Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 20, 1983 (28)1%. Alii !u = CITY COUNCIL MEETING ' M APRIL 20, 1983 ' COPUNC IL ADOPTS RF-`*7Ll'PTON OPPOSING AB187 rI.ND SR :' 78 CCt-TULSrJRX AIM AR';"t TIO*J Folla::ing intrcxiuction of the matter, Council, on motion of Mayor Pro TerWre Snider, Reid second, adopted Resolution No. 83-29 opposing AB 187 (Young) and SB 778 (Dills) which RFS. ,'K0.83-29 would enact a system of c(-rpulsory and binding arbitration to settle collective bargaining disputes. 1 r `..a� _ M t' r. ,� < ar Y +i � a ..� - _sl7a � � � a YAR ? ,tiw�'r w,�y,a�8y..�+ .1 •. _ :G �. w.L �• •.rw�l ��. G. t�yk� 3..,�r+xs,.. p„ 7 �'f �ta s3,d4 h,f �t - a"s` x� yr ` n ` { 1A4's'�'ti. .. 4 ;• ? vat y!. �`" '' '3.t i' / ie t . L t �'�. F". � u zS'' ti'`J �� z . 3,a.,•c� g y `�feLMTa�` +�'ti;- A y .^a� � e' Com' r CC s X }ppy 7 �.fi SA' k W�p J a' 1 S Y f�J _ t �3si •� ft t !. AQ }�SaS�,t�`3^j i - r tr ;6.� + %U.ro ` � � �i'FF.{ ! h" � µrt � r �✓•�` ' `� >,*�7' .f{,�•" 14 s i;.3�xrcr �jft �s3s�t, krG t + F�$�7ri krz��r 4 - It ft ate ai ry tis <l.r '.maif^xt Wn..+.r �.. i' 9i t + d xr `'� -. -i`kc 7 +� e Jt-t � .c i dire - ^a�i... i 071 q a .,... _� ... NII i■ _---_ ;® League of California Cities ie ►,�C, In Cities 1 49 Work Together Socromento�'�i. 3 f nia n� March 15, 198��r ,,, 1;. I;; ��;i✓t._ 171=1'v i EM Contact: DAA Sob( ken Le4islcitive Representative (916) 444-5790 TO: MEMBERS OF THE PRESS RE: CITY TAXPAYERS MAY LOSE CONTROL OVER $2l'2 BILLION IN CITY SERVICES TO ARBITRATORS Every legislative session for at least the last 10 years, public safety employee organizations have sponsored legislation to force Iotal governments under a system of compulsory and binding arbitration to settle unresolved issues at the collective bargaining table. The League of California Cities has consistently opposed this legislation. This session, AB 187.(Yoc ) and SB 778 (Dills) have been introduced to enact a system of compulsory and binding arbl r' rati to settle collective bargaining disputes with police officers. It is a distinct possibility that firefighters will be amended into either bili. What is compulsorZ and bindi2g arbitration? Local elected officials give up authority over salaries, retirement : s and other major budget items fcr public safety employees to an outside arbitrator. The arbitrator resolves these issues by rendering a decision which In his or her opinion constitutes fie amount of money that should be pold for a particular benefit. The city council and the taxpayers must live with the decision — good or bad. Why do cities oppose? The reasons for city opposition are many and include: • Taxpayers give up voice on public safety services to outside arbitrator'! • Arbitrator has no accountability to taxpayer! • City loses ability to dc -al with current fiscal crisis! • Arbitration is the end of the collective bargaining process! • Compulsory and binding arbitration is no answer for public employee strikes! • Arbitration is expensive for the taxpayer! The enactment of a compulsory and binding arbitration bili would make a profound and detrimental change in the basic authority of local government. This Issue is a top priority for city governments in California. M EADOUARTERS CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE SOUTMERM CALIFORNIA OFFICE ,4c.3 K STREET, SACRAMENTO 95814 HOTEL C! AREMCNT. BERKELEY 94705 900 WILSHIRE BLVD.. SUITE 906, LOS ANGELES 90017 (916)444 -SM (415)64-1-3083 (213)924-4934 COMPULSORY AND BINDING ARBITRATION IN CALIFORNIA BACKGROUND There are 432 incorporated citie3 in the State of Califomia; 81 of these cities Gyre "cuter" cities, while the remainder are "general law" cities. Charter cities have adopted, with the approval of the ;raters, a local constituti(. i, or charter, to govern municipal operations. In general, a charter permits a city to qoffate with`a greater degree of Independence from the state. General law cities, an the'btherl. hand, can only perform those functions specifically outlined In state law. The practical :F differences between charter and general law cities have diminished over the years. K There remain, however, certain areas of municipal operations where a charter city has greater flexibility than a general law city. AB 187 and SB 778 would force both general law cities and cuter- cities. to operate Francis Fox, (4oej 27',-4433 G; ear a systemo compulsory and binding arbitration. The bills do not apply ,to -'.charter 71 cities where a system of compulsory and binding arbitration has already been amended Ted MacDonell (415) 553-4601 into the city cunster. There are currently six California cities with such provisiain th6 < rf' local charters. General law cities carrot enact a system of cornpuisory`and`.bindirig' " , - arbitration locally. �,k ;.� #`y=Y The following California cities have a compulsory and binding arbitration pt'on►ia. an in city charter. The names and phone numbers of city mdiagoe `in theseci#1e hao►e bRelrt, listed below -in case you are seeking further information about how thl syte rt octuoifark - operates locally: city Alameda* Hayward Oakland Polo Ai to Son Jose* Vallejo City Manager. Bruce Rupp, (415) $22-4100 Don Blubought, (415) 581-2346 :F Henry Gordror, (4 ! 5) 273-316_11 K Bill Zaner (415) 329-2311 d r try ` Francis Fox, (4oej 27',-4433 i ^, ti 71 i r' X:; Ted MacDonell (415) 553-4601 u = t r"� *There is little if. any experience with compulsory and binding arbitration in theoe communities s since it was enacted only recently. u5 .. 3•F 3�i hl t - ,j 'Lr sok THE CASE AGAINST COMPULSORY AND BINDING ARBITRATION The following arguments constitute the case of city government against a system of compulsory and binding arbitration: I. Arbitrators Spend To=yer Dollars. Compulsory and binding arbitration takes away from the city council s control over the budget for police and fire services. An arbitrator takes the council's place and decides the priority of local services and the amount the taxpayers will pay for those services. If the city council is no longer responsible for setting these compensation levels, where does the taxpayer turn to raise objection? Where is the ability to say "no" to some demands of police and fire unions which by anyone's standards would be judged out -of -line? 2. Arbitrators Are Not Accountable. Taxpayers now hold their elected officials accountable for decisions they ma a in the local government collective bargaining process. An arbitrator cannot be held responsible. The citizens and the city council have no choice but to live with the results. Adoption of compulsory and binding arbitration means that public safety employee salaries and fringe benefits become, in effect, more important than representative government. Consider the following statement by a California arbitrator who works in the public sector ?n regard to the question of accountability: "1 am not politically accountable, number one, which raises substontial questions. I could come in knowing nothing about the particular circumstances, and if they fail to educate me fully, I could easily make a grievous error." Testimonx of University of California 'Low School Professor Charles Carver at an interim hearing of the Assembly P711c Employees and Retirement Committee, December 9, 1981, San Francisco, pp. 49-51, Regarding:_ Present Status of Law Relative to Strikes In the Public Sector. As illustrated below, a Milwaukee arbitrator did not have the some concern for public finance as the local elected officials or the people who vote them into office. This statement is extracted from an arbitrator's award in that city: "... the evidence would indicate that there are surplus funds available from which the (police) association's economic demands, if awarded, can be paid. Additional funds, if necessary, can be borrowed, and so, if the bottom line consists of having to raise taxes, though distasteful, that may well have to be done." Government Em to ee Relations Report,, Bureau of National Affairs, No. 833,"076-6;F , pp. LJ and 747. 3. Fiscsl Crisis Demands Flexibility. Local governments now face the most difficult Financial s ons in 513 years. he Legislature should increase the ability of local government officials to make tough financial decisions: compulsory and binding arbitration only reduces the options open to deal with this crisis. Local elected Officials lose the ability to exercise the restraint on public safety employee wages and fringe benefits needed during periods of economic downturn such as we now face. The only option open is to cut other services after the arbitrator has determined how much local taxpayers will pay for public safety services. Consider the following questions: 0 P-) • Would a newspaper or any other private business operate efficiently and economically if well over half of the budget was determined by someone who knew nothing about the newspaper business and could only narrowly focus on the economic issues defined in the collective bargaining process? • Would the Legislature support a congress, onal ly-mandated arbitration system whereby 50`t6 of all state employee compensation was determined unilaterally by an arbitrator from the National Labor Relations Board at a time when the state is struggling to balance its budget? Is there any reason to distinguish between the state's need for maximum flexibility and the need to be able to deal with local finance problems? 4. Good Faith B_ar22ining Ends. There is no incentive on the part of police and fire eons o bargain in good faith with the employer under a system of compulsory and binding arbitration. There is no reason for the union leader to compromise on an Issue, no matter how outrageous, when refusal to compromise gets a hearing before an arbitrator where the worst you can do is the employer's last offer and history demonstrates that you usually do better. The reason for this is a very practical one - union leadership is elected by the members. Each issue on the bargaining table represents a pet demand from some member or group and therefore intelligent union leadership is not about to tell any part of the membership that its pet demand will not be pursued when arbitration is available. Consder the following experiences: • Ha word California. In 1976, firefighters in Hayward circulated and successfullyassed—an initiative to place in the city charter a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for firefighters. In 1979, 120 items were given to the arbitrator by the firefighters. This can hardly be classified good faith negotiations. Firefighter items before the negotiator included such "critical" issues as: (1) the unlimited use of bulletin boards; (2) the ability to handwrite the Fire Incident Reports; (3) use of the fire equipment to go grocery shopping. Are these issues that an arbitrator should be deciding? • Detroit Michie. n. Before being elected Mayor of Detroit, Coleman Young, as a eena of r, supported and voted for a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for Michigan cities. As a Mayor who now finds It difficult to deal with this law, Mayor Young explains the chilling effect of compulsory and binding arbitration on collective bargaining: "As each issue is discussed at the bargaining table, the underlying position of the union is: 'either give in or we'll arbitrate.' There is very little good faith bargaining. There is very little mutual understanding and mutual problem solving. Compromises are not made. Either we give in to the union or they arbitrate" Address to "Legislative Forum on New Directions For Public cEEm�ployee Relations,- Lansing, Michigan, ecem . 5. No Answer For Strikes. The only argument offered by public safety employees to justify a system o compulsory and binding arbitration is the assertion that such a system will elimir*ate strikes by making them illegal. The fact is that public employee strikes are now illegal in California and theS still occur (Los A.,ngeles Metropolitan Transit Authority v. The Brotherhood of Rallroed Trainme-iM C. Zd -2- P 684). There is no provision in AB [87 or SB 778 which absolutely prohibits strikes. The bills establish fines again s ri ing emp-emhowever, the bills allow the penalties to be negotiated as a part of an amnesty agreement for striking employees. Since this issue is negotiable, the bills may octually result in prolonging strikes until the issue of penalties is resolved. The argument that compulsory and binding arbitration eliminates strikes is very weak and leaves one looking for the real reason behind such a proposal. The reason is simple: money! 6. The Economics of the Issue. Compulsory and binding arbitration is a "no -lose situation" or Po ice and fire unions. The bottom line for the union on any issue is the employer's last offer. Arbitration usually produces an award higher than what is produced through negotiation and it freq,jently produces an award which the employer cannot afford. This is especiaNy true in these times of economic scarcity. Consider the following points: • Oakland, California. Faced with an immediate budget deficit, projected to increase' in subsequent fiscal years, the City of Oakland in fiscal year 1974-75 required all departments to cut services by 15%. In the Fire Department, this translated into an elimination of 36 positions. This and other issues related to compensation were taken to binding arbitration.. In a year with a budget deficit the arbitrator made the followiny award to firefighters: (1) A 3% salary increase over the 5.8% already offered by the city to the firefighters (the police i,ad already settled at 5.8%); (2) an increase of manning on a fire truck to five firefighters, making Oakland the only city in California with five firefighters on a truck; (3) a reduction in the average work week. The cost of this award was paid with greater reductions than already anticipated in other services. • Vallejo California. In 1982, at a time when federal employr,es were aboutto 7ece ve a %wage increase and the State of California was considering anywhere from a 0% to 3% increase for its employees, and cities across the state were negotiating layoffs, work furloughs, reduced working hours, curtailed services, and elimination of capital expenditures, an arbitrator awarded Vallejo firefighters a salary increase of 10.5%. The last offer by the city was 7.5%. • California Public Safety Compensation. For public safety employee unions to pu7 so vigorously each year tor compulsory and binding arbitration must mean that they are unsatisfied with the collective bargaining process or any other method established to set compensation levels. The fact is, public safety employees in California are consistently the best paid and enjoy some of the highest fringe benefits in the nation. A listing of compensation for rank -and - file police and firefighter positions in Colifornids largest cities is contained in the attachment to this material. The reader can draw his or her own conclusion about the fairness of public safety employee compensation levels. -3- qW ATTACHMENT PUBLIC SAFETY RANK -AND -FILE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION LEVELS FY 1982-83 1,082-83 1982-83 Total Total Compensation* Compensation* Anaheim Sacramento** Fire Captain $ 50,208 Fire Captain $ 389724 Firefighter 40,116 Firefighter 329796 Law Enforcement Sergeant 49,620 Law Enforcement Sergeant 36,636 Low Enforcement Officer 42,564 Law Enforcement Officer 31,740 Fresno Son Diego Fire Captain $ 48,372 Fire Captain $ 35,700 Firefighter 39,204 Firefighter 27,564 Low Enforcement Sergeant 51,000 Law Enforcement Sergeant 36,204 Law Enforcement Officer 41,544 Law Enforcement Officer 31,356 Huntington Beach Sat Fr(-w--isco Fire Captain $ 51,924 Fire Captain $ 72,512 Firefighter 39,984 Firefighter 54,840 Law Enforcement Sergeant 481696 Low Enforcement Sergeant 61,656 Law Enforcement Officer 41,664 Law Enforcement Officer 53,280 . LosAngeles Fire Captain $ 76,896 Fire Captain $ 559968. Firefighter 56,112 Firefighter 441,652 Law Enforcement Sergeant 69,804 Law Enforcement Sergeant 52,008 Law Enforcement Officer 56,760 Law Enforcement Officer 45,288 Oakland Santa Ana Fire Captain $ --- Fire Captain $ --- Firefighter 52,716 Firefighter Law Enforcement Sergeant --- Low Enforcement Sergeant 51,336 Law Enforcement Officer 53,916 Law Enforcement Officer 45000 Riverside Fire Captain $ 45,984 F irefighter 369432 Low Enforcement Sergeant 43,836 Low Enforcement Officer 35,592 * Information has been compiled from the 1983 League of Califomia Cities Benchmark Survey of Compensation. The total compensations figure includes the following elements: salary, retirement, educational inventive pay, medical insurance, dental insurance, optical insurance, life insurance, long-term disability, uniform allowance, holiday and vacation pay. The salary figures used to compute total compensation =the top of the scale for each classification of employee and therefore represent the compensation levels of an experienced employee. ** The figures for Sacramento include the post -1977 retirement benefits for public safety officers. The cost cf these benefits is significantly below the pre -1977 retirement benefit structure. April 25, 1983 PU HENRY A GLAVkS. 1r City Manager ALICE M RE IMCHE CrtN Clerk RONALD M STEIN City Attorney Dear Enclosed herewith, please find Resolution No. 83-29 which Resolution was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its regular meeting of April 20, 1983 by unanimous vote. Very truly yours, Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR j Enc. The above letter was sent to John Garamendi Ralph Dills Phillip Isenberg Bruce Young League of Calif. Cities CITY COUNCIL EVkIYNM OISON, Mayor CITY OF IMOD I IOHN R (Randv) SNIDER Mavor Pro Tempore CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET ROBERT G MURPHY POST OFFICE BOX 320 IAMES W PINKERTON, It LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241 I FRE D M REID (209) 334-5634 April 25, 1983 PU HENRY A GLAVkS. 1r City Manager ALICE M RE IMCHE CrtN Clerk RONALD M STEIN City Attorney Dear Enclosed herewith, please find Resolution No. 83-29 which Resolution was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its regular meeting of April 20, 1983 by unanimous vote. Very truly yours, Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR j Enc. The above letter was sent to John Garamendi Ralph Dills Phillip Isenberg Bruce Young League of Calif. Cities N RESOLUTION NO. 83-29 RESOLUTION OPPOSING AB 187 (YOUNG) AND SB 778 (DILLS) WHICH SHOULD ENACT A SYSTEM OF COMPULSORY AND BINDING ARBITRATION TO SETTLE COLLECTIVE DISPUTES WHEREAS, Compulsory and binding arbitration takes away from the City Council its control over the budget for police and fire services in that an arbitrator takes the Council's place and decides the priority of local services and the amount the taxpayers will pay for those services; and WHEREAS, taxpayers now hold their elected officials accountable for decisions they make in the local government collective bargaining process. An arbitrator cannot be held responsible and the citizens and the City Council have no choice but to live with the results; and WHEREAS, there is no incentive on the part of police and fire unions to bargain in good faith with the employer under a system of compulsory and binding arbitration. Compulsory and binding arbitration is a "No -lose situation" for police and fire unions. The bottom line for the union on any issue is the employer's last offer and arbitration usually produces an award higher than what is produced through negotiations and it frequently produces an award which the employer cannot afford; and WHEREAS, local governments now face the - most difficult financial decisions in 50 years. The legislature should increase the ability of, local government officials to make tough financial decisions. Compulsory and binding arbitration only reduces the options open to deal with this crisis. r i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the the City Council of the City of Lodi does hereby oppose AB 187 (Young) and SB 778 (Dills) as the enactment of such compulsory and binding arbitration legislation would make a profound and detrimental change in the basic authority of local government. Dated: April 20, 1983 I hereby certify that Resolution No.83-29 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held April 20, 1983 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Pinkerton, Snider, Reid, Murphy, and F` Orson (-Mayor) Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members - None i Y Alice M. Reimche City Clerk RFSCLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OPPOSING AB187 (YOUNG) AND SB778 (DINS) k,. WHICH WOULD ENACT A SYSTEM OF C'CMPULSORY AND BINDING ARBITRATICN 70 SETTLE 001J -D7= BARGAIN DISPUTES WHEREAS, Compulsory and binding arbitration takes away from the City Council its control over the budget for police and fire services, in that an arbitrator takes the Council's place and decides the priority of local services and the amount the taxpayers will pay for those services; and WHEREAS, taxpayers now hold their elected officials accountable for decisions they nake in the local government collective bargaining process. An arbitrator cannot be held responsible and the citizens and the City Council have no choice but to live with the results; and WTE REAS, there is no incentive on the part of police and fire unions to bargain in good faith with the employer under a system of compulsory and binding arbitration. Compulsory and binding arbitration is a "No -lose situation" for police and fire unions. The bottom line for the union on any issue is the employer's last offer and arbitration usually produces an award higher than what is produced through negotiations and it frequently produces an award which the employer cannot afford; and WHEREAS, local governments now face the most difficult financial decisions in 50 years. The legislature should increase the ability of local goverment officials to make tough financial decisions. Compulsory and binding arbitration only reduces the options open to deal with this crisis. NC)W, niERE FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lodi does hereby oppose AB187 (Young) and SB778 (Dills) as the enactment of such compulsory and binding arbitration legislation would make a profound and detrimental charge in the basic authority of local goverment. Dated: April 20, 1983 I hereby certify that Resolution No. was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held April 20, 1983. Ayes: Council Members - Noes: Council Members - Absent: Council Members - Alice M. Reimche City Clerk