When the city announced the layoff of nine city employees, plus the cutback of three additional positions, many cried foul, even after the city subsequently lost their PERB (Public Employment Relations Board) appeal and were ordered to make back payments of roughly 800,000 dollars to these employees.
At the same time, many accused DCEA (Davis City Employees Association) of essentially throwing nine of their employees under the bus rather than accepting concessions. The Vanguard spoke with DCEA President Dave Owen at the time, and he put forth the argument that DCEA wanted to preserve those positions, but he wanted those position to be worth having and it was their view that the city’s proposed cuts were too steep.
The Vanguard remains in roughly the same position we were in a few months ago. First, we believe that the city faces imminent fiscal crisis and must find ways to immediately reduce costs, in light of impending hits on PERS (Public Employees’ Retirement System), OPEB (Other Post-Employment benefits), and the growing deferred infrastructure maintenance.
At the same time, we believe that the real culprits in this were past councils and city staff that grew salaries and compensation to the point where they were unsustainable as soon the city’s revenue growth from the real estate bubble was cut off.
In particular, management and fire profited from the city’s fiscal arrangement and we believe that those entities ought to see the first cuts – the employees making over $150,000 in total compensation rather than the employees receiving $50,000 to $60,000 in salary.
Moreover, we wanted a better understanding, from the mouths of laid off employees themselves, about what their concerns were rather than assuming that we know. That is why we interviewed Chris Kassis on Thursday, and now we know at least the position of one of the nine on the layoffs.
We have known for a while what the city’s position has been on both the PERB decision and concessions.
In a press release yesterday, the city reiterated that they are “disappointed in the outcome of the ruling from PERB. The City continues to believe that its staff acted in good faith at every step of bargaining to try to reach an agreement with DCEA on necessary concessions.”
“The PERB decision requires the City to reimburse DCEA bargaining unit members for concessions imposed in 2010,” the statement continues. “It is important to remember that the City was able to reach an agreement for employee concessions with every other bargaining unit except DCEA. Complying with the PERB decision means that the City must achieve the necessary concessions through other means.”
The city argues, “To save money, the City has taken action and continues to take action on many structural issues within the City’s budget, and is making changes to deliver services in the most cost effective and efficient manner. However, those steps are not enough to avoid employee layoffs in the DCEA bargaining unit. By imposing furloughs and other concessions in 2010, the City hoped to avoid employee layoffs. But given the PERB decision, layoffs cannot be avoided.”
Furthermore, the layoffs only address the issue of concessions from 2010. The City argues that it remains in an “unsustainable financial situation” and is currently in negotiations with all bargaining units attempting to achieve further concessions.
“Without concessions from employees the City will face making additional cuts in services and/or staffing levels in order to address budget shortfalls,” the city argues.
The Vanguard learned on Tuesday that the DCEA had offered some concessions but the city rejected them. While there was some initial confusion about the nature of those concessions, we now have agreement from the city, Dave Owen and Chris Kassis, whom we interviewed on Thursday and who is one of the members that sits on the DCEA negotiating team.
According to the City press release and confirmed by Mr. Owen and Mr. Kassis, “On June 15th, DCEA offered to forego any remedy from the PERB decision in exchange for: 1) a rescission of the layoffs; 2) a guarantee of no future layoffs; 3) an agreement by the City to implement a system of binding arbitration for all future grievances and disciplinary matters; and 4) payment of DCEA’s attorneys’ fees incurred during the PERB proceedings. In addition, DCEA expected the City to revoke the economic concessions imposed in 2010.”
The city continues, “On June 20th, the City informed DCEA that it could not agree to DCEA’s demands. Specifically, the City will not agree to a system of binding arbitration as part of a settlement of an entirely unrelated PERB matter.”
“More important, the City cannot agree to DCEA’s demand for a guarantee of no future layoffs. This is because the City is currently engaged in negotiations with DCEA for additional concessions,” the city continues. “If those negotiations are unsuccessful, layoffs remain a possibility. Further, the City’s [stet] must maintain its right to implement layoffs in the event its financial situation deteriorates further.”
However the city has made a counteroffer to DCEA. The city offered to rescind the layoffs in exchange for both the rescission of the back pay order and the acceptance of the terms and conditions imposed by the city in 2010.
The city stated, “The City regrets that DCEA rejected the City’s offer to rescind the layoffs. If DCEA had accepted the City’s offer, it would be in the same position as the other city bargaining units which all agreed to economic concessions in 2010.”
It is not our goal that the negotiations take place in public. However, by in essence forcing the city to be more transparent here, we can at least appreciate each side’s view.
From the standpoint of DCEA’s president Dave Owen and Chris Kassis, the demands of the city right now are too much.
Last week, Dave Owen told the Vanguard, “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.”
As a poster commented at the time, “You want to know if the jobs saved by making concessions are ‘worth having?’ Really? Tell that to the 9 people from DCEA that just got let go, or the myriads of people out of work. In today’s tough economic climate, to have any kind of a job is a wonderful thing.”
However, we talked to Mr. Kassis and asked him this question point blank, and the answer is more complicated than that commenter implied.
“I feel that if you’re going to let people go, it’s worth nine people taking a hit than 30 people losing their houses,” he told the Vanguard. He stressed repeatedly that he was merely speaking for himself and he reminded the Vanguard that he was in a different situation than some of his colleagues.
“I’m willing to take the hit so that other people don’t have to take that kind of hit,” he said. “But that’s just me, I can’t speak for the other people.”
So we now know that at least one of the nine is willing to take the personal hit in order that all members of his bargaining unit do not have to take devastating hits.
It is not that Mr. Kassis is oblivious to the problems of the city. As he says, “I can certainly understand part of it, but there are other parts I can’t understand.”
“Do I think the city needs to do some stuff? Yeah,” he acknowledged. But he thinks the city wants it all at once and “what they want from some people is just unreasonable. For me it’s about a 30% cut, that’s completely unreasonable. I think the pain should be felt equally by all the employees.”
At the same time, he acknowledges that he does not know exactly how to go about doing that.
One of the big problems, according to Mr. Kassis, is the city’s goal of reducing cafeteria cash outs from about $1500 per month down to $500 per month.
He argued that a 10 percent cut on health insurance would save the city nearly $200,000 for every hundred employees. At 15%, it would be closer to $300,000.
“You’re going to get more savings that way,” he said. “Then everybody’s the same.”
On top of that, he said, “They want us to pay 8% of PERS. Which they pay it because we gave up raises . They want us to pay three percent of the employer side.”
In addition, he said, “They want us to take a 5% salary reduction and a 1.25% [cut] towards retiree health.”
Add all of that up for those employees that do not receive the cash out and it’s about a 17% pay cut. According to him, there has been no movement from the city on these demands from the start of negotiations.
He said, in terms of the cash out, DCEA’s breakdown, which he believes is similar to other bargaining units, about 30 percent like him take the full cash out. Another 30% are somewhere between $250 and $750.
“Those people wouldn’t be affected that much,” he said. “The people that don’t take the cash out, they’re not affected at all.”
“You’re putting it all on 30% of the people,” Chris Kassis emphasized. “I don’t think people appreciate that.”
One thing that was made clear to us yesterday by Dave Owen is that these are not going to be resolved by June 30 – which is the date when the contracts expire. In fact, he told the Vanguard the next meeting is not even scheduled until July 10 and some bargaining units have not even set another meeting.
So this drama is likely to continue to play out over the summer.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s fascinating that the city still contends that it did everything just fine, thank you, and expects the employees to give up (again!) what we illegally took from them in 2010 as a condition to accept the $800,000 “rebate” the employees are offering the city.
Trying to “prove” you’re right when you’ve been judged wrong seems pretty counterproductive. Maybe the city could have ended up with what it wants if it had followed its own rules. But, it didn’t.
Dave Owens’ contention that jobs wouldn’t be worth having and that drastic cutbacks in cafeteria payments–benefits that most taxpayers don’t understand or support–would cause folks to lose their houses needs substantiation in order to gain any sympathy.
Are both sides acting completely unreasonable as a negotiating ploy? Do they think that minimal progress dragged out over months will be adequate given the financial problems the city faces?
Rich: How did you calculate we would save if that 4th crewmember was omitted from the 4 member crews? And how many tree trimmer positions would you be able to fund with that single fire position?
Don’t city staff love to talk about “low hanging fruit”? Why are they reaching up so high to pluck a trimmer whose salary is a small fraction of the fire position that is providing redundent staffing on those trucks? (The ones that go to every single event, whether reported as injury or not.)
Michael, so true. A while back my neighbor had a medical problem that required a 911 call. EMT’s showed up along with a huge firetruck. Two EMT’s assisted the lady while four firemen stood outside in the street and chatted for about a half hour. It seemed like a huge waste.
[quote]At the same time, we believe that the real culprits in this were past councils and city staff that grew salaries and compensation to the point where they were unsustainable as soon the city’s revenue growth from the real estate bubble was cut off.[/quote]
Don’t forget that all cities were engaged in “keeping up w the Joneses” and the notion that each city had to pay more to get the most qualified individuals to fill vacancies. You can point fingers all day long at specific City Council members and city staffers for making fiscally poor decisions, but the fact of the matter is the 2 practices cited above were going on all over the nation. THey are practices that are economically unsustainable, and are a very poor model that clearly do not necessarily result in the best qualified people at all.
[quote]”I feel that if you’re going to let people go, it’s worth nine people taking a hit than 30 people losing their houses,” he told the Vanguard. He stressed repeatedly that he was merely speaking for himself and he reminded the Vanguard that he was in a different situation than some of his colleagues.[/quote]
This makes it pretty clear that the DCEA’s position all along has been that of throwing a few DCEA people under the bus so no concessions have to be made.
[quote]
“I’m willing to take the hit so that other people don’t have to take that kind of hit,” he said. “But that’s just me, I can’t speak for the other people.”[/quote]
This has little credibility, since this particular person can weather the storm bc his wife earns enough to keep him comfortable; and he is one of the individuals in charge of bargaining for the DCEA. THe DCEA has already made its position crystal clear – it would rather throw a few workers under the bus and take less in the way of concessions. This has consistently been DCEA’s position, as evidenced by their own words…
“This makes it pretty clear that the DCEA’s position all along has been that of throwing a few DCEA people under the bus so no concessions have to be made.”
That’s the whole point of my talking to one of the people laid off. Clearly he doesn’t feel the bargaining unit is throwing him under the bus as he is advocating for it to occur.
[quote]”Do I think the city needs to do some stuff? Yeah,” he acknowledged. But he thinks the city wants it all at once and “what they want from some people is just unreasonable. For me it’s about a 30% cut, that’s completely unreasonable. I think the pain should be felt equally by all the employees.”
At the same time, he acknowledges that he does not know exactly how to go about doing that.[/quote]
I don’t think the city should want to become fiscally sustainable all at once, but I don’t know how the city is going to go about becoming fiscally sustainable gradually? How reasonable a position is that? Not very IMO…
Elaine
[quote]I don’t think the city should want to become fiscally sustainable all at once, but I don’t know how the city is going to go about becoming fiscally sustainable gradually? How reasonable a position is that? Not very IMO…[/quote]
I am unclear about you position here. Given that I know nothing about city finances, but a fair amount about personal finances, taking a gradual approach does not seem entirely unreasonable to me. In personal finances,
gradual change and using multiple small changes is frequently preferable to a draconian step. For example, take the individual who is finding it challenging to meet their mortgage and pay off medical bills. The simplest solution might be to default on their loan. Having their house repossessed would get them out from under that particular bill in one dramatic step. However, it might be more prudent to look into selling other assets, seeking a second job, maybe their partner or an adolescent child could find a job, or second job, maybe other family members could help out, saving money by altering discretionary spending. These would all be “gradual changes designed to gain fiscal stability” at the level of a family. I don’t pretend to know what “gradual steps” a city could take, but I find it hard to believe that this has to be an immediate solution. If not “all at once” what is left but gradual ?
To medwoman: Gradual change to bring the city back to fiscal sustainability is not possible now, bc it has been delayed for so long…
[quote]That’s the whole point of my talking to one of the people laid off. Clearly he doesn’t feel the bargaining unit is throwing him under the bus as he is advocating for it to occur.[/quote]
I’ll refer you to my previous comment, to wit:
[quote]This has little credibility, since this particular person can weather the storm bc his wife earns enough to keep him comfortable; and he is one of the individuals in charge of bargaining for the DCEA. THe DCEA has already made its position crystal clear – it would rather throw a few workers under the bus and take less in the way of concessions. This has consistently been DCEA’s position, as evidenced by their own words…[/quote]
[u]ERM
[/u]
This has little credibility, since this particular person can weather the storm bc his wife earns enough to keep him comfortable; and he is one of the individuals in charge of bargaining for the DCEA. THe DCEA has already made its position crystal clear – it would rather throw a few workers under the bus and take less in the way of concessions. This has consistently been DCEA’s position, as evidenced by their own words…[/quote]
To this point, How can you make that statement, when you have no idea about Mr. Kassis’s finances or his comfort level? It seems to me that anyone that is losing somewhere in the range of $70,000 in salary and cash out from insurance is not going to be vary comfortable! Unless you think the $450 a week he will receive for unemployment will make up for the huge loss he is about to receive. I don’t think you have the right to question his credibility unless you know something about this gentleman that proves otherwise.
DMG – “In particular, management and fire profited from the city’s fiscal arrangement and we believe that those entities ought to see the first cuts – the employees making over $150,000 in total compensation rather than the employees receiving $50,000 to $60,000 in salary.”
No comment on the issue, but I hate to see the rhetoric enflamed by irresponsible and self-serving exaggerations and misuses of facts and data. (Compare apples to apples. How basic is that concept?) It seems apparent that you used total comp for the higher earner to make the difference with the lower earner (by using total salary for that employee) appear much, much greater. That’s deceitful and insulting to intelligent and thoughtful readers. It seems a tactic designed to influence those that don’t have or use minds of their own. Either use total salary for both, or total comp for both. (I believe total comp for an employee earning a $60,000 a year salary is around $100,000.)
MH: [i]”Rich: How much did you calculate we would save if that 4th crewmember was omitted from the 4 member crews?”[/i]
We would save about $1.5 million per year (using 2011-12 numbers). How much more that amounts to per year going forward depends on how the contracts are reformed and possibly on how much the rates CalPERS charges for medical premiums inflate.
Keep in mind that the City of Davis “bump” rules would make it so, if we laid off 9 full-time firefighter 1’s and 2’s (out of the 36), we would not be laying off any captains (who make the most money). We would probably be laying off all the FF1’s and the least experienced FF2’s. The “bump” rules are there to protect people with the most tenure.
As I have said on other threads, my preference would be to not lay off any City employees, including firefighters (unless there is a performance issue or some other matter that makes the person not qualified).
What we could do instead in the DFD is to change the scheduling, so that where we are now scheduling 4 people at each firehouse per 24 hour shift, we would only schedule 3.
We currently have what is called “minimum staffing,” and one consequence of that is when someone calls in sick or has jury duty or takes vacation time, the person who fills in gets overtime pay for doing so. But if we keep the entire staff, but only schedule them 3/4ths as much, we could backfill for sick days and the like without incurring overtime. (As people leave the DFD, those remaining would be scheduled more and more hours until our staffing was back down to the level needed.)
Also, we currently, by federal law (FLSA ([url]http://www.flsa.com/fire.html[/url])), pay every Davis firefighter for every pay period 8 hours of overtime, based on the number of hours each is regularly scheduled (216 = 9 days x 24 hours). If we reduce the regularly schedule hours of each FF, we would get rid of this type of overtime pay, also.
(Better yet, we could reform the contract so that for each 24 hour duty period, we would deduct 4 hours for sleeping, 3 hours for meals, and one hour for shopping.)
Because each firefighter we would not lay off–under my preferred plan–would still get his cafeteria benefits and would accrue other load costs (including Medicare, life insurance, potential retiree medical, workers comp, long-term disability, etc.), my plan would save less than just firing the 9 lowest people on the totem pole. But I believe my approach is the least unfair to the firefighters. (Keep in mind that it is a terrible job market for them to get hired elsewhere.)
Over time–say 10 years, maybe less–we would lose enough firefighters to retirement and perhaps some to permanent injury or for other reasons that we would be back to having “minimal staffing.” And at that point, when positions opened up, we would hire again.
RIF: [i]”we currently, by federal law (FLSA), pay every Davis firefighter for every pay period [b]8 hours of overtime[/b], based on the number of hours each is regularly scheduled …”[/i]
Check that: It is 12 hours of mandated overtime, not 8.
I just checked the contract: [quote]For purpose of this provision, hours worked in excess of 204 in any 27-day duty cycle shall be considered overtime.[/quote] Every 27 days, each FF works 9. 9 x 24 = 216. 216 – 204 = 12 hrs OT.
Crankity To this point, How can you make that statement, when you have no idea about Mr. Kassis’s finances or his comfort level? It seems to me that anyone that is losing somewhere in the range of $70,000 in salary and cash out from insurance is not going to be vary comfortable! Unless you think the $450 a week he will receive for unemployment will make up for the huge loss he is about to receive. I don’t think you have the right to question his credibility unless you know something about this gentleman that proves otherwise.
I’m impresssed by the thoughtful response to ERM absurd assertion that you can dismiss Mr. Kassis opinion based on the fact that he can “weather the storm”. What kind of logic is that?
I applaud Rich Rifkin for answering Michael Harrington’s question about the three fire fighter option. There’s plenty to digest in Mr. Rifkin’s overview.
Looks like Mr. Rifkin provides the Council with a variety of policy options to consider with all of them reducing costs substantially.
No matter the outcome it seems that our four person crews are unsustainable and that should be dealt with.
That’s a lot of waste driving around Davis everyday. I would agree with Michael that more and more people bring up the four person crew when talking about the city finances.
None of these decisions are easy but “doing nothing” is not an aption.
David Thompson
PS
An interesting model from Europe is occurring in Spain.
The workforce of one of the biggest co-ops in Spain has agreed to work 5% more time to keep the same income. They are achieving that through both attrition, schedule and position changes and early retirement.
David Thompson
Rich
[quote]Better yet, we could reform the contract so that for each 24 hour duty period, we would deduct 4 hours for sleeping, 3 hours for meals, and one hour for shopping.)
[/quote]
I agree with most of your points. But not this one. Since you have raised the point again, I will raise my objection again. We are not paying firefighters to sleep or to eat. We are paying them to be instantaneously available should an emergency occur when the rest of us happen to be happily sleeping at home. Unless you have had to come from a deep sleep to a preparedness to make life and death decisions in a matter of a few minutes as part of your job, I can understand how it may not seem to be of value to you. But it is something I am very willing to compensate them for.
[quote]The workforce of one of the biggest co-ops in Spain has agreed to work 5% more time to keep the same income. They are achieving that through both attrition, schedule and position changes and early retirement.
[/quote]
In the late 1990’s my medical group was faced with a financial crisis. We opted for what would appear close to the model being described in Spain. Senior and very highly paid physicians were offered early retirement packages, there was a brief hold on new hiring except in departments in extreme need, and those of us somewhere in the middle were expected to work eight hours more weekly for the same pay or to continue working the same amount with a commensurate pay cut. This approach allowed us to get by without any layoffs which I am sure was discussed as an alternative.
[quote]To this point, How can you make that statement, when you have no idea about Mr. Kassis’s finances or his comfort level? It seems to me that anyone that is losing somewhere in the range of $70,000 in salary and cash out from insurance is not going to be vary comfortable! Unless you think the $450 a week he will receive for unemployment will make up for the huge loss he is about to receive. I don’t think you have the right to question his credibility unless you know something about this gentleman that proves otherwise.[/quote]
[quote]I’m impresssed by the thoughtful response to ERM absurd assertion that you can dismiss Mr. Kassis opinion based on the fact that he can “weather the storm”. What kind of logic is that?[/quote]
I will refer you to Mr. Kassis’s won words:
[quote]He stressed repeatedly that he was merely speaking for himself and he reminded the Vanguard that he was in a different situation than some of his colleagues.[/quote]
[quote]But he is actually one of the fortunate ones. Because his wife has a good job, he is not facing the loss of his home. “I’m the lucky one,” he said. “My wife has a great job so I can make it through this. [/quote]
[quote]Chris Kassis sits on the negotiation team for DCEA (Davis City Employees Association)[/quote]
Thus I stand by my statement:
[quote]Mr. Kassis: “I’m willing to take the hit so that other people don’t have to take that kind of hit,” he said. “But that’s just me, I can’t speak for the other people.”
ERM: This has little credibility, since this particular person can weather the storm bc his wife earns enough to keep him comfortable; and he is one of the individuals in charge of bargaining for the DCEA. THe DCEA has already made its position crystal clear – it would rather throw a few workers under the bus and take less in the way of concessions. This has consistently been DCEA’s position, as evidenced by their own words…[/quote]
I still believe fired workers for the most part would prefer to hold onto the job w concessions than lose the job altogether. Mr. Kassis’s claim to the contrary I do not believe is credible for the reasons I have stated… he can weather the story and he is part of the DCEA bargaining team…
Correction: … weather the storm…
[quote]I still believe fired workers for the most part would prefer to hold onto the job w concessions than lose the job altogether.[/quote]Yes, but the rub occurs when you ask ~50 co-workers to make major cuts in THEIR compensation, to “save” that worker. May I ask what percentage of your income you would forgo to enable a senior to qualify for a spot at Carlton Plaza?
[quote]Yes, but the rub occurs when you ask ~50 co-workers to make major cuts in THEIR compensation, to “save” that worker. May I ask what percentage of your income you would forgo to enable a senior to qualify for a spot at Carlton Plaza?[/quote]
Obviously there will be a “tipping point” at which concessions don’t make objective sense. But in the case of DCEA, I don’t get that impression. They are being asked to make the same concessions that every other bargaining unit has had to make already, in order to reinstate the 9 jobs just cut.
Now one can argue the city will not guarantee those 9 jobs will not be cut anyway, but from a practical point of view the city can’t make such a promise. So much of what the city has to do will depend on what happens at the state level…
Meds: [i]”Since you have raised the point again, I will raise my objection again. We are not paying firefighters to sleep or to eat. [b]We are paying them to be instantaneously available should an emergency occur[/b] when the rest of us happen to be happily sleeping at home.”[/i]
As you surely know–and I only know because I spoke with a family member last night who is an oncologist–the widespread tradition in the United States (and in most other countries) is to not pay doctors to be “on-call” in cases of emergencies. That is effectively the position firefighters are in when they are sleeping or shopping on the clock.
Alas, for my point, what my cousin told me is that this tradition is changing. She said that it is still the case that inexperienced specialists don’t get paid to be “on-call,” but more and more highly paid, experienced doctors contractually require they get paid just to be on-call, whether they must come in to work or not.
My thought with the firefighters is somewhere in between. Per 24 hour duty period, they are normally getting 8 hours of sleep, though it may be interrupted. I am not saying take them off the clock for 8 hours of sleep, which the Fair Labor Standards Act permits. I am saying take them off the clock for 4 of those 8 hours of sleep.
If we would do that, I can accept paying them for their 3 hours of meal time and 1 hour of shopping, though the principal is the same.
Rich
[quote]the widespread tradition in the United States (and in most other countries) is to not pay doctors to be “on-call” in cases of emergencies.[/quote]
This is true in the world of fee for service medicine. It is not true for those of us who have chosen to build our careers in other types of service, such as the military, public health service, or the very large group with an extremely high volume, high risk delivery service that I work with where we are salaried. In this model, which is closer to that of the firefighters since we take in hospital call, we are literally available from moment to moment, not the 1/2 hour which is the usual standard for physicians who take call from home.
I think that your suggestion of four hours to compensate for “sleep time” is not unreasonable. Another approach would be to pay them for the actual hours worked which could be done on an honor system of self reporting, or by logging in and out when they go to sleep and when they get up.