August 05, 2008
Expanding binding arbitration
Legislative sponsors say a bill to extend binding arbitration will have no fiscal impact, but then why are downstate judicial employees so eager to have Governor Paterson sign the measure?
Likewise, why are unionized employees of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority pushing a similar bill?
"Fiscal implications: None," states the sponsors' memo accompanying each bill.
However, that's not been true for police and firefighters unions, which are allowed to declare an impasse in contract negotiations and force the dispute into compulsory arbitration. According to the Empire Center's Taylor Made report:
The average salaries of police and firefighters over the past decade have risen faster than those of non-uniformed state and local government employees, other than teachers, outside New York City.
Last year in vetoing binding arbitration for downstate judicial employees, Governor Eliot Spitzer said:
While binding arbitration has its benefits, it imposes costs as well. In particular, arbitrators tend to grant higher awards than are achievable through the collective bargaining process, and thereby increase costs to government and taxpayers. Further, arbitration removes decision-making in labor matters from elected officials, and vests it in the hands of third parties.
The bill was vetoed twice by Governor George Pataki. He also twice vetoed a binding arbitration bill for uniformed officers of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, arguing in 2006 that:
...the bill could actually create a new incentive to resolve disputes through binding arbitration, thereby weakening the collective bargaining process; and...would fail to ensure that binding arbitration panels give first priority to an employer's ability to pay an award.
« Previous |
Main
| Next »
|
