House committee hears competing testimony on H.173 to allow higher‑education employees to strike

The House General and Housing Committee on Thursday, March 22, heard an overview of Vermont labor law and testimony for and against H.173, the bill that would allow certain public higher‑education employees to strike. Witnesses included Sophie Zadatny of the Office of Legislative Council, Sharon Scott, chief financial and operating officer of the Vermont State Colleges System, Matt McGrath, organizing director at AFT Vermont, and Ellen Kaye, co‑president of UVM Staff United. No committee vote was taken.

Sophie Zadatny, legislative counsel, opened with a tutorial explaining that federal law (the National Labor Relations Act) governs private‑sector strikes but does not grant public employees a right to strike; whether public workers may strike in Vermont depends on state statutes. Zadatny identified two statutes that currently allow limited strike rights — the Labor Relations for Teachers and Administrators Act and the Municipal Employee Relations Act — and said the State Employees’ Labor Relations Act and the Judiciary Employees’ Labor Relations Act prohibit strikes for those covered employees. She described statutory impasse procedures that typically include mediation, fact finding and, in some cases, binding arbitration or a “last best offer” selection process by the Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB).

Sharon Scott, chief financial and operating officer for the Vermont State Colleges (VSC), testified she opposes H.173 as drafted. Scott told the committee the current state labor framework "forces us to have continued conversation" and that VSC relies on those dispute‑resolution procedures. She said the bill, as written, would remove cooling‑off periods and other limits and would allow strikes "over working conditions, a grievance, contract negotiations that aren't going well, or even under conditions that might be outside of the control of the Vermont State Colleges." Scott said a higher‑education strike could trigger costly student refunds and pose accreditation and financial‑stability risks. She gave the committee two COVID‑era figures as examples of potential scale: refunds of room and board were about $5.8 million in one semester, and comparable tuition refunds in that period would have been nearer $18 million. Scott also told the committee that tuition accounts for "more than 50%" of VSC revenue and said a prolonged service disruption could create a risk of financial exigency for colleges.

Representing labor, Matt McGrath of AFT Vermont urged passage, saying the right to strike is a bargaining tool that helps bring parties to the table. McGrath noted that many private‑sector contracts contain no‑strike clauses that the parties negotiate and that, in practice, strikes are rare. He also pointed to delays and resource limits at the Vermont Labor Relations Board and said the current public process can be slow: "It literally is taking two years to get resolution on unfair labor practice charges now," he told the committee, arguing that long delays reduce enforcement effectiveness and weaken workers’ leverage. McGrath presented data compiled by AFT comparing recent private‑sector bargaining timeframes (median of several months) with public higher‑education reopeners that averaged longer timelines; he said the absence of strike rights contributes to protracted negotiations.

Ellen Kaye, co‑president of UVM Staff United, described her unit’s bargaining experience as illustrative. Kaye said her union began successor bargaining in February 2024 and remained without a fully settled contract 13 months later. She said the unit’s median income is about $55,000 and that about 70% of the unit earns what her testimony described as a low‑income wage by Greater Burlington standards. Kaye detailed the union’s costs preparing for a fact‑finding hearing—about $34,000 in legal fees plus $7,000 as its share of the fact‑finder’s fee—and quoted the neutral fact finder’s recommendation urging retroactive pay, which the fact finder characterized as necessary to avoid giving public employers a bargaining advantage. Kaye and other labor witnesses said the possibility of a strike is not a sought‑for outcome but an important backstop that creates negotiating leverage and helps prevent drawn‑out bargaining that, they argued, drains institutional resources and damages recruitment and retention.

Committee members asked witnesses about legal guardrails, the teacher and municipal models (which include cooling‑off periods and, in the teachers’ statute, a one‑year limit on imposed contracts), and whether some hybrid approach—strike rights with specified limits—would be acceptable. Labor witnesses indicated a willingness to consider teacher‑act guardrails; Vermont State Colleges officials said the statutory framework governing state employees is interlocking and would require detailed study and multiple changes, not a single line deletion.

No formal direction or vote was recorded. The committee took testimony and indicated it will continue to consider H.173 as it moves through the legislative process.