Front Page  »  

San Luis Obispo Council seeks end to binding arbitration

February 2, 2011

Voters may get another chance to vote on binding arbitration, a mandate that resulted in public safety employees receiving a 30 percent raise in 2008. [Tribune]

San Luis Obispo Council members Andrew Carter, Dan Carpenter and Kathy Smith voted in favor of revisiting the issue of binding arbitration because of the city’s current budget woes.

Binding arbitration, voted in by the public in 2000, entitles safety worker’s unions to bring in a third party negotiator if labor talks are at an impasse. The city and the unions are then required to abide by the negotiator’s decision.

Union representatives contend binding arbitration is fair because safety workers are not allowed to strike.

If the council votes to put binding arbitration back on the ballot, a majority of voters would have to approve the mandates elimination.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Most people I talk with have more respect for fire fighters and less for law enforcement. I wish they were not unified in the same union.

I have never in my life ever met anyone who did not respect fire fighters.

Washington is currently working on lesgislation to allow state government to file bankrupcy (not that they actually will), currently only a municipality can file a Chapter 6.

All it takes is for the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and file state bankrupcy, and all this silly leveraging (binding arbitration) is gone!

Its coming!

We may as well vote to remove binding arbitration, it was a con on the tax payers to begin with!


0

I think Jerry Brown needs to prepare to take the State of California through a very well planned and controlled bankruptcy. The local county and state might need to follow suit. Do it sooner then later…


The pension liabilities and compensation “packages” at ALL levels over government are killing this country. They WILL be re-aligned one way or the other — either in a controlled manner or one with a great deal more pain.


As far as the PD and FD, let’s give them 401K’s along with the rest of government employees. Pay them based on what it would cost to replace them and NOT the maximum we can pay them before we break the backs of the taxpayers.


0

States can’t declare bankruptcy.


0

New legislation is being drafted now to allow states to file bankrupsy!


0

NYT

work in progress


0

Yeah. And currently states cannot declare bankruptcy.


0

They’re not in the same union. However, our police deserve every bit of the same respect.


0

Our police do not deserve any more respect than any other human being, period. Why would they? Because a perception has been created in the psyche of the American public that people in uniform somehow put their lives in any more danger than any one else all in the pursuit of our safety? Someone’s been drinking the koolaid.


0

Precisely what I said.


0

When I saw the arbitration headline on Trib this morning it took me back to 2000, when SLO voters approved “Measure S” (Binding arbitration).


At the time I was a SLO police officer, and had gone door to door with other off-duty police & firefighters in SLO asking folks to sign the initiative to get the measure on the ballot. The voters were well informed and understood the logical aspects of arbitration.


In fact, we had to get the signatures twice, because the City clerk invalidated the first group, citing a wording error that had previously gone ‘unnoticed’ by the City Attorney.


This binding arbitration structure was intended to force the City reps to negotiate honestly. The BA process of negotiation was entirely open to public viewing. Transparency. That was the idea. Forced honesty. The entire transcript of these negotiations are still on the web. Funny, I don’t recall that the local paper took any interest in the open arbitration process (held at Embassy Suites)


Prior to BA, the public had no idea of what took place. All was done in ‘secret’. Think Bell.


The nation’s economy has tanked, mainly as a result of dishonesty within the legions of our banking and investment schemers, and the effects of their incestuous ties with government. The cuts that state and local governments face, have, and will, effect all public employees (o.k., maybe not so much managers).


The police/fire binding arbitration process has nothing to do with raising or lowering costs. It has to do with requiring an open, equitable, negotiation process. City managers, and for that matter, Chambers of Commerce, do not like the concept. Perhaps that’s why the League of California Cities worked so hard at defeating a statewide measure early in the decade.


Truth can sometimes be frustrating.


0

Let’s not forget that it was only the PD that used binding arbitration, NOT the fire department. The fire department has NEVER had to use binding arbitration.


0

I hope this is real, not simply lip service. I don’t think most SLO voters really knew what they were voting for when they approved binding arbitration. It’s high time with fix this as just one part in reforming civil servants’ horribly bloated compensation packages.


Just watch the song and dance put on by the local unions and their minions — Marx and Ashbaugh. It’s going to be entertaining. No surprise that Carter and Carpenter would support this. Smith is a big surprise. Once the chains of binding arbitration are lifted, let’s seriously look at compensation rollbacks…


0

First off, I am not in either union, the firefighters or the police association; I do receive a pension from another, totally unrelated union for the industry that I worked in for over thirty years. That said, how convenient for everyone to collectively forget that both the police officers and firefighters went for over two years without a new contract, without any consideration of a pay raise. “Binding Arbitration” is unique due to the fact that both parties involved in the negotiations HAVE TO, BY LAW adhere to the results of the arbitration. The city of San Luis Obispo failed to negotiate with any effort at even coming close to what the POA and firefighters were asking for; by law neither the police or the firefighters are allowed to strike, which is usually the last resort of organized labor when their demands are not being addressed; that was the atmosphere that the unions brought the vote for the citizens of San Luis to decide on. If the city had been negotiating in good faith or had even tried a little to have some sort of attempt to reach out to the unions, there would have never even been a vote on binding arbitration. When the city and the unions entered into the binding arbitration, there was no guarantee of what the results were going to be, and I believe that the unions were surprised at what happened. Perhaps if the city had actually tried to offer anything the binding arbitration would have turned out differently. My main point here is that binding arbitration is not the inherent evil; the negotiations could have turned out much differently and the unions would have had to abide by that ruling; the real “evil” in my opinion was the absolute refusal of the city to even attempt to bargain with the unions, and that came back to bite them in the ass which in turn costs the taxpayers of the city. If there is anyone who is to blame for the overly generous settlement that the unions received, it is those on behalf of the city that refused to negotiate in good faith.


0

I am not sure if I agree with you that binding arbitration is not the inherent evil. I agree that if the City had successfully re-negotiated the contracts, the dispute would have never gone to the arbitrator. However, I don’t think SLO residents really grasped the risk in approving the binding arbitration vote. I feel that the union representatives clearly understood that they held the upper hand with binding arbitration in their back pocket. I think that it would be hard for anybody to not side with public safety employees if the two sides don’t agree. If I remember correctly, the arbitrator cannot find a middle ground (such as in mediation), it’s either all or nothing. So, the public safety employees prevailed and now enjoy a 3% at 50 retirement formula. This retirement formula is not sustainable in the long run at our present revenue collection rate. The problem is how we get the public safety employees to roll back their benefits without coming across as an anti PD/FD community.


0

VERY well said…


Even if the current contract had not gone to arbitration, the taxpayers of SLO would still have a shotgun pointed at their heads during future negotiations with always the threat of the trigger being pulled.


Just watch the PD and FD communities go WILD over this one — support getting rid of binding arbitration and you’re ANTI police and fire with Marx and Ashbaugh leading the riot!


0

“…This retirement formula is not sustainable in the long run at our present revenue collection rate…”


That’s not the point. PD&FD compensation should be based on what their services are worth, NOT what they can be paid without breaking the bank. If SLO can hire qualified candidates at a lower cost it should be allowed to do so.


0

slocorruptionhater,


To set the facts straight, the retirement plans the City employees have was not awarded through binding arbitration. These plans were negotiated willing with the City in times when the costs were low, were done in a phased in approach, and in lieu of wages. The retirement plans are not unique to SLO as almost every City in the state offers their employees the same plan and are in the same situation. What is unique to SLO is that instead of the City owning up to the fact that they spent $12 million that they should have saved for a rainy day when PERS was superfunded- they now have declared their employees as public enemy #1 and are being blamed for all the financial ills of the 2nd great depression. Remember one thing as the propaganda builds up- the Unions do not have the pen and the check book to spend the people’s money…


0

@mrehand…I stand corrected on what was achieved through binding arbitration. Going back to the issue of the retirement plan, I still think that 3% at 50 is not a reasonable pension liability to impose on taxpayers. I am well familiar with the “Pension Envy” argument, but whatever happened to the 2% at 55 that seemed to be the norm. I find that formula totally reasonable. Under that formula, any public employee that elects to spend their entire professional career in the public sector would earn anywhere between 80% to 100% of their salary at 69.5 years of age if they started in their early 20’s. With the 3% at 50, you see a number of employees, retiring from one public sector employer in their early 50’s (at nearly a full pension), only to move to another public sector job and become vested in yet another retirement plan (California allows multiple pensions). Since many/most live to see their 80’s or better, that means that in many cases, taxpayers are carrying full pensions for 30 years or more (don’t forget about the double dipping folks as well). I don’t understand how this is reasonable or defendable.


0

slocorruptionhater, I think we can all agree that we don’t want a 69 year old Fireman pulling up when our house is on fire and attempting to put on his 50 pounds of gear, grab and throw a heavy ladder to our second story window and attempt to climb in and rescue you and/or your family member do you? Or how about a 69 year old cop taking on some steriod taking, methed-out crazies attacking your family in a grocery store parking lot by himself/herself? Lets be grown ups and face the facts that firefighting and police work are dangerous and physical jobs that require explosive power, instantaneous clarity in decision making, and unyielding stamina in the face of personal danger at any moment when the bell rings- that is why they can and in most cases should retire at age 50 for all of our sake. It is how it has always been- the best of the young and strong protect and defend the citizenry at large.


One area I will fully agree with you on is on the double-dipping and pension spiking. If you look statistically at who those system abusers are- the vast majority are top management officials not the little guys out on the streets. If you seek out the PERS $100,000 a year club for SLO guess what you will see? That’s right all top management officials- not a union member among them. So lets be fair and quit attacking the working man/woman who is serving the public day in and day out with dignity and dedication for what the manipulators at the top of the food chain do to stuff their own pockets at taxpayers expense on their way out the door…


0

@mrehand…your example paints a comical picture of what would happen if a fireman or policeman was still on a ladder truck or on patrol at age 69. I did get a hearty laugh when I read your post. But, you can’t make policy based on extreme examples. I think that you would agree that a fit and healthy 55 year old can still perform the duties of a fire fighter and a policeman just fine. So, if that person were to retire from the FD/PD at 55 they would likely still have many years of productive life ahead of them. So, why as a society do we have to pay a fire fighter or a policeman a full pension starting in their 50’s? All I am after is a more reasonable retirement formula. I have no gripe with their salaries.


0

slocorruptionhater: You stated: “If I remember correctly, the arbitrator cannot find a middle ground …” Sorry, your belief does not constitute a fact; if you have evidence that an arbitrator has to only choose one side or the other, please present a link where that is stated as a fact by a legal definition, accredited news source or government publication listing how this is the case. It was my understanding in the binding arbitration that the city and the POA entered into, each side had the opportunity to recommend one arbitrator and then a third, impartial arbitrator would also be part of the decision making process and the city declined to offer a name of their own. I stated that I thought the POA was surprised by the settlement because the decision could have gone much differently, either “splitting the baby”, meaning that some things the city wanted and some things the union wanted would have been awarded, or it all could have gone the way the city wanted. One further point to consider in whether or not the city should “get out of” binding arbitration for future negotiations; even the most sympathetic arbitrator now days realizes that cities every where are not doing well and that pensions and wages for local governments are going to have to be reexamined to keep cities from going bankrupt, so the likely hood of outrageous contracts or settlements are most likely a thing of the past. The other way to avoid going to arbitration is to actually do the hard work of negotiating so that you don’t end up in arbitration.


0

bob,


It’s all one way or the other. City charter section 1107:


“The Board of Arbitrators shall decide each issue by majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on that issue it finds most nearly conforms…”


Further, it ridiculously uses a Bay Area price index:


“…changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services using the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose index…”


Further, the “comparison cities” that were proffered by the Police Officers Association are all very rich, and in most cases, much more urban than SLO. Most of these cities lie within the commute distance of the Bay Area, if not within the Bay Area itself:


– Gilroy

– Pleasanton

– Napa

– Santa Barbara

– Santa Cruz

– Salinas

– Monterey

– Petaluma

– Santa Maria


Finally:


>>””The other way to avoid going to arbitration is to actually do the hard work of negotiating so that you don’t end up in arbitration.””


That’s a cop out. All the unions have to do is be obstinate and then claim it’s the city that won’t compromise. Likely, that’s what they did do last time and our white bread news rag gladly ate the slop from that trough.


0

No, it came back to bite TAXPAYERS in the ass!


SLO needs salary/wage reform!


0

Baby steps in the right diretion… Wonder if the state or feds are seriously looking at renegotiating these?


0

What they are not telling you about the Binding Arbitration clause is that it is the last line of defense between your families, business, and neighborhoods safety. For it serves as a deterrent for both sides to be reasonable and keeps the City in line with industry standards on critical public safety staffing levels that some want to slash and burn at our citizens risk ultimately to line their own pockets and attack the working class who dare to stand up for their rights in this town. It is a very disturbing conclusion that City Administraton is essentially stating publically they have no desire or intent to bargain in good faith since they despise and fear independant third party review-which in fact has happened only one time in over a decade of this citizen supported law. As special interest groups like the Chamber leaders scheme in the shadows of more ways to siphon more money from the City the need for this critical tool to protect public safety levels is now more important than ever…


0

What a diaper load…


“Industry standards?” “protect public safety levels?”


And the bull…., errrrrr, hyperbole begins…


0

Crusader,


You make some interesting points, what is your position about the City Manager demanding a 20% raise just to take the job with over 100 other applicants waiting in the wings? Clearly we could have filled the job for less money. What say you about that? Perhaps we could have paid less that $13,000 for a new TV for the Chamber of Commerce? Could a skate park be drawn up for less than $150,000? Either you have a problem with Government waste or is it just organized workers that enrage you so much?


What is at risk if you read the MOA’s with employee groups and have listened to their side of the story is minimum daily staffing levels which is absolutely a safety issue for the public, visitors, and first responders themselves. These “industry standards” are put into place by emergency response experts in determining what level of service is needed to keep the public safe. If you want to read what the City’s own study on Fire Service that the Council has already adopted stated read here.- http://www.slocity.org/fire/admin.asp


0

I was not part of the team that hired Lichtig but like many I have reviewed her contract and it makes me furious. I think it’s also clear that Lichtig is playing SLO for a fool — she’s using our town as a stepping stone. She’ll be gone as soon as she gets a better offer. I hope it’s soon.


Yes, you can point out other areas where gov’t wastes money in an attempt to obfuscate but it does no good. Gov’t employees are over compensated and it’s doing a number on the taxpayers.


You know what I could like to see? A comparison of SLO City PD & FD budgets of 1981,1991, 2011 and 2011 with inflation and population changes factored in.


The SLO PD & FD are bloated beyond belief. Every time I see “T1” I want to spit. It’s time to cut.


0

Crusader, I appreciate the consistency on your compensation position. Too often top management gets a free pass to give themselves raises and then they go on to shine the light on the little guy to take it off themselves. I too concur that Lichtig is probably a short timer looking to build her resume on slash and burn tactics leaving a wake of destruction in her path, and lowering the quality of life for all of us who have planted our flags here to raise our family-for all of our sake I hope I am wrong about this.


As far as cuts to PD and FD, the budgets have been cut several times over the past five years- it now cuts into bone. It often goes overlooked by those who despise an organized workforce that all City Unions have been quick to freeze salaries and benefits and the Fire Union offered a three year wage freeze and to pay more of their pension costs this year- only to be rejected by City Hall. 911 call loads continue to increase not decrease like some other industry’s in this economy ask yourself what do you want Fire and Police not to respond to? I’m sorry, but I for one am not willing to say that one group of citizens deserves emergency services and others do not. It is time to trim the fat elsewhere and get back to what City’s were founded for- to provide for the safety of its citizens and public works infrastructure.


0

I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to Lichtig. She’s an easy read. Does she even live in SLO County?


You ask the inflammatory question “what do you want Fire and Police not to respond to?”


My response (other then it’s a garbage question) is that we need leaders and managers that can do more with less. Other towns and counties certainly do. Maybe we need to benchmark the most efficient counties/cities and follow their best practices. Better yet let’s can our managers and hire theirs! Wait a minute. The way our local county/city works we would need to engage an expensive outside consultant to do the actual work of comparing.


Let me just throw out and off-the-cuff suggestion. Let’s compare the per capita PD and FD costs of SLO, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Lompoc, Clovis and Culver City, CA No huge analysis — just a quick bottom line “sanity check” review. I think it would spotlight some problems very quickly.


0

Ha! You are right on the money about them hiring out more consultants for such a search! You are definately on to something about the managers doing more with less- there are numerous City Departments that as soon as a management position opens up it gets filled immediately while the hiring freeze continues at the lower levels and leaves the workers who get their hands dirty left behind holding to bag to do more work with even fewer co-workers to carry the load.


Good question on how the comp cities were arrived at. The comparison cities have been painstakingly looked at for all bargaining groups based on numerous criteria for decades. There are many arguements out there such as population, demographics, call loads, university/college coverage, specialty skills, geographic size, etc. that go into such a review on both sides to come to what is an accurate representation of determining fair market value for the skilled labor provided. The comparison cities are included in the MOA’s at the City’s website for all to see for the employee groups, not sure if the transparency on top management’s comparable Cities is as easily found, let me know if you can find them please. As these criteria are always in flux, they are always fair game for both sides to review in negotiations- I do believe for the most part the lists of current cities when all factors are taken into account have been mutually agreed upon without conflict by both the City Council, managment, and employee groups.


0

@Crusader…”Every time I see “T1″ I want to spit” Every time I see T1 my wife rolls her eyes because she has to put up with a 30 minute diatribe on wasteful spending. Seeing our new double-decker bus evokes the same reaction. Oh wait, it was paid with grants, so it was FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


0

It’s a beauty bus, SLO is even more attractive because of it.


0

“T1” is a rolling symbol of the waste in government today. It’s worse than those two tiny tiller fire trucks that were bought and then left to rot behind Fire Station #1 several years ago. It’s an expensive toy.


The first time I saw “T1” was in the Christmas parade. It seemed to have a difficult time turning from Monterey onto Osos Street. It seemed like the even longer privately owned semi trucks had an easier time? Maybe the tillerman just needed more practice?


Now I see it parked in front of Jamba Juice on Marsh or at Scolaris where the hard working firefighters apparently stock-up on their victuals for a long night.


SLO City bought it to fight fires at the new Cal Poly dorms (the State even kicked in $10K I believe?) and the planned “high rise” on Garden Street, right? Given its limited application you would think that “T1” could have been a used truck without all the bells and whistles for a fraction of the price right? Nooooooo, because then we couldn’t rent out T1 and her crew to fight fires at high rises in neighboring communities. LOL!!


The horrible waste that is government…


0

No surprise here. Ashbaugh and Marx are literally in bed with the cops and firefighters. Thankfully Jan Marx is a one-term mayor. Hope Carter runs in 2012.


At least now, the people will get to vote.


0

A small step forward in the right direction. Binding arbitration needs to be abolished. Lessons need to be learned from the fools who promoted and approved this blundering debacle to prevent this type of arrogant greed from ever occurring again.


0
1 2