How much money will the holdouts of DCEA and the Davis firefighters end up costing this community? We are now a year past the expiration of the last contracts. All other bargaining units had reached agreement by December of 2012.
By the time the contracts are settled and impasse is imposed, it may be the end of 2013, or 18 months after the expiration of the contracts. We could be looking at several millions of dollars in costs. The firefighters in particular fought staffing cuts, arguing that it was not about their personal interests, but rather their commitment to the community. Where is their commitment to the community when it comes to compensation and taking the same concessions as every other employee in the city will take?
Rich Rifkin in his column this week, does an admirable job of laying out the struggles that the city of Davis is up against in attempting to impose impasse, and most of that is due to AB 646 which, as Mr. Rifkin describes, is “designed to constipate and discourage cities and counties.”
“The problem unions faced a few years ago,” Mr. Rifkin argues, “was that state law permitted local governments to unilaterally impose contract terms on their employees, if, after many months of collective bargaining, the two sides were unable to agree upon a deal and the negotiations were formally declared in an impasse.”
Davis declared impasse on DCEA in November and on the firefighters on April 12, 2013.
Mr. Rifkin, citing a source in city government, suggests that there will be no resolution with the contract prior to November 1.
Then he describes a process that is expensive and inefficient by design.
He writes, “After impasse was declared, the parties were required to hire a mediator, who, in theory, would listen to the arguments of each side and suggest a solution. But, of course, if the suggested solution gave the unions what they wanted, the city would reject it. And vice versa.”
He argues that the people who were assigned as mediators were actually biased on favor of the bargaining unit – Kenneth Glenn for DCEA and Scott Pearl for fire.
He writes, “After 30 fruitless days with a mediator, the unions can either accept the city’s last, best and final offer or they can request the matter be submitted to a factfinding panel.”
That leads us to factfinding, about which Mr Rifkin quotes Melissa Chaney, the city’s HR Director, “The first factfinding panel that was held for the 2010 negotiations was held on March 20 and 21, 2013. And the factfinding panel had a DCEA representative, a city representative and Joe Henderson was the factfinder. That document has not been finalized.
“The second round of factfinding was held in the middle of May and the end of June. And the factfinding panel had a DCEA representative, a city representative and John LoRocco was the factfinder. That document has not been finalized.”
Factfinding with the firefighters’ union will not even begin until August.
Under the terms of AB 646, the factfinding panel is “authorized to make investigations and hold hearings, and to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence.”
Mr. Rifkin writes, “There is no limit to the time a panel can take to find its facts. If the union wants to drag the process out as long as possible, its side will mooove sloooowly. They hire lawyers who are unable to come to Davis on days which end in y.”
He notes that AB 646 says that “the factfinding panel (is) to make findings of fact and recommend terms of settlement, for advisory purposes only.”
Mr. Rifkin concludes, “In other words, after scores of meetings and hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to lawyers and others who benefit no one, nothing will be resolved. After the recommendation of the panel is rejected, Davis will impose its last, best and final offer – assuming that our city has not gone broke before that day comes.”
The whole process is designed to run the clock because each month that goes by without a deal, the firefighters continue to earn their existing salary and the city continues to pay out $100,000 in additional taxpayer funds.
Firefighter Responds to Rich Rifkin on July 19
The following is a response from a Davis firefighter to Rich Rifkin, that was posted in the Davis Enterprise. (Paragraph breaks added, grammar unedited).
“Rich, last i checked you are a writer for the news paper NOT a Fire Figher, NOT a Fire Captain, NOT a Division Chief or a Fire Chief. You’re not a policy maker, council member or the CIty Manager. So please, STOP TALKING!!!
I get so tired of listening to you talk talk talk talk talk about all the ways you think are best to run a fire department. How the “system” works. You know nothing! You have NO clue what a fire fighter does or how to operate a fire department. The whole 4-4-4 vs 3-3-3-2.
The best way to operate without a doubt for the City of Davis, not Woodland, not West Sac, not Sacramento but Davis is with 4-4-4-4. That’s right, add another 4 with a truck company. Since we do not have a truck company in Davis I’m ok with 2…..on the rescue. It’s not 3-3-3-2.
Having all 3 stations staffed with 4 Fire Fighters and the Rescue with 2 is far and above the best for Davis. Davis does not have the luxury of mulitple stations within 3-4 minutes to help when we need it. The 3-3-3-2 is NOT more efficient.
You don’t get to calls faster. You are reducing the level of service to the City…..PERIOD. 3 fire fighters is NOT better than 4.
It’s rediculous to hear you argue about how efficient this concept is.
Really? How would you know?
Do you work for the Fire Department as a Fire Fighter, a Captain, a Chief? No, you don’t so how the heck would you know? How would you know the best way to use the resources?
You’re a writer, not a Fire Chief. I’m not here telling you how to write.
Put 4 FIre Fighters on the engines and staff the rescue wi
th 2. That is efficient! That justifies all your concerns about staffing,responses, move ups, etc… How would I know?
Because this IS my job. I do this job 56 hours a week. 224 hours a month and 2,688 hours a year. Since we’re on the topic I’d be happy to do the math for you, but if you extend out the hours a fire fighter works over a 30 year period, based on our yearly hours worked, we actually put in 45 years of work compared to the “average” person working a 40 hour work week in a 30 year career.
So when you talk about fire fighter only working 10 days a month……get your facts straight. We work 15 years longer then the “average” person in the same 30 year span.
I’ve heard you talk about how important these issues are to you because Davis is “your town”. How important is it to you? How important is it that you are willing to support a system that is outdated 30 years?
I’ve been here with the City when we had 3 person engines. Back in 1985 the staffing was 36 fire fighters and Davis ran 1200 calls a year. We are back to 36 fire fighters and we run over 4000 calls a year. Seriously? I Just getting so tired of reading your thought on a subject you know nothing about. So please, just stop.”
I am not sure how much I should actually respond to this. My view is that we rarely allow experts to implement policy changes, in part because, while they are knowledgeable, they also have a vested interest in the process. So an elected city council is actually the body that makes and approves the policy changes. While Mr. Rifkin is not an elected official, I fail to see how his training, experience, and knowledge on these matters differs a great deal from those who are elected and do make the decisions.
The truth is Mr. Rifkin did exactly what the five members of the city council did – he read Chief Kenley’s Fire Audit, and determined for himself whether it made sense. He then attended the city’s roundtable discussions, he listened to Bobby Weist and Joe Tenney give their opinions, he listened to the former chief give his opinion, he listened Division Chief Shawn Kinney give his opinion and then made up his own mind.
At the end of the day, three members of the city council chose the opinions of Scott Kenley and Shawn Kinney over those of Bobby Weist and Joe Tenney. The point that everybody seems to miss is that no one disputes that four on an engine is better than three, but everyone also believes that the current deployment was inefficient and we could, through boundary drop and better utilization of resources and deployment, perhaps do a comparable job the vast majority of the time, while sticking to a more realistic budget.
I have never heard the firefighters discuss the budget, the strain on the budget, and most particularly the fact that they continue to hold out, costing the city millions of dollars even as they cry foul on staffing changes.
As I suggested last week, if the firefighters’ strategy weren’t obstruction at every turn, maybe, just maybe, things would have happened differently. But they left the city no other viable option.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I remember Rifkin writing flippantly long ago about imposing a contract. You are right it is not easy to do by design because the process is designed to get the parties to settle and usually works. If the City hadn’t done a poor job of imposing on DCEA and gotten their butt kicked in court it wouldn’t have taken so long or been as expensive. The firefighters contract only went to impasse a little over 3 months ago. I was in a union that went through the whole process where everyone followed the time line. It took about 10 months to play out. How long do you think such a process should take? You think it should just be your contract expired so now we do what we want? There are centuries of labor law involved you don’t just undo that unilaterally as you and Rifkin would like. Why don’t you talk to some independent labor lawyers about the process before you go off half cocked like Emlen and make fools of yourselves.
Too late, Mr.Toad . David’s personal animus toward the ffs is well and self documented. Rifkin takes the term civil [b]servant[/b] to have an antiquated meaning.
Biddlin ;>)/
My biggest concern Mr. Toad is that the process and incentives suggest that every bargaining unit during the time of cuts should drag the process out as long as possible. Why? Because the current contract remains in place through out.
” David’s personal animus toward the ffs is well and self documented.”
david’s personal animus seems toward corruption and abuse of power, therefore i doubt very much he has anything in particular against firefighters. aside from this, what exactly is your point other than to be a dickhead, which you appear to be very good at?
David’s personal attacks against the union and Bobby Weist all started when the firefighters chose NOT to support his wife when she ran for council. So yeah he has something against the firefighters.
“Davis progressive”, I would appreciate it if you watch your language. Show a little maturity.
you mean as opposed to when the firefighters got investigated by the grand jury and used their influence in city hall to try to cover it up?
sorry if i harmed your sensibilities i call it like i see it. bidlin’s a regular and he’s a curmudgeon