|
Will AG's smoking ban opinion come in time?
It made it through a filibuster, two rounds of debate and serious compromise.
The question now is whether the lack of a timely response from Nebraska Attorney
General Jon Bruning’s office will threaten a final vote on a statewide smoking ban.
Talk circulated around the Capitol Wednesday that a legal opinion requested on the
opt-out portion of the bill would not make it out of Bruning’s office until after the session
winds down at the end of May.
The bill (LB395), introduced by Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney, would ban smoking
from indoor work sites, including bars and restaurants, but would allow cities, counties,
villages and unincorporated areas to opt out — in whole or in part — with a vote of the
local governing body or by a voter petition. The opt-out clause was a key compromise
that allowed the bill to pass on second reading.
Omaha Sen. John Nelson asked the attorney general’s office for an informal legal
opinion on a bill this session and was told it would take four to six weeks. On
Thursday, a spokesperson for Bruning said the attorney general’s office would respond to the Legislature’s
request on the smoking ban bill “as quickly as we can.” After the bill made it through second
reading last week on a 35-4 vote, senators said they would seek an attorney general’s
opinion before final reading on whether a county could pass a binding ordinance to opt
out of the ban.
Johnson asked for the opinion this week. If it can’t be issued in this session, he said,
maybe senators should get back to talking about the bill as it was originally written —
without the opt-out clause. Speaker Mike Flood said he and others would consider the
possibility of a delay on the opinion over the Easter break and try to decide next week
what will happen with the bill.
Read the full article by the Lincoln Journal Star.
— JoAnne Young, Lincoln Journal Star, April 6, 2007.
Bruning calls union fee bill unconstitutional
(Omaha World-Herald) — Allowing labor unions to collect fees from nonunion
workers they represent would violate the "right-to-work" provision of the Nebraska
Constitution, according to an opinion issued Wednesday by Attorney General Jon
Bruning. Bruning reached the same conclusion as an opinion reached by the Attorney
General's Office in 1993. Both opinions concluded that so-called "fair share" bills, such
as this year's LB 57, are unconstitutional. Such bills do not require workers to pay union
dues, but they would be required to pay collective bargaining and contract enforcement
costs. Under LB 57, unions could collect fees if authorized under their contract
agreements with employers.
Nonunion workers could be sued if they refused to pay the fees. Bruning's opinion
said the mandatory nature of the fees, not their amount, makes them constitutionally
suspect. However, attorney Robert Bartle, a former assistant attorney general, said he
believes LB 57 avoids constitutional problems because it says employees could not lose
their jobs for refusing to pay the fees. Nebraska is among 22 "Right-to-Work" states that
say people cannot be denied employment based on whether they are union members. In
Nebraska, the provision is part of the State Constitution. Lawmakers began debate on LB
57 last month. No vote was taken before its sponsor, State Sen. Don Preister of Omaha,
asked to postpone further debate until after April 13.
— Nebraska Chamber Daily Update, April 5, 2007.
Home care legislation advances in Neb. Legislature
(Omaha World-Herald) — On Monday, state lawmakers gave preliminary approval to
a bill that would help more disabled and elderly Nebraskans live longer in their own
homes. LB 236 advanced in a 40-0 first-round vote. It makes it clear that those hired to
help with daily living activities ranging from cooking a meal to helping with a bath do
not have to be nurses or medication aides, as long as they do not exercise medical or
nursing judgment. Under the measure, in-home personal service agencies would have to
check the criminal backgrounds and driving records of those they employ. The in-home
services industry sought legislation clarifying which services they can provide without
having medical staff, and agreed to the background check requirement. Introduced by
State Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney, the proposal would save people money because they
would not have to hire workers with medical training to perform tasks that are not
medical in nature.
— Nebraska Chamber Daily Update, April 3, 2007.
Understanding LB 542
LB 542 reallocates funds within HHS from Hastings Regional Center to community-
based services. In 2004, the Legislature passed LB 1083 which found that adults needing
behavioral health services would be better served by smaller facilities closer to their
family and local community. As Health and Human Services moved adults from the
Hastings Regional Center, they decided to place more children and youth there, creating a
“Youth Development Center”. Unfortunately, half or more of the youth there are from
Omaha and Lincoln, challenging a “family-centered care” approach.
LB 542, introduced and prioritized by Sen. John Synowiecki (Omaha), is about
Nebraska children who need services and staff that:
-
are close to family, so family can be involved in treatment,
-
have expertise in children’s behavioral health,
-
are of similar racial and ethnic backgrounds; and
-
are located near the home, community and school of the child.
Nebraska has budgeted $10.5 million for the Hastings Regional Center, two to four
times what it would cost to care for those children in a more appropriate, community-
based setting. LB 542 as written would redirect these funds from Hastings to community-
based services. At this time, this bill is still before the Appropriations Committee.
— Voices for Children in Nebraska, April 5, 2007.
Medicare price battle looms
(Lincoln Journal Star) — Dueling advertising wars have been unleashed, seniors are
flooding the phones to Sen. Ben Nelson’s office and the stage is set for a possible
showdown over the federal government’s ability to bargain directly with manufacturers
over Medicare prescription drug prices. AARP state Director Connie Benjamin kicked off
efforts Tuesday to influence Nelson, who has opposed direct bargaining in the past. Sen.
Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., already supports the change, Benjamin said. AARP argues that by
leveraging its 43 million Medicare beneficiaries, the government could get better prices
than those negotiated piecemeal by Medicare Part D’s insurance company intermediaries.
The Senate Finance Committee is expected to take up legislation removing the ban on
direct negotiation next week, and it could reach the full Senate on April 16. A spokesman
for Nelson said a proposal was “not even on the horizon.” The House version of the bill,
H.R. 4, the “Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007,” was approved
255-170 in January. It called for ending the ban and requires the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to report on the best ways to negotiate better prices. All three Nebraska
congressmen opposed the change. In the past, Nelson opposed the change because “the
prescription drug plan is in its infancy and it seems to be working,” a spokesman said. “It
gets great reviews from seniors in Nebraska.” He said AARP was trying to fix a problem
that doesn’t exist.
Opposing AARP is PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America, which disputes the ability of direct federal bargaining to lower Medicare drug
prices. Federal bargaining, AARP’s so-called solution to high drug prices, could harm the
Medicare beneficiaries AARP is trying to protect, said PhRMA’s Ken Johnson. "(I)t
could result in Medicare limiting the number of drugs it covers and restricting patient
access to potentially life-saving medicines,” he said in a news release. Johnson added that
current Medicare Part D methods had kept the nation’s spending on medications low.
“The federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that prescription drug prices
increased only 1.5 percent in 2006, well below the 3.3 percent increase for all medical
care last year.”
— Nebraska Chamber Daily Update, April 4, 2007.
Card check legislation survey
Nebraska Chamber of Commerce — On March 1, the U.S. House passed H.R. 800,
which would make it easier to unionize. Under the “Card Check” bill, union leaders could
simply ask employees to sign a card if they favor unionization, as opposed to the
decades-old practice of voting by secret ballot. According to the U.S. Chamber, union
organizers prefer the card check process because employees are forced to make their
choice in front of union organizers and fellow employees. Last week, Sen. Ted Kennedy
(D-MA) introduced the Senate version of the bill, S. 1041, which mirrors the House bill.
Sen. Kennedy has said the card check bill will be brought directly to the Senate floor if
necessary. Currently, no Republicans are co-sponsoring S. 1041; Sen. Ben Nelson is one
of only four Democrats who is not yet a co-sponsor.
So where do Nebraska's U.S. senators stand on S. 1041 — also known as the
“Employee Free Choice Act”? The following responses were provided to the State
Chamber by staff members of Sens. Hagel and Nelson:
Sen. Chuck Hagel: “I do not support the Employee Free Choice Act. …Secret ballot
elections are the best method to ensure accurate representation of employees in union
elections. By circumventing decades of successful use of the secret ballot process in
union elections, employee rights will be undermined by this legislation. The National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1935 for the purpose of protecting employee
rights. I support this basic principle in the NLRA. …I am willing to examine whether the
NLRA needs to be updated to enhance enforcement and penalties against unscrupulous
businesses that use unlawful intimidation tactics to thwart union formation. I believe that
the Employee Free Choice Act will actually have the effect of undermining employee
rights. It is important that worker rights are protected. Should the Employee Free Choice
Act be taken up by the Senate, I will not support it.”
Sen. Ben Nelson: “It is unclear when, or if, this issue will come before the Senate for
debate. It is equally uncertain what the legislation will look like that will be presented to
the Senate for a vote. Therefore, I have not committed to voting for or against legislation
allowing for a ‘card check’ process for union organization. I am still gathering
information about this very important issue from all interested parties. I would like to
hear the perspective of businesses in Nebraska who have experience with union
organization efforts. It would be useful to know how many companies have had votes to
unionize in the past few years, what the outcome of those efforts were, and what positive
and negative experiences Nebraska Chamber members have had with union organization
efforts. I understand the importance of this issue to members of the Chamber of
Commerce and I wish to make the most informed decision possible.”
To contact Sens. Hagel and Nelson regarding S. 1041, visit www.MyPrivateBallot.com
for fact sheets, talking points and recent articles. Go to
http://www.bipac.net/issue_alert.asp?g=NAM&issue=card_check_senate&parent=NAM
to write your senators.
— Nebraska Chamber Daily Update, April 3, 2007.
NHA Rotunda Review is published by the Nebraska Hospital Association, 3255 Salt
Creek Circle, Lincoln, NE 68504. Phone (402) 742-8140, Fax (402) 742-8191. Visit our Web site at
http://www.nhanet.org. Christy Rasmussen, editor, at
402/742-8151, or email, crasmussen@nhanet.org.
Click here to Subscribe to Rotunda Review
Click here to Unsubscribe to Rotudna Review
Click here to change your email address
or call Kris Claussen at 402/742-8145.
Please be sure to include the individual's name, title, email address and preference for
a plain text or html version if subscribing, unsubscribing or changing
information.
Back To Main
|
