Bills · 2017-2018 Regular Session
Relating to: classifying county jailers as protective occupation participants under the Wisconsin Retirement System and the treatment of county jailers under the Municipal Employment Relations Act. (FE)
Jail Legislature — Retirement systems, joint survey committee on Public employee Retirement — Protective service Retirement system, wisconsin
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- Law, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, participants under the Wisconsin Retirement System
(WRS) whose principal duties involve active law enforcement or fire suppression or
prevention and require frequent exposure to a high degree of danger or peril and a
high degree of physical conditioning are classified as protective occupation
participants. Current law classifies police officers, fire fighters, and various other
individuals as protective occupation participants. Under the WRS, the normal
retirement age of a protective occupation participant is lower than that of other
participants and the percentage multiplier used to calculate retirement annuities is
higher for protective occupation participants.
This bill classifies county jailers as protective occupation participants without
a requirement that their principal duties involve active law enforcement or active
fire suppression or prevention. The bill defines county jailers as persons employed
by a county whose principal duties involve supervising, controlling, or maintaining
a jail or persons confined in a jail, regardless of whether the jailers have been sworn
regarding their duties or whether they serve on a full-time basis.
Under the bill, county jailers who become protective occupation participants on
or after the bill's effective date and are employed by a county that did not classify
county jailers as protective occupation participants on July 1, 2017, are required to
pay all additional employer costs resulting from their classification as protective
occupation participants, including the cost of the duty disability program. County
jailers who were classified as protective occupation participants before the bill's
effective date and county jailers hired on or after the bill's effective date in counties
that did classify county jailers as protective occupation participants on July 1, 2017,
are not required to pay the additional employer costs. The bill also permits a county
jailer to elect at the time of hire not to become a protective occupation participant.
Finally, under the Municipal Employment Relations Act, public safety
employees may collectively bargain over wages, hours, and conditions of
employment, and general employees may bargain collectively over only an annual
percentage wage increase that does not exceed the annual percentage increase in the
consumer price index. Under MERA, public safety employees and general employees
may not be in the same collective bargaining unit. This bill amends MERA so that
a county that treats a county jailer as a public safety employee on the effective date
of this bill shall continue to treat any person it employs as a county jailer as a public
safety employee except that, if the county subsequently raises a question regarding
the appropriateness of including county jailers in a collective bargaining unit
containing public safety employees, no person the county employs as a county jailer
may be treated as a public safety employee.
Because this bill relates to public employee retirement or pensions, it may be
referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems for a report to be
printed as an appendix to the bill.
What it would cost
Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs
Sponsors
Introduced by: Born (R) , E. Brooks (R) , Edming (R) , Felzkowski (R) , Genrich (D) , Goyke (D) , Horlacher (R) , Jacque (R) , Jarchow (R) , Kitchens (R) , Kolste (D) , Krug (R) , Loudenbeck (R) , Macco (R) , Milroy (D) , Mursau (R) , Novak (R) , Ripp (R) , Rohrkaste (R) , Schraa (R) , Steffen (R) , Steineke (R) , Stuck (D) , Subeck (D) , Swearingen (R) , Tranel (R) , Tusler (R) , VanderMeer (R)
Votes
Assembly: Report passage recommended by Committee on Corrections, Ayes 10, Noes 0
Passed 10–0 Feb 1, 2018 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Nov 29, 2017 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Born, Edming, E. Brooks, Felzkowski, Genrich, Goyke, Horlacher, Jacque, Jarchow, Kitchens, Kolste, Krug, Loudenbeck, Macco, Milroy, Mursau, Novak, Ripp, Rohrkaste, Schraa, Steffen, Steineke, Stuck, Subeck, Swearingen, Tranel, Tusler and VanderMeer; cosponsored by Senators Marklein, Bewley, Darling, Erpenbach, Hansen, Harsdorf, Risser, Testin, Vinehout and Wirch
- Nov 29, 2017 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to Committee on Corrections
- Dec 1, 2017 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Dec 5, 2017 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Dec 8, 2017 · Assembly
Representative Shankland added as a coauthor
- Jan 9, 2018 · Assembly
- Jan 9, 2018 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Jan 25, 2018 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Feb 1, 2018 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by Committee on Corrections, Ayes 10, Noes 0
- Feb 1, 2018 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Feb 13, 2018 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 1:05 PM on 2-15-2018 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 23
- Feb 15, 2018 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Feb 15, 2018 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Feb 15, 2018 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Feb 15, 2018 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed
- Feb 15, 2018 · Assembly
- Feb 15, 2018 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 16, 2018 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Feb 21, 2018 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Government Operations, Technology and Consumer Protection
- Mar 28, 2018 · Senate
Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1