COMMENTARY: Bargaining Unit Prospers by Refusing to Negotiate in Good Faith – This week the City of Davis agreed to new contracts with three additional bargaining units.
That means that, as the city’s press release put it, “The City is in the process of negotiating with other employee bargaining units, including Davis Professional Firefighters Association Local 3494 and Davis City Employees Association.”
It is no accident that those two groups were singled out, as they have been the most intransigent of the bargaining units, yet while the firefighters have been the subject of much criticism, partly for their $170,000 average total compensation and partly for their public use of influence peddling, DCEA has gotten by without much word.
And yet, unlike the firefighters, DCEA to date has managed to avoid taking any concessions, not only on this round of MOUs, but on the last round of MOUs.
It was now over three years ago that the City of Davis declared impasse with DCEA on a contract that had expired in June 2009 – a contract that remains in effect today as some groups, in particular PASEA (Program, Administrative and Support Employees Association), have taken two rounds of concessions.
On December 17, 2009, DCEA’s membership voted to reject the city’s last, best and final offer – an offer that every other group in the city pretty much took last time and an offer that the Vanguard considered completely inadequate in addressing pensions, retiree health and cafeteria cash-outs.
There is a procedure that the city must follow, according to state and local laws, as to how to proceed before the city can impose the terms of its last, best and final offer. And so, over the course of the next five months or so, the city followed those procedures.
But something went wrong – the city unilaterally determined that DCEA was not cooperating in the process and decided that fact-finding was over, and that they would be able to legally impose the terms of the impasse.
The city screwed up. They followed bad legal advice from attorneys and late in 2011, the Public Employment Relations Board overturned the impasse.
PERB ruled that Davis had violated all sorts of sections of the law when it passed Resolution 10-070 on May 25, 2010, before exhausting the fact-finding process set forth in its local rules.
They continued: “It is therefore appropriate to order the City to cease and desist from such activities in the future. Additionally, if the City wants to proceed through its impasse procedures, it must provide adequate time to complete the fact-finding process as set forth in its local rules.”
As a result of these errors, not only would the city have to pay its employees backpay, but the terms of the previous contract were reinstated.
The result was that, a day after the election, in what can only be described as a public relations nightmare, the city laid off nine positions within DCEA.
“This is in order to offset the revenue hit from DCEA not making concessions three years ago,” City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Vanguard. “These are DCEA positions only, across all funding sources, because the impact which is $800,000 plus interest if we were to lose on appeal would be spread across that bargaining group across different funding sources.”
That was six months ago. While nine DCEA employees were laid off, the rest of the bargaining unit not only received their backpay, but they are still earning wages and benefits not from the 2009-10 round of MOUs, but from the previous MOUs signed before the 2008 fiscal crisis hit the nation and this community.
So, while more than 250 of the city’s 375 employees have agreed to the 2012 round of concessions – that includes the slashing of cafeteria cash-out pay to $500 per months, cut backs to retiree medical coverage and taking up a larger percentage of PERS (Public Employees’ Retirement System), DCEA employees are still working on their terms set back in 2005.
Back in June, perhaps, DCEA felt a bit emboldened by the fact that the public recoiled in the face of the firing – a move that was poorly handled by the city manager.
However, in the aftermath of that, we have tree trimmers working from West Coast Arborist that are – at least according to Alan Pryor – doing their job rather well.
He spoke at the December 11, 2012, city council meeting and told the council, “Tonight I have to eat a little crow and pull my foot from my mouth.”
He explained that a few months ago he questioned the timing and wisdom of the layoff the last of the city’s two tree trimmers.
“I’ve actually come to a completely different opinion now,” he said. He said that he had called to ask that some pear tree, in dire need of pruning, be attended to “and sat back and waited for what I expected to be months as has happened in the past. To my surprise 10 am the following morning” Mr. Pryor received an email from Rob Cain, the city’s arborist, who had inspected the site, agreed with Mr. Pryor’s assessment and promised a crew there within the week.
“Sure enough on Friday they were out there will a full three man crew,” he said. He said that the work done by this crew on these trees, “it was really artistry. When they were done they looked better than they had in the nearly 15 years I had lived on that street.”
“All in all it was a very professionally done job. Much better than city crews had done in the past,” Mr. Pryor continued. He also said when he spoke with the workers at their lunch break, they were happy with the wages they received and they also received good medical and dental benefits.
In short, Mr. Pryor made it clear that despite perhaps the PR misstep on the timing and manner of the layoffs, the ultimate result was probably a benefit to the city.
DCEA has largely squandered whatever advantage they might have had six months ago with public sentiment, and despite the fact that many of their workers are the lowest wage employees in the city, the fact is that they need to take the same deal that everyone else has done.
The wages the city has offered along with the benefits are no longer sustainable into the future – if they ever truly were.
It is unfair to the rest of the workers in the city of Davis that have waged a strong and honest bargaining and reached a relatively fair and equitable deal that DCEA has been able to flout the system advantage themselves, by thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars, in additional wages and benefits.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What specific law or regulation has DCEA broken? Seems to me they are following the process to the letter.
“”””Sure enough on Friday they were out there will a full three man crew,” he said. “””
It takes Three men to prune a tree ? And your OK with that .
And here you are , leading the charge to lower staffing on fire engines from 4 to 3 persons !
Your knowledge and sense of priorities must of been learned from someone anonymous in the Deep South !
“What specific law or regulation has DCEA broken? Seems to me they are following the process to the letter. “
I’m not following you here – are you suggesting the only reason to criticize someone is if they break a law or regulation?
Avatar: Is the city paying more or less under their contract with WCA than they were under the previous arrangement with two full-time tree trimming employees?
“and despite the fact that many of their workers are the lowest wage employees in the city, the fact is that they need to take the same deal that everyone else has done.”
Maybe but maybe not. Hopefully an equitable contract can be negotiated at some point but once again your argument is undermined by your callous tone. The idea that those receiving the least should take the same hit as those getting the most demonstrates a lack of empathy. Haven’t you argued in the past that those at the top can better afford concessions? Maybe it is because you are frustrated by their refusal to play ball. Still the notion that those at the top and bottom should take the same hit may not be the case.
Mr. Toad:
So let’s look at your claim, “The idea that those receiving the least should take the same hit as those getting the most demonstrates a lack of empathy.”
A good question to ask is whether they would be taking the same hit?
There are three major portions at least to the current proposal.
First, you have the pension reform. Now that calls for the employees to take on addition portions of their pensions. The amount is determined by the amount of salary they receive, and thus a low wage earner would pay less than a higher wage earner from their paycheck to go for their own pensions. So I would argue in that case, they are taking the same concession, but not the same hit.
The second tier portion of that does not impact current employees and again would depend on salary for how much of a hit.
Second, you have the medical benefits which would be reduction of the benefit for current employees with less than 25 years of service to 75% of the current benefit. How much will that impact current employees? We would have to calculate it, but I would argue it’s about the same impact for all employees and it would largely go for extra benefits, most of which, most employees will not be impacted by.
Third, the reduction of the cafeteria cash out policy from $1500 to $500 per month maximum for employees who spouses also have health insurance. Of all of the concessions, this is the one that will probably impact people the most. On the other hand, it’s an expensive and unfair benefit that no one else in any industry gets. Perhaps they could have the reduction phased over five instead of three years, but I don’t see how they are going to avoid it when the rest of the bargaining units have to pay it.
I would also point out that PASEA employees are comparable in terms of income to DCEA, they have taken their concessions both times.
Mr. Toad: “I guess your title was a joke because your mean-spirited conclusion makes your title laughable.”
Mr. Toad: “Does this mean I can use Repugs?”
Mr. Toad: “Hopefully an equitable contract can be negotiated at some point but once again your argument is undermined by your callous tone. The idea that those receiving the least should take the same hit as those getting the most demonstrates a lack of empathy.”
Mr. Toad: “When you look at the most outspoken opponents, with the exception of one Reverend, they are not a group that lives a spartan lifestyle. “
Mr. Toad: “Just look at their Measure I rebuttal. It reads like a paranoid rant about housing values and school finance. Yet several of the people who signed on own multiple homes and have no children in the schools while others are anti-tax republicans living on state pensions. They are simply trying to scare people in a shameless exploitation of the poor for their no growth no tax philosophies. It is a shameless ends justifies the means argument and i hope the voters see through it.”
I know he’s a toad and therefore eats bugs, but I wonder who stuck the bug up Mr. Toad’s rear?
and don shor, why is that that you seem to moderate in a way that completely ignores the some pretty nasty comments by Mr. Toad?
Growth Issue: If I removed his comments on that thread, and similar ones, I’d have to remove much of what Mike Harrington posts as well. This is a very lightly moderated forum.
No, it’s not ok to use “Repugs”, just for future reference. Nor is it ok to use whatever the derogatory term was that rusty used for President Obama.
fair enough. it just seems like toad is taking some gratuitous shots at others and even if you don’t wish to remove them – for reasons i both understand and agree with – i felt the need to point it out since it’s been bothering me.
“Gratuitous” as in unearned?
What makes you say gratuitous? Maybe nasty or in your face but certainly not unearned.
Before too long, every single DCEA job will be outsourced. That is clearly what they want. And they will get it.
With regard to the “intransigence” of the firefighters, it is too early to say that, IMO. In 2010, the firefighters were the first bargaining unit to agree to a contract. And the one they signed had a very important concession in it* which, unfortunately, none since have had.
*The 2010 fire contract capped total comp growth. That was a great model. I think it was Paul Navazio’s idea. If Davis had gotten that with all the other groups and continued it forever, we would not have to worry about bankruptcy. But we have not capped the growth in total comp; and we continue to risk times when revenues grow slower than secondary labor costs (pension and healthcare and retiree health). So, even though the change in cafeteria cash-outs is a big improvement, we are not out of the insolvency woods.
[i]. . .are you suggesting the only reason to criticize someone is if they break a law or regulation?[/i]
Of course not. Just restating the obvious: the union is doing it’s job representing the members. You seem to have a problem fully understanding how the process works.
Really? My wife only worked ten years for a union, and I have worked for one at various times as well. I understand perfectly well how it works.
Bargaining unit prospers by refusing to negotiate in good faith.
Is this what you really think, or are you just trying to stir interest in this blog? If these contracts were really fair, why the need for the me too clause? Would the other bargaining groups have signed without that clause? Or was it a matter of lets sign even though these contracts are garbage, because then we can look like we are the good guys in the publics eyes, and we can let the other bargaining unit fight the good fight and we can reap the benefits without incurring the costs. Seems like a good plan to me.
DCEA avoids taking any concessions. Or raises too for that matter, since what 2006?
I would suggest saving judgement, who knows what fact finding will actually find? The DCEA members i have spoken to seem pretty realistic to me and knew all along some concessions would be necessary. Refusing to negotiate in good faith does not seem like something a bargaining unit that invited the city council members to sit in on negotiations should be accused of.
Heres to surviving the end of the world, and more transparency and public involvement in the future.
“””the city laid off nine positions within DCEA, a move that was poorly handled by the city manager.”””
“””Avatar: Is the city paying more or less under their contract with WCA than they were under the previous arrangement with two full-time tree trimming employees?”””
Blogger , have you walked a mile in the shoes of these 9 people every day since they have been laid off ?
No I Didn’t Think So !
I wouldn’t be too sure.
DCEA: [i]”you walked a mile in the shoes of these 9 people every day since they have been laid off ?”[/i]
How the hell is someone supposed to wear 9 pairs of shoes?
[img]http://www.irisclasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/shoes.jpg[/img]
Their choice?
Next you will be trying to convince folks Steve Pinkerton was the best choice for city manager, and hiring Yvonne Quiring was a coincidence.
By the by, the city says it needed to layoff those 9 individuals to recoup the savings it received from the other bargaining groups who took concessions in 2010 and 11, but those nine are still gone and the city will continue to realize those savings, as well as the other positions that were vacated and never filled from 2009 on, and the vacancies that are forthcoming. Less employees, more managers???
Jason: [i]”… you will be trying to convince folks Steve Pinkerton was the best choice for city manager … the city will continue to realize those savings, as well as the other positions that were vacated and never filled from 2009 on … “[/i]
Your second sentence proves your first, that Pinkerton was the best choice, that he has saved Davis far more than he makes in compensation.
The only question left is: Will the last member of the DCEA hold out for a better deal? Or will he come to his senses and save his own job from being outsourced.
There is, as I understanding, a couple of serious omissions in your “analysis”, David.
First, the City gave DCEA the LBF offer on a Friday. The negotiators for DCEA said that they’d take it to a vote, but that it was unclear what the result would be. DCEA’s bylaws require a ten-day period between setting a meeting to vote. Within 3 working days of the promise to take it to a vote, the City declared impasse… BEFORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE! By the time the vote was taken, impasse had been declared. Perhaps the negative vote (unanimous, as I understand it), was in large part due to the “in your face” action by the City, rather than an unwillingness to reach a settlement on the LBF offer. I do not know.
Second, in the current DCEA offer by the City, are they being offered the same deal offered to the others? Or is the City looking for “payback” concessions? I don’t know, but I have my suspicions….