Sitting down with DCEA (Davis City Employees Association) President Dave Owen was a tough experience. Despite arguments that can be made that many get above-market salaries, these are not wealthy people. They are not living it up. Most work hard for their living and during this economic time, struggle to make ends meet.
Accepting cuts of 20% in salary and 20% in benefits would likely cripple many of them. Talking to Dave Owen, they thought they were doing what they were supposed to be doing over much of the last decade – they took the pay increases offered to them, took certain benefits in lieu of salary increases, made tradeoffs along the way.
In many ways you can argue that they are innocent victims of the decade-long unsustainable policies that the Davis City Council and city staff implemented.
The policies that were put into place for a decade by the council majority were purportedly there to help the city employees. It is ironic that in the long run those policies will do far more harm than good.
These policies worked on paper so long as the city experienced property tax growth, and from 2003-04 to 2007-08, property tax revenues nearly doubled from $7.4 million in 2003-04 to $14.3 million.
The city also took advantage of $3 million in sales tax from the 2004 half-cent sales tax hike.
As a result, during the same period, employee compensation grew dramatically, particularly on the public safety side, where the city expenditures for fire personnel increased from $5.9 million to $8.4 million in four years, and police personnel expenditures increased from $8.8 million to $12.9 million.
DCEA employees did not get a 36% pay hike from 2005 to 2009, like the firefighters. They do not get 3% of their ending salary for each year of service and they do not get to retire at the age of 50.
They do not make over $150,000 in total compensation. They did not make the decision to increase pensions to 3% at 50 and 2.5% at 55, impacting their pensions retroactively without any backfill, which created an instant unfunded liability.
They did not ignore accounting principles leading to a $60 million unfunded liability for health care.
These were all done by previous councils, and it is a decade-long accumulation of mistakes that we are having to undo right now that have led to the drastic cutbacks.
At the same time, DCEA is not without blame. Every other bargaining unit in the city of Davis took the deal in 2009 – a deal that we argued was insufficient and in fact was insufficient. But everyone else took concessions.
DCEA did not take those concessions. They reached impasse and the city imposed their last, best and final offer on the bargaining group. It was a contract similar to what PASEA (Program, Administrative and Support Employees Association) and the other bargaining units got, but the city did not follow the proper procedures, and first an Administrative Law Judge and then PERB (Public Employment Relations Board) itself nullified the imposed contracts.
That leaves the city with about $800,000 to backfill that was unbudgeted. In a year where the city is cutting $7 million from its budget in all-funds, the city has to make up that money with an equivalent amount of cuts.
The city argues that those layoffs could have been avoided had DCEA merely accepted concessions. They could do that now.
Dave Owen has a couple of responses to this.
He believes that those jobs will be gone one way or another, whether or not the bargaining unit grants the city concessions or not. Looking at the overall budget picture, I believe he has a good point here.
His other point is interesting, though.
In his mind, taking concessions reduces the compensation to the point where employees would question whether the job remains one worth taking.
“We want to know that the jobs that we save are worth having – that you can feed your family and take care of your household on what’s left of what you’re being paid, your compensation,” he said. “So if you have grown your organization to the point where you can’t sustain it, then you probably do need to shrink your organization.”
Others have argued that those who got laid off might think differently – but the interesting thing is that we really do not know. It may be that many would opt to look for a new job rather than take a huge cut.
A number of people have complained about the cuts to tree trimming.
The Vanguard last year ran an article that noted the impact of the lack of tree trimming, as part of the tiered cut approach last year.
We have argued against that approach, arguing that this is essentially nickel and diming the budget, when what we need to do is make long-term structural changes.
One of the cuts to the city budget in Tier 2 is the reduction of the street tree maintenance contract, which among other things would eliminate the portion of the contract for trees at residential addresses.
In the description from the city, it stated a year ago: “Reduced number of large trees pruned per year. Increased time between tree pruning. Increase in the city’s liability to pay damage claims for trees that are not pruned within the pruning cycles set forth in the Community Forest Management plan and have caused personal or property damage. Increased clean up time during and after a storm event with large amounts of limb and tree failures. Increase to overtime costs, as properly maintained trees have reduced failures.”
The savings to the city for this last year was a mere $25,000.
Yesterday we published a story that quoted from a letter from a tree trimmer, Cory Cooper.
Today, Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning has a piece entitled, “Why Couldn’t We Save City Tree Crew?”
He writes, “One day the citizens of this fine town are high-fiving one another for passing a renewal of the $49-a-year parks tax and the next day the front-page headline in Davis’ Only Daily Newspaper declares ‘City trims nine employees from parks, public works.’ “
He noted that 84 percent of the public voted yes for the parks tax and suggests that perhaps the city should have asked for more.
He quotes from the Enterprise article on the layoffs and then writes, “However, City Manager Steve Pinkerton told Sakash the layoffs were necessary despite renewal of the tax.”
He then writes, “That assessment didn’t sit well with Dave Owen, spokesman for the DCEA bargaining unit, who noted: “I find it strangely coincidental that you’ve got the parks tax vote that they’ve been pushing along, and then the very day after the vote comes in that the citizens are willing to extend the tax, they start laying off parks workers. To me, that’s kind of puzzling.””
Mr. Dunning writes, “Owen is not alone. The day after the layoff announcement, I received an email from Cory Cooper, classified as a tree trimmer II…”
What Mr. Dunning never bothers to explain, however, is why the layoffs were necessary despite the renewal of the tax. He never mentions the botched impasse by the previous city management and council. He never mentions the PERB ruling that will force the city to fork over $800,000.
He quotes Mr. Cooper, writing, “I want everyone to know your city tree crew was eliminated even after the parks tax passed. I would really like to know how the city will maintain the trees. If the city’s plan is to hire contractors, why didn’t they tell the citizens that even after you pass the parks tax, we will still eliminate the city tree crew?”
Mr. Dunning responds: “A fair question, indeed. If we had known what the city was planning, many of us would have been willing to put more money on the table to prevent it. We simply weren’t given that option.”
While that is all true, there is some context missing.
First, Mr. Dunning, in addition to the glaring PERB omission, fails to mention that the city is in fact cutting $7 million from the budget this month.
Second, the city made the decision to not ask for an increase in the parks tax, but that decision has context that is missing here. First, it was occurring at the same time the school district was seeking a $320 renewal of their parcel tax. Second, it was occurring at a time of uncertainty over the water rates – an issue that Mr. Dunning has rightly led the way against.
Given how crucial the $1.35 million was to the budget, given the other taxes on the ballot or that would be on the ballot, the council simply was unwilling to risk the money they knew they could get.
Finally, Mr. Dunning never acknowledges that DCEA in fact had a choice, and chose to take the layoffs rather than make concessions – concessions that everyone else in the city has made. My biggest criticism of Bob Dunning these days is that, despite the critical educational role he has played on many critical issues, he has never covered the true crisis of the city – the threat of insolvency.
We have $3 million in reorganizational cuts, 30 positions eliminated, and perhaps more if the bargaining units do not accept up to $4 million in concessions. If we are going to second guess every cut, we are never going to get where we need to go.
In the end, we agree that dismissing a tree trimmer is probably not the best of policy decisions, but this decision needs to be placed into a much broader context that neither Mr. Dunning nor Mr. Cooper are willing to make.
For the last five years, we have been literally pleading with the city to be more proactive, because we knew the day would come when they had to make tough decisions. The first of these decisions are upon us, but these are by no means the last.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”In many ways you can argue that they are innocent victims of the decade long unsustainable policies that the Davis City Council and city staff implemented.”[/i]
Innocents or guilt does not have anything to do with it. It is just math. The bargaining units and unions seem to consistently lack the ability to do math beyond what they will go in their own pocket and their own retirement account. Anybody that passed high school algebra should have been able to determine that the spending at the state and local level was unsustainable even considering the wildest dreams of a continuing expanding housing bubble. Collective bargaining caused/causes employees to stop looking out for themselves thinking they are being cared for and have complete job security. It is a façade.
Every company I have worked for in my entire career has had to downsize. The math never lied. Senior management was saddled with the difficult job of deciding what and who to cut. In other cases, to realize savings that could be passed on to the customer, management would outsource functions… again requiring layoffs. This was never easy… it was just required.
The culpability here, if any, if the union and association leadership that failed to develop appropriate cooperative business relationships with city management and then failed to advise represented employees in managing their career. In the private sector, this is what a full-service HR department would do. The company would offer severance, job placement services and general help for the displaced employee to find another job. But, more importantly, the private-sector system delivers a different mindset to employees that they are ultimately responsible for their own career. Because professional loyalty is only the act of professional performance… it can rarely overcome math.
From API…
[quote]Squeezed by state budgets cutbacks, the Los Angeles County court system is launching massive job layoffs, pay cuts and transfers, court officials said Thursday.
Cutbacks that will be implemented Friday will affect 431 court employees and 56 courtrooms throughout the nation’s largest superior court system.
Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon bemoaned the loss of longtime employees as well as the impact on public services.
“We are laying off people who are committed to serving the public,” she said. “It is a terrible loss both to these dedicated employees and to the public.”
The union representing state and municipal employees called Friday’s action a “freeze on justice in Los Angeles” and warned that the county would experience “an end to timely justice” with cases being delayed for years, particularly in civil courts.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — AFSCME — planned to have representatives on hand to assist employees who will not know they are losing their jobs until they are informed individually Friday.[/quote]
What a distraction that Pinkerton decided that the Tree Trimmers were a great way to publicize the city’s efforts to reduce city staff. The timing (on the heels of the park tax approval), of course, was horrible. Now, we’re caught up in conversations that won’t help us agree on a solution to the big problem.
[quote]”In his mind, taking concessions reduces the compensation to the point where employees would question whether the job remains one worth taking.”[/quote]Yeah, sure. BS. Before raising this prospect, be specific in listing the proposed compensation reductions that even could come close to applicants turning down a job offer.
And, if present employees could better themselves by leaving, fine–that just helps put the city on a path to sustainability. To suggest some mass exodus because of the benefit cuts being discussed isn’t credible–we know that.
In earlier pieces, the city manager pointed out that we’ve had a significant reduction in management positions while engaging in an “attrition only” strategy and David provided a listing of 32 such positions that have had changes (increases or decreases) during the past four years.
Like any claim that offers data for support, it raises questions. What levels of management positions did we support prior to the year selected to start the count (FY-10, which shows 36 positions)? Why was FY-10 picked as the starting date? If FY-11 had been the beginning, a reduction of only four positions could have been claimed by the end of the period selected (FY-13).
In short, David’s chart shows a reduction of four management positions during the first year selected for the look back, but only a single cut during each of the past two years and, finally, two more cut during the current fiscal year.
Give credit where it’s due, but reducing management by four positions during the past terrible three years doesn’t look like a serious flattening out of an organization as big as the city is. More important, how many management positions still exist and how many are targeted as we implement these more aggressive cutbacks?
[quote]”…they thought they were doing what they were supposed to be doing over much of the last decade – they took the pay increases offered to them, took certain benefits in lieu of salary increases, made tradeoffs along the way.”[/quote]Just who was forcing these pay increases and “certain benefits” on these poor victims? What disadvantages did they suffer in making “tradeoffs along the way”? Maybe the union that’s not really a union should have said: [quote]”Stop! This isn’t sustainable. We’d rather accept less over these ten years than to have to give up a portion of our pay and benefit increases to save some city jobs in 2013.”[/quote]Nice story on last night’s News-13 about Fairfield-Susuin teachers offering back $2-million, I think, to save sports and music programs that had been eliminated. Somebody probably had forced them to take pay and benefit deals that the district no longer can afford, but their reaction was different than what we’re seeing in our city and schools.
I don’t think anyone was forcing it on them, but I do think it’s naive to think an employee isn’t going to ask for a salary increase and expect that if the salary increase is not affordable, that those in charge are responsible for that.
It’s not like they were bundling $100 contributions to ensure that they got the leadership that would vote them huge raises.
[quote]Accepting cuts of 20% in salary and 20% in benefits would likely cripple many of them. Talking to Dave Owen, they thought they were doing what they were supposed to be doing over much of the last decade – they took the pay increases offered to them, took certain benefits in lieu of salary increases, made tradeoffs along the way.[/quote]
In other words, they took the city’s foolish largesse when it was offered to them – but that is unsustainable in lean times, and lean times are upon us like it or not.
[quote]”We want to know that the jobs that we save are worth having – that you can feed your family and take care of your household on what’s left of what you’re being paid, your compensation,” he said. “So if you have grown your organization to the point where you can’t sustain it, then you probably do need to shrink your organization.”[/quote]
In other words, it is preferred that 9 get fired (thrown under the bus) than all take a pay cut.
[quote]In the end, we agree that dismissing a tree trimmer is probably not the best of policy decisions, but this decision needs to be placed into a much broader context that neither Mr. Dunning nor Mr. Cooper are willing to make.[/quote]
Let me give it a different context. Laying off 9 workers probably means 9 people who are not going to be able to find jobs in the current economic crisis the nation and state are facing. 9 people who now can’t pay their taxes, meaning less revenue for the state. Yet had the DCEA just taken the necessary concessions, and kept the 9 people employed, that would be 9 people who could continue to pay taxes and keep revenue coming into the state to pay for services. To my mind, the less people you can lay off, the more tax revenue you are able to keep for the public good. The more people you have to lay off, the more the downward spiral keeps spiraling downward…
The interesting thing here… if employees had accepted a significant roll-back of their benefits, there would be fewer, if any, layoffs.
The level of defense over these way too high benefits is indicative of a particular problem with public sector labor in general… it is that many of these employees have their eye on retirement. They are just putting in their time until they reach their primary goal of not having to work. It is a mindset and motivation issue that I think somewhat affects their capacity to reinvent and improve work processes to achieve greater efficiencies.
If you think about it, were all of our city employees to accept benefits more in line with what the private sector gets, there would be little need for layoffs, and there would be less pressure for pay reductions. The cost of benefits is where we are getting killed.
To my public sector friends: Change the career mindset. Plan on working more years of your life. Plan on having to save more for your own retirement and retiree health care. This is not the end of the world. You would still likely have a better situation than your peers in the private sector. However, you would move the needle to a more sustainable and reasonable level of compensation. If you hate your job so much that your primary motivation is provided by dreams of fully-funded early retirement, then you should consider a career change. Life is too short to be doing work you don’t enjoy.
Elaine:
My view is that even in good times it was unsustainable. The downturn exposed it sooner. But the bill was going to come due.
We saw the numbers – staggering cut numbers – what we have not seen is the impact.
I think a point that needs to be made is that by passing these policies Souza – Saylor – Asmundson – Puntillo and a few others thought they were helping the employees. In fact, they were setting the stage for the destruction of the lives of many of them.
“In other words, it is preferred that 9 get fired (thrown under the bus) than all take a pay cut. “
Have you talked to any of the employees laid off yet to find out their perspective?
“Laying off 9 workers probably means 9 people who are not going to be able to find jobs in the current economic crisis the nation and state are facing. “
You don’t know that.
“9 people who now can’t pay their taxes, meaning less revenue for the state. “
That’s probably a wash don’t you think? It should at least be calculated.
“To my mind, the less people you can lay off, the more tax revenue you are able to keep for the public good. The more people you have to lay off, the more the downward spiral keeps spiraling downward… “
But you are not the one having to live with less here, so it’s easy for you to say. If the concessions push them below what they can live on, then it’s not really a deal that they can take. There are other jobs, even now.
It’s not like these are people making $150,000 in total comp.
I’d at least like to explore this point before it gets adopted.
Again, I don’t take seriously any of these budget reductions until I see 3 member crews on the emergency calls, and the Fire Dept stops going to every single traffic event unless there are signs it is an injury accident or someone specifically reports it.
[quote]Again, I don’t take seriously any of these budget reductions until I see 3 member crews on the emergency calls, and the Fire Dept stops going to every single traffic event unless there are signs it is an injury accident or someone specifically reports it.[/quote]
Mike, Explain how the fire department not responding to traffic accidents will save money? What would you have them be doing instead that would either save money or generate money?
[quote]erm: “In other words, it is preferred that 9 get fired (thrown under the bus) than all take a pay cut. ”
dmg: Have you talked to any of the employees laid off yet to find out their perspective?
erm: “Laying off 9 workers probably means 9 people who are not going to be able to find jobs in the current economic crisis the nation and state are facing. ”
dmg: You don’t know that. [/quote]
We have gone round and round on this point. Not for one second do I believe that the 9 laid off would prefer having been laid off than making concessions on their salary/benefits. It is simple logic – “half a loaf is better than none”. And yes I strongly believe in this economy the 9 laid off will have a very difficult time finding a job. If they are able to find work, it will probably be, at best, part time w no benefits and minimum wage. A number of my friends have been laid off, and are still w/o employment or are severely underemployed over a year later. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue…
[quote]”To my mind, the less people you can lay off, the more tax revenue you are able to keep for the public good. The more people you have to lay off, the more the downward spiral keeps spiraling downward… ”
But you are not the one having to live with less here, so it’s easy for you to say. If the concessions push them below what they can live on, then it’s not really a deal that they can take. There are other jobs, even now. [/quote]
Other comparable jobs? I think not…
[quote]Every company I have worked for in my entire career has had to downsize. The math never lied. Senior management was saddled with the difficult job of deciding what and who to cut. In other cases, to realize savings that could be passed on to the customer, management would outsource functions… again requiring layoffs. This was never easy… it was just required.
[/quote]
This certainly helps me understand one of the major differences in our economic point of view. Because of a very different experience, I do not see downsizing as either inevitable, or desirable. I have worked with the same very large medical group for 26 years. We have never downsized. The entire time that I have been here, the group has either been stable or grown. Sometimes very slowly, sometimes rapidly, but we have never downsized. When there are economic challenges, we have made arrangements so that everyone who does not voluntarily retire gets to keep their job. On occasion, this has been painful as during the years when we were given the choice to take one of two options. We could opt to take a pay cut, or we could receive the same amount of pay but work an increased number of hours to earn it. Sometimes it has been fun while challenging as in the times when the administration has stated the need to “do more with less” and invited ideas from all levels within the organization for how this could be achieved and then implemented the ones that made the most sense and could be demonstrated as beneficial in brief pilot tests of the new idea. The point is that we are a truly collaborative group. People are not threatened with loss of their job. They are invited, at all levels of the organization ( and yes, most of our component groups are unionized) to submit their ideas, and work on committees to formulate new processes. I do not believe that my group is so exceptional as to make this an exceptional outcome. My experience leads me to believe that if people are encouraged to participate fully and have their ideas considered rather than disregarded in a top down approach, a company will be more likely to succeed than if it adheres to a “management knows best model”.
I believe that, with some 90 members, what DCEA is trying to present is that, if they were to agree to the concessions the city is offering, more than 9 employees lives would be ruined. More than 9 employees might lose their house.
Remember that the DCEA is composed of field workers, not accountants. For them, to turn down a raise is moronic. They, unfortunately, trusted the city management make sure these raises were sustainable.
As far as the impasse is concerned, this is where their trust ended. They got wise and hired professionals. They wanted to see the numbers from the city to prove that they needed the cuts. They were no longer going to take the word of people who had screwed them in the past. Well the city would not present the numbers, wouldn’t give DCEA a chance to come up with alternative cost saving measures. So they refused to take the concessions, believing that the city would be forced to follow their own rules and open the books. Well, the city did not want to do that, and decided to declare impasse, improperly, and got called on it.
For me, if someone asked me to give 20% of my pay, lose my house, and mortgage my future, a future I was promised by them, in order to ‘save the city”, I would ask them to prove it, or show me the numbers as well. I don’t think that DCEA wasn’t willing to take concessions, they just weren’t willing to take the one offered by untrustworthy city officials.
[quote]Mike, Explain how the fire department not responding to traffic accidents will save money? What would you have them be doing instead that would either save money or generate money?[/quote]
I have one idea. They could take over the maintenance of the fire hydrants. It would be kind of like equipment maintenance for them. It will also eliminate the need for the city to hire contractors to do the job, and therefore, save money.
There appears to be an overabundance of misplaced anger here. If the city’s legal team had completed fact finding prior to imposing their last best final offer, then they would owe DCEA NOTHING. Its my understanding that so long as the city completes fact finding (which confirms the city’s finances are not sustainable) then they can legally impose contracts to correct the deficit.
Its to the bargaining groups advantage to ensure the fiscal health of the city, but if for whatever reason the negotiating process is unable to achieve this, then the city has the power to implement contracts that will put our fiscal house in order. All they have to do is follow their own rules. Our fiscal woes are not insurmountable, all it takes is resolve. (and good legal advice)
Ryan: So you are in favor of the 3 member fire crews for normal operations?
Wow, who would’ve guessed our fire dept doesn’t take care of the hydrants!
I’m very sympathetic to the DCEA staff. In particular, the tree trimmers have done some great work – quick, safe, and minimal traffic interruption.
Any cuts in pay ought to be progressive: far bigger cuts in the upper half of the city’s salary range. Some of those folks with higher salaries are not very competent, certainly not working as hard as the tree trimmers do, and accomplishing very little of substance.
Heres a thought, if the DCEA was not willing to make concessions why would they invite the city council to sit in on negotiations? It seems logical that if they wanted to make a statement and not budge on anything they would not need to tell the council that face to face? I think they had questions and weren’t getting answers. The DCEA has been and continues to be villified by some for asking questions and wanting to see valid numbers. It seems strange to me that those furloughs were a necessity at the time but the reserve remained untouched at that time if i am not mistaken, but now your new city manager says lets dig into the reserves because thats what they are for. Whether they were receiving bad advice or not, in my opinion members of the council had an agenda for negotiations and were being fed numbers by Paul, and when they asked bargaing units to take those concessions they expected immediate compliance, and when the DCEA asked questions and wanted see actual figures, it started the donward spiral to impasse. When i said agenda above i was refering to a timeframe, things were getting rushed and the DCEA slowed them down by asking questions. I think Preston hit on the head, there was a trust factor involved. I dont think for a minute the DCEA membership was arrogant enough to think that as bargaining units around them, people they worked with daily, were taking concessions, they would be exempt from it, no they were just the group that asked questions. How dare they.
According to today’s Sacbee Woodland is projecting a 4.6% increase in revenue from sales taxes. I wonder how much of that is coming from Davis residents? David has written about the lag time for generating new income from sales taxes but that misses the point of how the community is now facing reduced services and employees are facing income cuts and job losses due to the historical anti-development biases of this community over the last several decades. While there may exist a lag between decision making and revenue stream generation it is never too late to change our ways, bring in more retail options and eventually begin to right the city’s finances by increasing revenue over the long term in addition to the short term austerity that reality dictates.
Be careful what you ask for.
Excerpt from Tracy press April 2010
Pinkerton, Manteca’s city manager, is confident his town’s Herculean efforts will pay off. Huge crowds head to Bass Pro on weekends, and Big League Dreams is booked for games 52 weekends a year.
But they hardly came cheaply.
Manteca borrowed about $20 million to construct the ball fields for a private company, and it’ll pay back $40 million over about 30 years.
The debt is about a $1 million drain on Manteca’s budget each year, but Pinkerton sees it as a way to privatize a public amenity for half the cost the city would have paid had it managed the fields itself. The sports complex also draws people to a nearby shopping center anchored by Kohl’s, he said.
Manteca spent another $10 million to build roads and sewer and water pipes to handle Bass Pro and other stores near it, including a new movie theater. And the city will reimburse Bass Pro for 55 percent of the sales tax it generates for the next 35 years, the city manager said.
The other 45 percent are “future dollars the city wouldn’t have seen otherwise,” Pinkerton said.
Manteca also agreed to reimburse Costco for 45 percent of its sales tax for 10 to 15 years.
Pinkerton said the city would have had to spend that $10 million anyway near Bass Pro, a magnet for hunters and fishermen who live as far away as Bakersfield.
But whether those giant incentives are worth it for Manteca is a question officials here still ponder.
“The jury’s still out,” said Tracy City Councilman Mike Maciel.
Read more: Tracy Press – Exchange politics
[quote]medwoman: The entire time that I have been here, the group has either been stable or grown. Sometimes very slowly, sometimes rapidly, but we have never downsized. When there are economic challenges, we have made arrangements so that everyone who does not voluntarily retire gets to keep their job. On occasion, this has been painful as during the years when we were given the choice to take one of two options. We could opt to take a pay cut, or we could receive the same amount of pay but work an increased number of hours to earn it. Sometimes it has been fun while challenging as in the times when the administration has stated the need to “do more with less” and invited ideas from all levels within the organization for how this could be achieved and then implemented the ones that made the most sense and could be demonstrated as beneficial in brief pilot tests of the new idea. The point is that we are a truly collaborative group. People are not threatened with loss of their job. They are invited, at all levels of the organization ( and yes, most of our component groups are unionized) to submit their ideas, and work on committees to formulate new processes. I do not believe that my group is so exceptional as to make this an exceptional outcome. My experience leads me to believe that if people are encouraged to participate fully and have their ideas considered rather than disregarded in a top down approach, a company will be more likely to succeed than if it adheres to a “management knows best model”.[/quote]
Thanks for giving yet another example of how collaboration can work better than the axe in the employment arena…
[quote]I believe that, with some 90 members, what DCEA is trying to present is that, if they were to agree to the concessions the city is offering, more than 9 employees lives would be ruined. More than 9 employees might lose their house.
Remember that the DCEA is composed of field workers, not accountants. For them, to turn down a raise is moronic. They, unfortunately, trusted the city management make sure these raises were sustainable.
As far as the impasse is concerned, this is where their trust ended. They got wise and hired professionals. They wanted to see the numbers from the city to prove that they needed the cuts….[/quote]
Which version is the truth: that DCEA refused concessions bc it was better to let 9 DCEA members be fired rather than have 9 person’s lives ruined… or DCEA members wanted to see the numbers from the city to prove the city needed concessions from DCEA? You can’t have it both ways. The first version implies DCEA had already made the decision it would be better to throw 9 members under the bus than have all DCEA members make concessions. The second version implies if the numbers showed what DCEA members were asking for was unsustainable, they might have agreed to make the concessions…
[quote]”For me, if someone asked me to give 20% of my pay, lose my house, and mortgage my future, a future I was promised by them, in order to ‘save the city”, I would ask them to prove it, or show me the numbers as well. I don’t think that DCEA wasn’t willing to take concessions, they just weren’t willing to take the one offered by untrustworthy city officials.”[/quote]I’m with you–what an outrage! No one, of course, is asking anyone to do this.[quote]”Wow, who would’ve guessed our fire dept doesn’t take care of the hydrants!”[/quote]This is, indeed, a surprise. I’ve lived in towns where fire fighters also did building inspections as well as maintained hydrants. What are these folks doing with their long, long “work periods”? Other than boycotting certain grocery stores, I mean. Anger, yes. Misplaced, no.[quote]”Be careful what you ask for….”[/quote]Actually, Davis didn’t ask for enough. Most of our deals, using RDA money, were much better for businesses and windfall house buyers than Pinkerton negotiated for Manteca. Time will tell for them; it’s already spoken for us.
Which version is the truth: that DCEA refused concessions bc it was better to let 9 DCEA members be fired rather than have 9 person’s lives ruined… or DCEA members wanted to see the numbers from the city to prove the city needed concessions from DCEA? You can’t have it both ways. The first version implies DCEA had already made the decision it would be better to throw 9 members under the bus than have all DCEA members make concessions. The second version implies if the numbers showed what DCEA members were asking for was unsustainable, they might have agreed to make the concessions…
One thing must be kept clear, according to Dave Owen DCEA President, the DCEA was blindsided by these 9 layoffs. Negotiations are ongoing currently, could they have not said at the table that it was going to become necessary to make these cuts, keeping in mind they came prior to the PERB decision?
I dont think it was the DCEA that threw these persons lives under the bus.
[quote]One thing must be kept clear, according to Dave Owen DCEA President, the DCEA was blindsided by these 9 layoffs. Negotiations are ongoing currently, could they have not said at the table that it was going to become necessary to make these cuts, keeping in mind they came prior to the PERB decision? [/quote]
Frankly, I think DCEA knew or could have logically deduced layoffs were coming if they didn’t make concessions, based on what I saw/heard last year when all this was going on…