Rep. Dave Bishop says his goal in urging the Legislature to reject contracts with five state employee unions is to eliminate same-sex domestic partner benefits from state insurance plans. He may wind up doing far more than that - including cutting pay of state workers and leaving some without health insurance.

The threat piles on another level of uncertainty for state employees - union or not - who already have survived the brink of a government shutdown last summer, a strike in the fall, and the prospect of layoffs this winter.

'This is the fourth time in the last year I don't know whether I'm going to have a job or benefits,' highway maintenance worker Merrill Evans testified before legislators. Saying he wanted to put a human face on all the rhetoric, Evans said: 'This is my job, my contract, my paycheck, my family you're talking about.'

But few in the Republican-controlled House showed willingness to avoid the uncertain fallout that rejecting union contracts would instigate. On a 75-54 vote Wednesday, the House adopted a resolution warning that it will reject five of the six state employee contracts now awaiting full legislative approval. While the resolution itself carries no legal weight, Bishop has introduced identical legislation to formally reject union contracts for the first time in state history. The legislation passed one House committee Wednesday.

Hidden agenda?
Bishop, a Republican from Rochester, says he wants to remove same-sex domestic partner benefits from state insurance plans for all state workers - unionized or not. He calls language granting the benefits 'too vague' and argues that because the benefits are not available equally - such as to unmarried heterosexual couples - it will expose the state to legal challenges. Bishop said he wanted to send a clear and early message that the union contracts 'are in jeopardy' unless the unions and Ventura administration return to the bargaining table and remove the 'objectionable' benefits.

But union representatives and Julien Carter, commissioner of the state's Department of Employee Relations, are skeptical that's really what Bishop and his allies are after.

Julie Bleyhl, legislative director for AFSCME Council 6, called legislative attempts to change contract provisions 'unprecedented interference' that could begin eroding collective bargaining rights for public employees.

'The integrity of the collective bargaining process is at stake,' said Brad Lehto, legislative director for the Minnesota AFL-CIO.

Jim Monroe, executive director of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, questioned whether opposition to same-sex benefits isn't actually a smokescreen to force the unions to cut wages as part of fighting the state's $2 billion budget deficit.

'Money is clearly a subtext,' Carter said. 'It's not being said directly, but it's sprinkled into a lot of testimony.'

Legislative options limited
Legislative failure to ratify the contracts would open the door for another state employee strike. The two-week walkout by some 25,000 members of AFSCME and MAPE last October was the largest in state history.

At a House Rules Committee hearing Feb. 13 on Bishop's proposal, not one legislator or legal adviser said they knew of a way to block same-sex benefits simply by modifying a collective bargaining agreement.

The Legislature can, however, simply refuse to ratify an agreement - either by rejecting it outright or adjourning without approving it, said Mark Shepard, a legal counsel with the House Research Department. Under state statute, Shepard and others testified, if the Legislature fails to ratify a new contract, union employees would work under the terms and conditions of their previous contracts.

Under that scenario, pay raises would be rescinded and wages would drop to scales that were in effect on June 30, 2001. Health benefits would revert to previous levels - including the absence of same-sex domestic partner benefits.

But there's at least one landmine: The state's previous health insurance plan no longer exists. That fact makes reality far murkier than Bishop's guarantee that state workers would indeed retain insurance coverage, Carter said.

'We have fundamentally changed our health insurance,' he said. The state completely revamped its insurance package, creating a plan that increases co-pays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for state workers, whether workers are covered by union contracts or not.

Those additional costs were a key reason in the strike. Legislative rejection of the contracts could create a riddle of how to manage or offer an insurance plan that no longer exists, Carter said. 'There are a lot of unanswered questions.'

A question of equity
Carter said the House resolution won't send him scurrying back into negotiations to strip same-sex benefits from state insurance plans. 'We stand by the contracts,' he said.

'We have agreements with our unions. They are fair, affordable and equitable contracts.'

Carter argued that same-sex benefits are necessary for the state to attract a workforce that reflects the state's diverse population and to compete with private employers who offer similar benefits.

Robert Sykora, an attorney with the state's Board of Public Defense, said many of Minnesota's leading private employers - including the Mayo Clinic, Ford Motor Co., Pillsbury, 3M and U.S. Bank - provide same-sex benefits. He challenged the legislators to 'just take a vote on what's right.'

Sykora, a 19-year state employee, said he doubted many legislators are 'motivated by hate and fear' of gay and lesbian couples. 'I know many of you personally.? I don't believe you would tell me I couldn't take leave to be with my partner in the hospital.'

But, Sykora said, legislators 'represent people who hate and fear me' - and they need those people's votes. 'Why not lead, rather than follow?' he asked. 'Why follow their bitterness?'

Only one contract would survive
Bishop's proposal would strip same-sex benefits from state insurance plans that cover nonunion employees, and reject contracts with five unions that approved the benefits: Council 6 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Minnesota Association of Professional Employees; Middle Management Association; State Residential Schools Education Association; and Minnesota State University Association of Administrative and Service Faculty. Those contracts cover a total of 31,300 state workers.

The only union contract that Bishop would approve covers the 900 state employees represented by Minnesota Government Engineers Council, which opted out of the same-sex benefits clause.

Michael Kuchta is editor of The Union Advocate, publication of the St. Paul Trades & Labor Assembly. E-mail him at advocate@mtn.org

For more information

Visit the websites of AFSCME Council 6, www.afscmecouncil6.org, and MAPE, www.mape.org