whether it has to be confirmed by the Senate this kind of
thing doesn't just give us in your own words where you how selected this board is a three member board which is appointed by the governor for six years staggered terms. They must be confirmed by the Senate. The bill provides and requires that these be people that are knowledgeable in labor management relations work. The therefore should be paid a substantial salary in order to attract qualified people in order to run this hour or what's that mean substantial. Well the bill calls for payment equivalent for the chairman of a district court judges salary of which on July 1st of one hundred seventy four will go to twenty nine thousand five hundred dollars and the other two members are 90 percent of the visit This is not. Let's get to the substance of the issue. Aren't you proposing to legalize labor unrest among public employees. No you see that is the very reason for the bill. If you look at other states that do not have a law or or who have passed laws which have not been
bilateral nature and create equality between the parties they've had a great deal of labor unrest. If we do not pass this I am fearful that they'll they'll be a crisis situation that there will be strikes they'll be withholding the services they will not be able to vent through a legal mechanism the legitimate concerns of employees to help share in the decision making not only to themselves but for the delivery of public services and I for one am convinced that the public employees should not be second class that's an old term that we get a lot around the legislature. But that's where they are. Mr. Oakley you talk about withholding service. How could a school district withhold its services. Well by the employees not coming to work. But under this bill this will be illegal of course but I could read. Because I get spells out there will be no strike or any anything that even resembles a strike or anybody trying to coerce other people into a strike. This leads into another point that seems to bother people I'm familiar with in southeast Iowa I've talked to school superintendents primarily in that area. Charlie Hahn in Burlington Jim Brown of Danville Gene Johnson of media
Atlas and some of the other people. It's the old story of local control. They feel that by setting this up with another state agency another state board by setting up the arbitration proceeding or a three member panel would be picked to make final arbitration in a move to offer a binding solution. This in effect puts the business of the school district takes it away from the hands of the school board and puts it in the hands of a three member panel which in itself is not responsible to the school district and not responsive to the school district. Could be three people who are even as they understand the building or even residents of the school district. What's your response on the local control complaint. You feel it's valid. No I do not. First of all this is voluntary from the standpoint that either the public employees or the public employer have to request. Petition this board for an election to determine exclusive bargaining representative or to determine if the employees do not want to have one. So first of all if neither the employees a majority of
those employees a secret ballot wanted it will not happen and if the school board doesn't. In your case the school board does not ask for it. Then it also will not apply this provides a mechanism where either one of those do want it. Now your point about arbitration is an interesting one because that will certainly be a key to this debate. Really what it is it's a it's a court is a judicial function it's not unlike having a court determine a disagreement between two parties. And that's what it does after all. We go to courts and use that next mechanism a great deal that really speeds up the process you're going off for the nuts and bolts together. Let me let me set up a hypothetical example let's take this community where everybody except the teachers. Are against a pay raise for the teachers through your framework which you've already set up. The teachers could take it to arbitration and have somebody outside the community make that decision. You are taking away autonomy. You're taking away the
power of the people to make their own essential decisions aren't you. Not really because you see in the soon you get to arbitration then the arbitrators select the most reasonable of the two offer submitted by the parties. That's the nature of final offer binding arbitration. Secondly Well all right but the community says you know all our last offer is the same as our first offer no raise and then the. Teachers say well we want 100 percent raise the arbitrators selects 100 percent raise. Yes in that case of course you have to realize that the arbitrator cannot select an offer which is beyond the legal capacity for that school district to meet. Other words the reasonableness of assuming one is beyond the legal capacity of that school district and the other one is within the legal capacity of that school district. The arbitrator we would assume be reasonable people or they wouldn't be arbitrators would select the that offer which is more reasonable which would be the one that has no pay raise.
Oh ok when you present this bill on the floor do you intend to point out that and give proof that state boards of public instruction or local boards have been exceedingly unfair in salary practices. No and as a matter of fact that's a very good point because a lot of people equate this to economic matters only and I think that that's the reason why we feel the broad scope is important is many things that public employees are interested beyond just economic matters. And so when I gave in response to your question. A Public Instruction has been reasonable with their employees or of the school district has been reasonable in their personnel practices in pay and so forth. You will never get to the point of having to use this long the first place you may not even want to have a bargaining Yes but that depends on whether or not the teachers think that they have been reasonable whether we're talking about salary or other programs as well. That depends on whether or not the teachers and the school board both agree that they've been reasonable and isn't it very possible that the teachers wanting more salary as all of us do will think that they have
not been reasonable or wanting more programs as all of us may want that. That's correct and of course this mechanism is to determine which is the most reasonable of those two positions. Well this is another fear that I hear from local school administrators is that the builders open up more than just discussions of wages and working hours. One school official I think expressed to me the fear that we would be sitting around discussing all night what kind of weather conditions we were going to get into a negotiation such as extra duty pay or various hours for teachers to work at basketball games and all sorts of. Things Another fear is that it might get into the area of formulating the educational policies of the district which of course is supposedly the school board's prerogative. So respond to that if you will do you think this is opening up a can of worms by by allowing this broad scope covered under this bill that can be covered in negotiation as I mentioned before the reason for broad scope is so that whether things end up in a contract are discussed is not the point of contention of whether or not they are bargain a
bill. Its been sown in other states that where you have narrow scope. You take matters you say for example you just talk about economic benefits say the law said that then the employees will try to work that language and so will the public employers try to work this language around to get some kind of tinge of economic benefit involved and we shouldnt sit around play games at that stage we have to sit down across the table and discuss those things that have. Let me give you an example. People talk about the classroom. I'm going to argue about the color of the cotton classroom. Well now because Jones in third grade doesn't like the color of her classroom. It's not going to get to the table in the first place because that employee organization is going to put together a negotiating package and they're going to want matters that represent a rather substantial consensus of their members to bring them to the table. All right so we get to the table it's obviously of some considerable concern to a great number of employees in that school district if you will and it should be talked about. It doesn't require to be in the contract.
Well listen let's go back to my example of my hypothetical community. You talked about the legal capacity of that governmental unit to act. How would how would attorney be affected if the road workers decided they wanted 19 inches of gravel on all of the county roads. That's within the county's legal capacity there are really no limitations on that on the county. In answer to that that would in my judgment we can't sit here and think of all the factual situations whether it be bargain Miller or not but your example I think would fall clearly within management and general policy determination. Well but what if the arbitrator said yeah we need 17 inches rather than 19 inches. Well you see the way that it would not ever get arbitration in my judgment because that county would say no we're not going to bargain on that. Therefore the employees would have to go the route of declaring that that's an unfair labor practice that it is. Because they are not bargaining in good faith by refusing to talk about it and the
purport of this Public Employee Relations Board with then through a hearing officer in an appeal to the full board if they want if one of the other side wanted to appeal it would make a determination over a period of time you develop an administrative case law of what is barred in the bill and what is not to meet the particular needs of the agency that is in question you see the alternative to what you suggested is a laundry list if you will a whole itemization of what is barred inable and what is not and I still get back to my point I think that we should determine whether something goes into a contract or not. Across the table by the process of negotiating and dropping off of things that they're willing to give up through the process of negotiation rather than sitting around and arguing about whether something is the bargain will and this doesn't open up to every single issue by using wages hours and other terms and conditions employment all you do is look at the decisions in the National Labor Relations Act and in other states to find that to be worth the truth. There were strikes and labor incidents go up rather substantially want to state
adopts this sort of law. No that's not true. That accusation is made. Yes that's correct but the context of some of the states have been several things that have happened one they have not adequately funded and provided the kind of administrative support of the per board level to have enough people to operate and to monitor the system that's one thing at. And in another city in other states they have a climate which is a good deal different than I was so far as its attitude toward labor management relations in most of those states is not really balanced the people have come for some reason to tolerate courts not enforcing injunction matters not in foreseen and I strike provisions in Iowa. I'm satisfied that our court system is independent enough that this board is supposed to be independent enough to see that that wouldn't happen right after the show where you document this that the number of strikes don't go up in other states certainly I can do that for New York for example. Well you just just all of the all the states if you're New York and Michigan are
the primary ones yes I've got a whole briefcase full of material. Literally Can we talk just a moment about attitudes and so on. As the public employees have been promoting this issue and they have been promoting it quite a good deal as well as the other side. There has been perhaps a new vocal dissidents among them. They've been more vocal and objected more perhaps than they have in past years. Do you like that object to default to not having collective bargaining. They've been quiet before and what I'm saying is that now that they're trying to surface all of this and get to collective bargaining. Well I think that's naturally time you approach a major piece of legislation that they have a keen interest in they're going to do just like everyone would hope would do in this petition their representatives and their senators and they've done that with considerable vengeance and both sides have in fact been a great deal of mail on this probably more mail on this issue this session than on any other issue. Would you want to know that I do not object to that I think it's been responsible I think there's been a lot of
you know I'm going to sit down to write my representative a letter. There hasn't been a they haven't all form letters believe me on both sides they've been thought out letters right. Let me ask you we've talked you talked a very beginning about the bargaining agencies of these employees to be able to determine who they want to bargain for them. There seems to be a good deal of concern around the state. How many bargain agencies are you going to have and you get state employees involved here you've got county employees you've got school board school or school teachers rather. And is each of them going to have one agency or is each of the school districts going to have an agency. All right first of all we have to realize that the state is the ultimate public employer and he divides itself into various political subdivisions and has over a number of years and it reorients them and re-arranges them from time to time. And so this poor board as we call it is designed to
have a mechanism for determining bargaining units and they are given certain criteria including community of interest geographical location previous history of the negotiations that they have been negotiating and so some of them are rather easy determined school districts for example a school district would probably be a bargaining unit within that bargaining unit you may have professional or nonprofessional but you will hear that all the teachers and I will have one unit they'll go into this particular year and then have each have its own unit to bargain down on the local level or will a while a biography from the top. No they will not see Avery. They will not bargain from the top they will bargain by elected representatives at the local level. That's all that would determine all the state agencies. The law provides that understood on certain issues they will be in a state wide determination in order to have a clerk in the Public Instruction department to be the same as a clerk in the Department of Social Services and as an example but there is considerable latitude there should be to meet changing situations for this board to determine upon petition or its own initiative.
What should be a bargain you know the reason why that's important is because you don't want to play in an employee group to decide they're going to be a bargain unit which may throw off the systematic division of the state into appropriate bargain you know. So we've set that up in the bill. OK the arbitrator says give all the state employees a 55 percent pay raise. The legislature says no. What happens next. The law provides that they will go back and bargain re bargain in their agreement. Well as a practical matter I believe will happen is that they will do one of two things they will probably in setting up their agreement. They will then submit that unless the legislature again says Nora Have you ever walked out on that floor where you were sure that they will be one of those for anything. They will put a mechanism in there that if the wage package in the line item is 85 percent. Of what the package is then they will have a mechanism for automatically adjusting that within their agreement. They may cut
certain wage areas or certain fringe benefits a certain percentage in order to have a B then self-executing after the money is appropriate. All right but when you get down to it the governing body still says no. What what happens. Well then you go back in the system and you are betrayed again and now you know what the piece of pie is like and they submit their final offers again and the arbitrator knowing how much money is there will be able to tell which is the most reasonable and you will select that one if we get that far. We have about five minutes left but let me say again now they get closer to the end in the end the governing body says no. What do you do when the governing body what governing body hold was any any leader in the legislature. A city council school board. Well County Board of Supervisors But let's take the aisle. Just like you. All right well obviously our legislature is going to appropriate X number of dollars for the fall in the category wages hours and other economic matters that's what the appropriate do. All right then you know how much money there is that money is taken
back to that bargaining unit and say all right here it is let's negotiate that amount if they can agree on that it goes to arbitration it becomes self-executing because the arbitrator knows how much money is there. You're assuming when you have I'm getting back 20 you guys try out of it how can the legislative body in the let me go along with the Jim Cantore legislative body through that maneuver decide what it what the maximum can be. All right yes I see your point. You the legislature and this is the thing about it ultimately has all the marbles Anyway this is the one caveat we have to put to the bilaterally quality as a practical matter because the legislature determines the school aid formula. You can determine and is talking about putting limits on counties spending it determines the milage level that cities can raise money on to determine state agency appropriations in the final analysis the employees can't take over the store for the simple reason that the legislature really determines how much money is that we have with collective bargaining. The legislative body and in fact a school board could set the limit.
Yes. Right. I'd like to ask you about the Republican leadership's position on this bill and also this is one of the heaviest lobby bills we've had here in the station isn't it that you've got the farm here a dimension there at the beginning. On the one side you get I have CA on the other. Well you were the Republican leadership there will be I would suspect no caucus position by either party it is not a Republican or a Democrat if you want us to have leadership in the leadership. Obviously Mr. Horn the majority leader is not in favor of the bill in its present form a new There are several of the others that would take to bring them around to because the governor wants either one of those things for a 51 to live like every I mean to get the 51 votes you have to do something in the bill to bring them over to I think they've gotten already that we're going to get I think he won votes pretty much the way the bill is constituted right now the Senate bill. Yes with some amendments which will be filing. All right we have about a minute left. How is the general public benefited by this the general public has benefited by the
- One Hundred Days, part 6 Reel 1
- Producing Organization
- Iowa Public Television
- Contributing Organization
- Iowa Public Television (Johnston, Iowa)
- AAPB ID
- Episode Description
- IPBN legislative summary, Show Reel #6 (Reel 1 of 2), Rec. Engr. J.S., VCR 5, Transfer date: 3/31/86, UCA-60
- Episode Description
- John Beyers unprecedented coverage of the Iowa State legislature. Mobile Unit parked at the Capitol for months, and cables run through the air ducts to reach 4 cameras in the chamber and balconies. Segments show how legislature works, not just personalities. Also people on the street about issues of the day.
- Created Date
- Asset type
- Politics and Government
- IPTV, pending rights and format restrictions, may be able to make a standard DVD copy of IPTV programs (excluding raw footage) for a fee. Requests for DVDs should be sent to Dawn Breining firstname.lastname@example.org
- Copyright IEBN 1974
- Media type
- Moving Image
Camera Operator: Zell, Marty
Camera Operator: Borg, Dean
Camera Operator: Hixenbaugh, Don
Camera Operator: Grady, Jerry
Camera Operator: McCormally, John
Camera Operator: Flansburg, James
Director: Bradsell, Robert
Producer: Beyer, John
Producing Organization: Iowa Public Television
Production Assistant: Nelson, Mark
Production Assistant: Rumme, Carl
Production Assistant: Thorpe, Roger
Production Assistant: Frasher, Sara
Production Assistant: Ames, Jeff
Production Assistant: Wooten, Ed
Production Assistant: Lage, Richard
Production Assistant: Strouf, Joanne
Production Assistant: Heinz, Joe
Production Assistant: Keller, Dan
Production Assistant: Grove, Norm
Production Assistant: Bobst, Bob
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
Iowa Public Television
Identifier: 41-F-6A (Old Tape Number)
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “One Hundred Days, part 6 Reel 1,” 1974-02-16, Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 26, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-47dr80m4.
- MLA: “One Hundred Days, part 6 Reel 1.” 1974-02-16. Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 26, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-47dr80m4>.
- APA: One Hundred Days, part 6 Reel 1. Boston, MA: Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-47dr80m4