Day 2 of talks between the firefighters union and City of San Antonio representatives got off to a prickly start Tuesday as the two sides quarreled over a perceived lack of communication.
But they eventually settled on language regarding a new binding arbitration rule and its role in the labor negotiations. The sides also agreed on four articles of the firefighters’ contract that need no changes, one that is obsolete, and made headway on at least a dozen others that need adjustments. Those changes will be discussed further at the next meeting on Friday, Feb. 22.
The two sides expect to present contract proposals when they meet Tuesday, Feb. 26.
Discussions so far have largely been procedural and not as significant as the points of contention that await — health care and wage increases.
Voices were raised on both sides when negotiators discussed a press conference the union called yesterday and language that an attorney representing the City used to describe a new arbitration rule.
Ultimately the two sides agreed that the rule, approved by voters through Proposition C in November, applies to these negotiations and is included in the ground rules, which are slated for final approval Friday.
“I will take the City at its word that the city will recognize the legitimacy of the impacts of the provision that’s now part of the charter,” Fire union attorney Ricky J. Poole told reporters after the meeting. “Our position is we just want to make sure that we’re not looking at another challenge – a three- to four-year hiatus – while we go litigate this issue.”
The City has no plans to challenge Prop C, the City’s lead negotiator Jeff Londa said.
Union officials called a press conference Monday to call out Londa, for suggesting there could be a possible legal challenge to Proposition C. The measure gave the union the ability to call for binding arbitration on a new labor agreement.
Poole said he didn’t understand what Londa meant when he told reporters that he didn’t think Proposition C “meshes” with other elements of the collective bargaining agreement.
“No idea what that means,” Poole said.
“A good reason for a [phone call],” Londa responded.
Poole agreed to start calling more but made it clear that he prefers communication to be confirmed in writing.
“It seems like you call press conferences more than you call me,” said City Attorney Andy Segovia said.
Poole bristled at that, pointing out only two press conferences he’s called at the union hall this year and noting several other calls with and emails sent to Segovia.
Londa walked back his statements made two weeks ago in which he questioned the applicability of Proposition C.
“Prop C is very clear. The union has the right to declare impasse and once that happens, arbitration results,” he said Tuesday.
During the meeting, the two sides briefly discussed replacing the firefighters’ current 10-year evergreen clause, which has allowed most contract terms to remain in place after the pact expired in 2014. Proposition C largely renders an extended evergreen clause useless, Londa said, because Prop C provides a path to reach a contract deal after 60 days of negotiations.
“I’m not sure that I agree that those two issues [evergreen and Prop C] are really linked together,” Poole said.
The fire union would consider a 60-day evergreen clause proposal, but Poole added that he’s not “excited” by the idea of dropping it from 10 years to 60 days. The police union agreed to an eight-year clause in its 2016 contract.
State law allows for labor negotiations to continue for 60 days with 15-day extensions if both sides agree. At 61 days, an impasse is triggered and the City or the union could ask for arbitration. Both could refuse, and the union has the option to go to court if the City refuses to arbitrate.
Under Prop C, however, the fire union could call an impasse and unilaterally trigger binding arbitration sessions.
Say what you want, but it seems likc Prop C is doing its job and making the city and union negotiate. Something that wasn’t happening before. It is my understanding Prop C will force a solution if necessary. Get this issue resolved!
I still can’t believe Prop C passed. Leaving aside the fact that our City Charter now has a special provision that literally only applies to ONE interest group (imagine a Constitutional amendment that only granted special privileges to PETA or the NRA), it’s also crazy on its face. As someone who routinely handles contract negotiations with arbitration clauses, I can say with confidence that NOBODY ever gets the power to UNILATERALLY declare an impasse and force the whole thing to arbitration. No opposing party in their right mind would ever agree to such a thing, which explains why it wasn’t in the original contract to begin with.
Bob, it passed because the citizens were finally made aware that the city was suing the fire union and losing in court every single time and wasting millions of dollars. How is prop c a bad thing? It’s just a tool, and if the city negotiates fairly then prop c won’t be used.
Do we want to be a workforce known for our loyalty or for rewarding high-performance?
In my humble opinion, unions are an unnecessary holdover from the industrial revolution. OSHA is now in charge of all workplace accidents. Unions don’t have to manage that. Employment at will allows for clear and open communication between employees and employers. Collective bargaining agreements put too much emphasis on raising pay for the poor performers and mediocre performers instead of showing how high performance is rewarded. Plus, in many federal and state employments, getting rid of someone takes an act of Congress. So there is no punitive system in play for poor performance, and instead a poor performer is rewarded vis-a-vi the union membership with better wages and benefits.
Even worse in the public sector, is that those increased costs are directly passed on to the taxpayers. Am I okay with paying Eric Walsh $300k/yr? Yes. Am I okay with paying an entry-level employee $15/hr that shows up late, is incredibly slow at their job, and does a mediocre job at best? No. And then everyone else is between those two extremes.
Plus, our tax dollars go not only to the employees, but also to pay the bills of the union employees and all the political action money that they then turn around and exert influence at city hall. The “overhead” cost is significant.
Why don’t we let the employees choose whether to accept or reject an offer? America was founded on the principle of small government and that the individual gets to take responsibility for their own destiny. They can always go work somewhere else. 4% unemployment right now. Everyone and their brother is hiring.