Gov. Phil Scott on Monday vetoed a bill that would have extended the right to unionize to supervisors in the Vermont court system.
“The Judiciary has advised this change could have a negative impact on the effective management of courthouses and fear a workplace marked by divisiveness and angst were this bill to pass,” Scott wrote in his veto message regarding S.125. “At a time when our court system is managing a significant backlog, we should be focusing on improving efficiencies within the system.”
In addition, the bill would make it harder for workers to kick out an existing union, which is done by what is known as a decertification vote. To schedule a vote today, 30 percent of a union’s members must sign a petition supporting the move. The bill would have raised that threshold to 50 percent plus one.
The provision confused some Republican lawmakers. Currently, to hold a vote about whether to establish a union, a mere 30 percent of workers must sign a petition.
“I’m still struggling to understand why 30 percent of an employee union can say, ‘Let’s form a union,’ and those same 30 percent cannot say, ‘No, we want to decertify the union,’” Rep. Jim Harrison (R-Chittenden), a former president of the Vermont Retail & Grocers Association, said.
Rep. Marc Mihaly (D-East Calais) argued that the higher threshold is more appropriate because there are often members who are represented by a union against their wishes, and it can be “a little too easy” to hit the 30 percent in decertification petitions.
Scott said he supports collective bargaining, but he does not favor making it harder for workers to give a union the boot.
“This means it will be much more difficult for employees who do not feel well represented to consider their alternatives,” Scott wrote.
Scott further said he was concerned that while lawmakers took testimony from union representatives, they did not hear from the judiciary employees who would be empowered to unionize.
The bill passed the 150-member House with 82 yes votes, suggesting that legislators could not muster the 100 needed to override — and that Scott’s veto would stand.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
