The Observation Deck

Local 1043 voted last night on a concession package offered by Mayor Edward FitzGerald.

The vote was 84 against
1 for

The package was based on giving back the raises of 2007, and employees paying a part of the health care.

In return City Hall had offered no layoffs, and IF layoffs occurred the raises would be reinstated.

From union people the fear was that they would still loose their health care.

More to follow


.

Hmmm...

I guess this wasn't a great offer to the Union since they could vote yes and still have layoffs. Granted, they would get their raises back but still be paying healthcare. So the guys with seniority win out as they will keep their raises, keep their healthcare and the likely layoffs will still occur. Those unlucky to be at the bottom (and a bit higher up the line, though, now that health care is off the table) pay the price either way. Tough call but I think the Union made the better deal for their entire bargaining unit.

Phil Florian wrote:Tough call but I think the Union made the better deal for their entire bargaining unit.

Phil


I see this a little differently.

I see it as a battle for moral high ground.

The Mayor extends the olive branch and says we are cutting but let's try to work things out. the Union comes back with NO! I believe this will grease the skids to privatizing many things. Which will cost many all jobs.

One thing I know from hitting the streets is that it is a hard sell that Trash Collectors make more than the homes they service and use that money to move out of the city.

Right or wrong it is a very real perception.


.

Phil Florian wrote:Tough call but I think the Union made the better deal for their entire bargaining unit.

If the first obligation of the union is to get a better deal for the bargaining unit what is the first obligation of City?

If more members of the bargaining unit lived in Lakewood would the vote have been different?

Who was the one brave soul and what was his motivation?

Do we have a City workforce to serve the City or do we have a City to serve the City workforce?

Donning my safety goggles and helmet, I have a few things I would like to point out.

Why is there such an anti-union sentiment in a city that was built by laborers and union workers.

It is thanks to unions that we have safe buildings, effectively applied services and hiring standards.

For people who are ordinary workers, there are a few things that need to be understood.

First - Almost all employers and those who hold stock in unionized company's would like to see unions eliminated.

Second - It is thanks to unions that we have sick days, paid vacations, worker compensation, HEALTH CARE BENEFITS, child labor laws, any labor laws at all. 40 hour work weeks, time and a half for overtime and OSHA among so many other protections that people don't even think of.

Sure, privatize, maybe we could make all the jobs minimum wage. Why not make all jobs minimum wage, then employers and share holders can make money off the sweat on someone else's brow.

Maybe we should pour the baby out with the bathwater. After all the ones with the wallet own the bathtub.

I don't see as much an anti-union sentiment as I see people who are seeing the reality of the situation the city of Lakewood is in. There need to be cuts, one way or the other, the union workers will suffer (either benefits cut or layoffs), it's up to them which path they want at this point. The city doesn't have the money to continue the status quo.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:I see it as a battle for moral high ground.

The Mayor extends the olive branch and says we are cutting but let's try to work things out. the Union comes back with NO! I believe this will grease the skids to privatizing many things. Which will cost many all jobs.

One thing I know from hitting the streets is that it is a hard sell that Trash Collectors make more than the homes they service and use that money to move out of the city.

Right or wrong it is a very real perception.

Morally and ethically (and lets not forget legally) the City is expected to honor a signed contractual agreement, one that was done in good faith with the previous administration. This is to be done regardless if the contract was done poorly by the previous administration.

The City has the right to lay people off and there are no doubt provisions in the contract on how the Union deals with this, likely a seniority system.

I do appreciate that the Mayor was trying to find a way to work through this with the least impact on the most people but unless there is a lot more information than what you were sharing, Jim, the Union voted in the only way it really could. It is a no-win scenario for the entire Union regardless so as a Union they had to take the option that was best suited for the majority of its membership.

Option One: Layoffs. A certain percentage of the Union will be laid off to meet budget shortfalls.

Option Two: Union agrees to break its contract. In doing so, all Union members will now lose money, both their raise from last year and money to help pay for health insurance. And the kicker? There still could be layoffs (which in Human-Resource-speak means they WILL do layoffs...I have sat on the worker side of the table enough to find this to be true).

With option 2, everyone in the Union suffers and they still loser membership and benefits. With option 1, it is likely the majority of the Union will keep its wages and benefits while some of their membership will have to go. With option 2, everyone suffers (yes, they keep their raise but still pay health care costs...) and still people will likely go. When looking at the whole of the union, they had to vote that way.

Why will this lead to privatization? This is heading to layoffs and that is the bottom line and it looks like the union will lose either way.

This was screwed up by Tom George who signed such a contract. Don't make this a worker's issue. This squarely lies in bad past practice and until the next contract (where the mayor really can play hard ball) we are stuck with this deal.

Bill Call wrote:If the first obligation of the union is to get a better deal for the bargaining unit what is the first obligation of City?

If more members of the bargaining unit lived in Lakewood would the vote have been different?

Who was the one brave soul and what was his motivation?

Do we have a City workforce to serve the City or do we have a City to serve the City workforce?

To each of your questions:

1) The first obligation of the City in this situation is to honor its legally signed contracts. They have the ability to do layoffs and I appreciate the Mayor's attempt but he didn't offer a good compromise. The Union has to pick the best contract for the majority of its membership. They are going to lose either way. It was a good call, based on the information we have on the offer.

2) I don't know how this would effect the contract or workers if they lived in town. You must have suspicions, so tell us what you think. Does the contract contain any incentives to live in Lakewood? Are any of them taking advantage of that? I really don't know.

3) The one brave soul? If 85 were lined up in seniority, I would guess this guy or gal would be somewhere between #70 and #80. Why? Because if #80-#85 was smart, they would have their resumes up to date and ready to go regardless of the outcome. The only difference between the offers from the mayor is likely at what level they are going to get cut off. My guess is that if they say they MAY lay off, they WILL lay off. They know exactly how much they would save if the Union accepted this re-write of the contract so they should know the impact. To hedge in HR terms is to admit.

4) We have both. The City workforce serves the City. And as far as I can tell, they do. The City is responsible for hiring the workforce, which they do. They now negotiate in good faith with a Union to do this work and are, by law, required to honor such contracts. The City has the ability and sometimes the need to lay off people due to budget shortfalls. The Union knows this and has a system in place to decide who stays and who goes. What's your point? The Union has only one goal and that is to have the best contract for the most of the bargaining unit.

I have seen unions take cuts to save members jobs. In those situations the offer is very clear: If you take these cuts, all your members will still have their jobs. That is a deal a Union could and has clearly backed. But to say "Take these cuts and we MAY not cut jobs" is a stupid deal and dishonest. The Union would have been foolish to agree to that.

Would you have agreed to such a deal?

I don't know how long their contract is for. Is it for another year or two? At best, the Union is going to lose members but the majority will keep the deals agreed to by the previous administration. At worst, the Union is going to lose members AND the deal offered by the previous administration. Lose-lose means you take the one with the least impact on the most people.

Phil-

You make some fair points in your summary. I wanted to offer the unions an option to make concessions, particularly on healthcare insurance, in order to limit the scale of layoffs and make privatization an unlikely option.

I would note that we were asking them to change their healthcare plans to the one which the non-union city employees- myself included- have already switched to. It's a less generous health care plan than they had, but I would guess it's far better than the insurance that most of the readers of this post have.

They have decided not to accept our offer, and that is entirely within their rights. It will certainly result in more layoffs, but I do understand their reasoning even if I don't agree with it.

I will personally be giving negotiations one more shot before the end of June before I make any other decisions on layoffs and/or outsourcing.

One point where I would disagree with you: because of the chaotic state of the economy, particularly the impact of the real estate market on our budget- it is very difficult to estimate exactly how many future layoffs might be necessary. I can't guarantee no layoffs in the future because I don't have a crystal ball, and I have to reserve the right to preserve the city's fiscal stability. To assume that the city secretly knows exactly how many layoffs are likely this year ascribes a cynicism to us which is inaccurate even if it's understandable.

Ed FitzGerald wrote:Phil-

You make some fair points in your summary. I wanted to offer the unions an option to make concessions, particularly on healthcare insurance, in order to limit the scale of layoffs and make privatization an unlikely option.

I would note that we were asking them to change their healthcare plans to the one which the non-union city employees- myself included- have already switched to. It's a less generous health care plan than they had, but I would guess it's far better than the insurance that most of the readers of this post have.

They have decided not to accept our offer, and that is entirely within their rights. It will certainly result in more layoffs, but I do understand their reasoning even if I don't agree with it.

I will personally be giving negotiations one more shot before the end of June before I make any other decisions on layoffs and/or outsourcing.

One point where I would disagree with you: because of the chaotic state of the economy, particularly the impact of the real estate market on our budget- it is very difficult to estimate exactly how many future layoffs might be necessary. I can't guarantee no layoffs in the future because I don't have a crystal ball, and I have to reserve the right to preserve the city's fiscal stability. To assume that the city secretly knows exactly how many layoffs are likely this year ascribes a cynicism to us which is inaccurate even if it's understandable.

Ed-

Thanks for your comments! #1 reason the Deck is such a useful place to be and I am glad that, even in this office of more responsibility, you still maintain an active presence here. Take that, other cities.

You make fair points as well. Your point about the chaotic economic situation makes a lot of sense and I hadn't thought of it that way. I wasn't saying that to make a point about some "secret knowledge" but that the potential impact, based on today's figures, should be knowable for a bit into the future. This is why I wondered about how long the contract was going to last. If the contract ends, say, in 2009 I would assume your business office could forecast fairly accurately how things will look but the farther out you go, the more than estimate dovetails either positively or, worse, negatively.

This is why I added my caveat of my thoughts on this are "based on what I know so far" and this is only based on what Jim O. noted. I am sure there are a lot more little details, to be sure. I don't envy the load your administration and employees have to carry to deal with the shortfalls of previous administration. Kind of like the job of the next POTUS. Ugh.

Anyway, best of luck and know that my family supports the work you are doing and wishes you and your employees well with this struggle. It isn't an easy one and I know people will be hurt through the process but hopefully the end result will be the best possible balance between the needs of the city and the needs of its employees.

Take care!

Phil Florian wrote:1) The first obligation of the City in this situation is to honor its legally signed contracts.

No. The first obligation of the City (meaning City government) is to provide core services to the people who live here at a price that the City can afford to pay.

Phil Florian wrote: 2) I don't know how this would effect the contract or workers if they lived in town. You must have suspicions, so tell us what you think. Does the contract contain any incentives to live in Lakewood? Are any of them taking advantage of that? I really don't know.

I don't know either. But I suspect that people who live in a City have a stonger incentive to go a year without a raise to insure the economic health of the City. City workers who don't live in the City see Lakewood as a piggy bank, not a community.

In a sense they have divided loyalties. When the Clinic moves its Lakewood facilites to the new hospital in Avon Lake would the City worker who lives in Avon think it is a bad thing?

Phil Florian wrote:4) We have both. The City workforce serves the City. And as far as I can tell, they do. The City is responsible for hiring the workforce, which they do.

If the City exists to provide jobs to government employees then the workforce expects an unending stream of pay and benefit increases without any thought given to the economic health of the City. That's the current state of affairs.

The Mayor made a very reasonable and tame request for very minor concessions. Concessions that would have provided the City with some breathing room. The response of the Unions? "We don't care about your City".

If City employees don't care about the citizens then why should the citizens care about City employees?

The City of Lakewood has been very generous to its City workforce. Hundreds of City employees have pay and benefit packages worth more than $90,000 per year. Over the years the City has used more and more money that WAS available for infrastructure and development and spent it to maintain those pay and benefit levels. Given the refusal of the City workforce to work with the City the question now becomes: Why should we continue that practice?

We shouldn't.

The City no longer has any moral obligation to try and save the jobs of City workers. Its only obligation is to maintain City services and start reinvesting in infrastructure and development.

What happens when a City fails to make that choice? Take a short drive to Detroit Michigan.

The solution?

The City should privatize all City services except police and fire. Cities like Indianapolis have had great success in privitizing City services. See:

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/segal_20060420.shtml

And what of the 200 City employees that will lose their jobs? I'm sure they will all be able to find $90,000 a year jobs in the private sector. They will do just fine.

Bill Call wrote: And what of the 200 City employees that will lose their jobs? I'm sure they will all be able to find $90,000 a year jobs in the private sector. They will do just fine.

I agree. If their skills are worth $90,000, they'll easily find that job. If they're not, then the city residents have not been getting their money's worth. I respect public employees and the work they do, but Bill is 100% correct. The workers are there to serve the city, not the other way around.

Bill Call wrote:No. The first obligation of the City (meaning City government) is to provide core services to the people who live here at a price that the City can afford to pay.

I agree. Your question was this particular situation, though, and as such when dealing with contracts, even poorly done ones, they are obligated to meet the terms of the contracts. The fact that the Mayor is offering solutions to re-open the contract for negotiation is fine but barring agreement by both parties, they have to meet the contract stipulations.

Bill Call wrote:I don't know either. But I suspect that people who live in a City have a stonger incentive to go a year without a raise to insure the economic health of the City. City workers who don't live in the City see Lakewood as a piggy bank, not a community.

Pretty unfair assessment of a worker. It isn't like they don't work for their money. "Piggy bank" implies a childish look at money...one where it comes some place magical. First and foremost, they see this place as a job, no different than someone who works at McDonalds or at the Cleveland Clinic or National City bank. Public employees aren't volunteers. Should they be any happier about making cuts or losing their jobs than someone who works for GM? Or National City? Why? I assume that if the City hires Company A to do the trash pick up you won't be nearly as critical when THOSE employees don't see the City as anything other than a piggy bank, right?

Bill Call wrote:If the City exists to provide jobs to government employees then the workforce expects an unending stream of pay and benefit increases without any thought given to the economic health of the City. That's the current state of affairs.

So, let me make sure I get this straight, when we hire private companies to collect our trash we will be fine when THOSE companies request an "unending stream or pay...increases" without any thought given to the economic health of the City," right? Do you think these private companies are going to be fine with status quo or flat pay or being asked to accept less next year? Will Company A keep the contract if we tell them, halfway through a contract, that "sorry, we have to pay you less now. You cool with that?" I am totally sure Company A won't mind that one bit.

Bill Call wrote:The Mayor made a very reasonable and tame request for very minor concessions. Concessions that would have provided the City with some breathing room. The response of the Unions? "We don't care about your City". If City employees don't care about the citizens then why should the citizens care about City employees?

They said this? Really? You are putting it in quotes, so I assume you have a source, right? Wait, no. You don't. The Union said "no" to the concessions knowing full well that they were going to lose members doing so. This has nothing to do with whether they care or not for the City. Why are you making it into that kind of issue? Some on here say they don't have anti-union bias, but you wear yours like a badge.

Bill Call wrote:The City of Lakewood has been very generous to its City workforce. Hundreds of City employees have pay and benefit packages worth more than $90,000 per year. Over the years the City has used more and more money that WAS available for infrastructure and development and spent it to maintain those pay and benefit levels. Given the refusal of the City workforce to work with the City the question now becomes: Why should we continue that practice?

Yes, the City h as been generous. That was a mistake that will cost the City citizens service and the employees jobs. If the City was more fiscally responsible when this contract was signed, then more Union workers would still have their jobs and we would have better trash service. As such, we will have less of both, most likely. Don't put this on the Union lap alone. It isn't their money...it was offered and accepted. The time to put fiscal responsibility on the table is at the time of Negotiations and they didn't. Again, I really appreciate the Mayor's attempt at offering some concessions before the ax but don't put this into your usual "Us vs. Greedy Workers" bit.

Oh, and a reminder to folks who think their trash person is making $90,000 per year...remember, Bill likes to wrap ALL compensation into one nice number. If you all think like this, cool, but rarely do people think of their compensation in any terms other than what they get in a paycheck. I am sure if you started thinking about your own jobs this way, you all got huge raises!! Congratulation! I can already see one respondent after Bill's is already talking like these guys bring home $3500 paychecks every other week minus taxes.

Bill Call wrote:The City no longer has any moral obligation to try and save the jobs of City workers. Its only obligation is to maintain City services and start reinvesting in infrastructure and development.

What happens when a City fails to make that choice? Take a short drive to Detroit Michigan.

The solution?

The City should privatize all City services except police and fire. Cities like Indianapolis have had great success in privitizing City services. See:

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/segal_20060420.shtml

And what of the 200 City employees that will lose their jobs? I'm sure they will all be able to find $90,000 a year jobs in the private sector. They will do just fine.

Bill, you are talking like the Mayor is being held at gun point by the City workers. He isn't. He clearly has the ax is making cuts that will put in line the City budget as best he can and I appreciate that. He will do that by attempting to cut benefits (as he did with non-union employees) and cutting jobs (as he is doing with both union and non-union workers). He has pared what is assumed to be redundant services and streamlined where he can. Union members, you will be no doubt happy to know, will lose their jobs soon.

Personally, I am not ready for McTrash Removal company to come into the city, yet.