Friday, October 22, 2010

Teamsters sue the City of Pacifica



Submitted by Jim Alex
  
More info from Pacific Patch:  http://pacifica.patch.com/articles/contract-negotiations-between-city-and-union-hits-roadblock 

Submitted by Lionel Emde

Blogmaster's note: This is about contract negotiations between the city and its employees.

31 comments:

Captain America said...

The Captains win.

Anonymous said...

The rest of us lose.

Lionel Emde said...

Read the story on Patch, it reveals some of the ins-and-outs:
http://pacifica.patch.com/articles/contract-negotiations-between-city-and-union-hits-roadblock

Anonymous said...

From the Patch story:
"Jim Furgas, who led bargaining for the union, said that in the city's original proposal were a series of "givebacks," including the wage freezes and pension contribution freezes, that the union was willing to concede. But any tradeoffs that the union tried to make were ignored by the city, Furgas claims, and some of the language the city has inserted into its proposed contracts for the captains was not acceptable to the union.

"Givebacks the city is asking for besides wage and contribution freezes are that the police captains not sell their vacation time (a common practice by which they gave up vacation time in exchange for pay) for the duration of the two-year contract, that the city be able to establish a second tier in its pension program (which would loosen up the city's pension contribution responsibilities for new hires) and a reduction of the hours of leave a manager can take to 43 hours, among other things. The city also wants the authority to implement 24 furlough days for the police captains at its discretion.

"When the union asked the city to pitch in $100 a month to help pay for the captains' health care, for which the captains pay about $140 per month, the idea was rejected outright, said Furgas.

"And the union will not accept "management rights language" the city included in its proposal which gives the city a new ability to lay managers (which include the captains) off at will, without regard for seniority."

Kathy Meeh said...

Jim, Lionel and Anonymous here's an easy link to that comprehensive article on Pacifica Patch, today 10/22/10, 5:30pm. You sure picked-up that article fast.

Ah, ha, these negotiations are all part of the five-year city financial budget plan, so we're off to a "non-start" as expected, because the Teamster don't want to play take away to the stripped-down extent the city does. City council agenda 2/25/10 Closed session, items 2,3 deal with the negotiations and the lawsuit.

So, CA 4:38pm, will the captains win, or will the city consider making the kind of changes San Carlos did to a jurisdictional Sheriff's Department, or should incumbents be re-elected so Police and Fire become a volunteer brigade? The 8 year "our economy is our environment" plan is already working-out just swell.

J Hoffa said...

Don't piss off the Teamsters.

Anonymous said...

Hey J, where 'ya been buddy?

Kathy Meeh said...

And this from Jeff's Blog: More specifically from item 4 of the petition:

" . . . the task force had made its recommendations that included a set of restrictions on negotiating MOUs (Memoranda of Understanding)with employee organizations; that the respondent City Council members had adopted those recommendations; and that the city's bargaining representative was not free to agree with any of Petitioner's proposals that in any way deviated from the aforesaid restrictions . . . "

The City's representative went on to inform the Union rep that a new MOU would include "unrestricted layoffs without regards to seniority, mandatory furloughs, a freeze in all economic matters, and an elimination from the most recent MOU of all provisions that would conflict with the new proposal."

On or about September 14, 2010 (after refusing to negotiate in good faith or entertain the merits of ANY of the union's proposals for 9 meetings) the City Council requested an "impasse meeting" which was conducted on September 23, 2010. At the outset of the meeting when the Union representative attempted to discuss their proposals, according to the petition, " . . . the City's representative responded by stating that city would not under any circumstances change its position."

Sounds like these city council members really earned their San Mateo County Labor Council endorsements, eh?

The end result is that once again, the gang that couldn't shoot straight now cannot negotiate in good faith with its own employees, took a hardline stance encouraged by the puppet citizens committee, and once again the city is embroiled in a costly lawsuit. I don't need to remind readers that the "Quick"-est way out of this mess is to elect new City Councilmembers this November and discharge the City Attorney, with prejudice . . . the city could also benefit by removing the incompetent de facto economic advisers at PSD from any shill "citizen's committee" . . .

My comment: Would you buy into this "raw deal" if you were representing the members of Teamsters Local 350?

Scotty said...

They aren't representing their members very well if they don't. They need to wake up and face the economic reality that the rest of us are living.

Anonymous said...

This only shows that the Council is doing its job and trying to control salaries and benefits. I believe they've reached agreements with all the other employee groups. I agree with Scotty - the police captains need to wake up and face the same economic reality that the city and taxpayers have to face.

Anonymous said...

Only shows the city council has no understanding of what the Teamsters union will accept or tolerate for their members.

Anonymoose said...

"Only shows the city council has no understanding of what the Teamsters union will accept or tolerate for their members."

You take the cake when it comes to ambiguous, incomprehensible statements, Anonymous@1:06 PM.

Anonymous said...

This stuff is to be expected. It needs to be done and done now. Especially the pension reform parts of it. We are broke just like the rest of the state. Get it done. And why aren't we looking at contracting with the San Mateo County Sheriff's Dept? Could be a money saver and needs to be looked at now. And that discussion needs to be public!

Anonymous said...

What would Barbara Arietta or Len Stone or Susan Vellone do in this situation? Would they cave to the police captains or would they hold the line for fiscal responsibility?

Unknown said...

I'll agree with all of you when the senators and representatives step up to the plate and give up some of their benefits, salaries and perks. Kind of like when Hell freezes over.

Anonymoose said...

Vellone and Stone have both promised not to take city council salaries until Pacifica's financial situation improves. Jim Vreeland, Sue Digre, and Leo Leone haven't done that.

Unknown said...

Go Vellone! Go Stone!

Kathy Meeh said...

Some confusion, I just heard the Teamsters 350 union is only the 3 police police captains, and that the other 2 police unions and 1 Fire unit union are almost settled.

So, what is the legal action all about-- pressure for the city to act?

John A. said...

Anon @ 1:19pm: Go ahead and study this. While you're studying, why don't you examine the level of service the Sheriff's Office provides versus what our own cops provide? Do you think deputies are as well trained as Pacifica cops? Given that they can transfer our to San Carlos, or the jail, or anywhere else in the county at any time, do you think that they will have ANY investment in our city?

Also, our chief is an at will employee. If we don't like how he performs, he can be replaced. An elected Sheriff in Redwood City isn't really going to care. Sure, you're paying him for a contract, but if you don't like his service, who else will we contract with? No one else in the county seems interested in taking on contract cities...

So go ahead and study, but I'll stick with a local department, local control, and cops who give a damn about the city they work in, because their economic future is tied to the city.

John A. said...

@ Kathy: Are you sure they are settled? Have you talked to their reps yet? Labor contracts aren't settled until they're settled, esp. with a lawsuit like this...

Unknown said...

John A. - Annie get your gun!

Kathy Meeh said...

What I heard was "almost settled"...this is a rumor from an insider. I'm just passing-on measured conjecture. "Don't shoot the messenger" even if you think Lois is suggesting that might be a good idea.

Unknown said...

No, actually what I was saying Kathy, was that if Pacifica went county, the citizens would be pretty much on their own.

John A. said...

@Lois -- Nah, no guns needed here. Just enough time to actually learn what various options (e.g., contracting with the sheriff) mean.

@Kathy: I wouldn't dream of it! I'd just like to hear "official" word before arriving at any conclusions. And if the captains are alleging unfair labor practices based on a position (relying on the puppet task force) the city must have taken with all the other unions, then perhaps the units NOT represented by major national labor organizations are going to wait and see. If the city did negotiate unfairly, they may be paying a lot of money to their negotiator to renegotiate the other deals..

Anonymous said...

The problem is the lack of sunlight on negotiations. You can thank changes wrought on behalf of the public employee unions in the 1990's for that.
So the police captains (who are paid more than $200,000 per year) are going for a delaying tactic.
There's a larger problem here. Anyone see it?

Anonymous said...

Reality check time. We are broke and it won't matter who's in office for the next 4 years, or longer, we will still be broke. We all want the cadillac plan but settling for less is going to be neccessary. And, we just may find it isn't less but different. Contract with sheriff's dept, combine services, out-source non-essential services to hungry private business, layoffs,
all have to take place. And, if CA ever wants to recover economic power,this goes for cities too, then public employee pension reform has to happen. There is no other alternative. How we get back to being The Golden State will demand the best leadership at all levels. Look past the barrage of assinine, pandering campaign drivel to find real leaders not novelties.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the council on this one. But they are too late. We are in deep.
We have not hit rock bottom yet. Come 2015 will be real bad.The council should know this.

Unions need to get used to cutbacks in wages and benefits otherwise there will be a civil war. Class warfare. Get it? The haves are, gov/public/union/employees. $87 million of taxpayers money is being used by this sector on this election season. The have-nots, are current and former employees in the private sector struggling to pay the high taxes coming in 2011. They already lost their homes and health care benefits. How long do you think they will stand for paying all the high taxes until they realize that they are paying for these gov/public/sector/union employees exorbitant salaries and benefits/pensions? Remember the City of Bell, Ca.? All democrats. Tax and Spend Democrats. Right in their pockets went YOUR MONEY.

Think of the job killing government agency EPA. EPA, forcing America's industrial nation into extinction. A little bug spray never hurt anyone, but now, New York has a serious bed bug problem. Vote all Rats out of office, they spread disease and make everyone itchy.

Kathy Meeh said...

From city council tonight, apparently there has been union agreements to be ratified with both fire and police. Don't think that includes Teamsters 350, the 3 police captains.

This is just what I understood from city council Closed Session follow-up reporting to the public.

A Painter of the Flemish School said...

The problem with the Local 350 negotiations -- as I understand it -- is that the City came to the table with a hard-line "it's our way or the highway" stance and wouldn't budge an inch on their demands. They did this nine times.

That's not only not negotiating in good faith, that's not negotiating, period!

Anonymous said...

You have to know how to negotiate. Otherwise, the Bosses will walk.

Steve Sinai said...

This sounds like the way Pacifica negotiated with Peebles Corp after Measure L lost. Pacifica expected Peebles to make all the concessions, while the city played an unsophisticated game of hardball.

Daniel Grimm, who was negotiating on behalf of Peebles, knew after one meeting he was wasting his time.

And then Jimmy V. tries to pull his bs "I'm shocked!" act when Peebles left.

The city ought to at least try to figure out of there's anything negotiable, instead of hiding behind the Finance Task Force and saying their hands are tied.