Feb. 9, 1999
Lab and UC need to try harder to fend off amended HEERA
Remarking on Ed Walterscheid's letter of Feb. 2, it seems worthwhile to point out his emphasis on that aspect of an amended HEERA which would "... attempt to extend the police power of the state of California to New Mexico citizens, living and working in New Mexico.''
Now I'm not a lawyer like Walterscheid, nor do I have the benefit of his years of experience gained working on the Laboratory's many legal projects. It seems to me, however, that an amended HEERA would mainly apply the police power of the state of California to the behavior of the University of California. It would not attempt to constrain the behavior of New Mexico citizens working at the Laboratory, but rather to constrain the behavior of their employer (UC), when and if the employees might desire to engage in collective bargaining with their employer.
It is true that the Laboratory and UC have published a draft collective bargaining policy of their own (see Feb. 1 Daily Newsbulletin). Much of the language in this draft policy is standard, being similar to that in the New Mexico Collective Bargaining Act of 1992, and in the HEERA. There are, however, some important deviations. In particular, in Article III the description of the Employee Labor Relations Board is substandard. According to this section, the three-member board is to be selected by the UC Office of the President after "consultation'' with the PERB. Appointees shall be reputable "neutrals'' in the field of labor relations. This is unpleasantly vague.
The language in the New Mexico Collective Bargaining Act is much better. It requires that the three-member board be such that one member be"recommended by organized labor representatives actively involved in representing public employees, one member be recommended by public employers actively involved in collective bargaining and one member be jointly recommended by the other two.''
The arrangement for remunerating board members, as described in the draft policy, also should be improved. The draft stipulates that "members shall be paid by the Laboratory as though they were consultants to the Laboratory during their terms at a rate not to exceed $____ per day.'' A problem might arise if this (unspecified) stipend would prove to be so attractively large that members would feel beholding to the Laboratory. The New Mexico Act is again better in this regard. It specifies a maximum "per diem'' of $75 for in-state work and a maximum "per diem'' of $95 for out-of-state work.
It seems that the Laboratory and UC need to try harder if they want to fend off an amended HEERA and perhaps manage to evade that menacing police power of the state of California.
--Ken LaGattuta