Unions press for binding arbitration for state and higher‑ed employees; university system urges caution
Loading...
Summary
Supporters of SB 28 told the committee binding interest arbitration would prevent stalled negotiations and unfair impasse outcomes for state and higher‑education employees. Unions and AFSCME speakers recounted long negotiations and safety issues; the University System of Maryland and some university counsel opposed the bill as written and proposed exclusions or amendments. DBM supported the bill with an amendment requiring fiscal-impact statements for arbitration awards.
Senate Bill 28 would provide binding-interest arbitration and formal timelines as an impasse procedure for state and higher‑education employee collective bargaining. Proponents argued the current fact‑finding process is nonbinding and can stall, leaving workers without resolution; they urged a formal structure and neutral decision maker to issue enforceable awards.
Union leaders, frontline state and higher‑ed employees, and labor advocates described multi‑year bargaining efforts and workplace-safety episodes they said showed the need for a stronger impasse procedure. AFSCME representatives used a metaphor of a game without a shot clock to argue for timelines and enforcement mechanisms. Individual workers recounted delays in addressing COVID‑related protections and compensation discussions that they said harmed employees.
Opponents including the University System of Maryland (USM) said campuses historically negotiated without widespread third‑party intervention and raised fiscal concerns — including the risk that institutions would be bound to implement awards without additional resources. USM cited multi‑million‑dollar implementation estimates and suggested alternative approaches or an exclusion.
The Department of Budget and Management said it supports collective bargaining with the bill but recommended a committee amendment requiring that any arbitrator award include a multiyear fiscal-impact statement prepared collaboratively with the parties, so the legislature and governor can understand the general‑fund cost implications of awards. The bill generated detailed questioning on costs and administrative feasibility. The transcript records no committee vote during the session.
