City hall’s efforts to regain control over public-safety
spending intensified this week, as city leaders rejected a labor
settlement from the fire union and said they would risk a court
battle to uproot binding arbitration.
Gilroy – City hall’s efforts to regain control over public-safety spending intensified this week, as city leaders rejected a labor settlement from the fire union and said they would risk a court battle to uproot binding arbitration.
The dispute resolution procedure has become a focal point of debate in recent months as a labor impasse drags on between Fire Local #2805 and City Hall. City Councilmen on Thursday will debate a proposed ballot measure that could either repeal binding arbitration or subject arbitrator decisions to voter approval.
In an apparent effort to avoid a politically explosive ballot fight in the fall, union officials reached out to city leaders last week with a new contract proposal.
Fire union representatives offered to compromise on their priciest contract request – a retirement package already offered to local police. Instead of insisting on a package that would allow firefighters to retire at age 50 with 90 percent of pay, union officials agreed to a modified version of the deal that would allow retirement at 55.
But the talks broke down after an hour, union representatives said, because city officials continued to insist that firefighters give up minimum staffing requirements. The department won a baseline staffing level of eight firefighters per shift during the last round of binding arbitration in 2001. At the city’s request, the union agreed to change the mandate to four people per engine when a third fire station opened several years ago.
“We’re not going to give up our safety to sign a small contract,” said Art Amaro, president of Fire Local #2805. “The offer they made to us was ridiculous. It was an embarrassment.…There’s no way we’ll ever sign a contract that affects (staffing levels). If they come up with more stations and more trucks, then maybe we’ll talk about that. We gotta make sure our brothers are safe and go home the next day.”
Mayor Al Pinheiro responded that opinions differ on the dangers associated with various staffing levels.
“We have checked with the chief and others and there’s a school of thought that the three-on-an-engine (staffing), in the way that we’re proposing, does not compromise safety,” Pinheiro said. “Am I firefighter with an expert opinion? Of course not. We depend on the chief and others that tell us it can work. We in no way, shape or form would ever want to hurt our firefighters or put them in a compromising position, but there are two schools of thought here.”
Councilmen have never minced words about their position on staffing levels, added LeeAnn McPhillips, the city’s human resources director.
“That is one of the council’s priorities and we can’t walk away from that,” she said. “The council has said they need to be able to rein in costs and achieve staffing flexibility. We’ve tried to keep that focus clear to local #2805. We hope they’ll come back to the bargaining table, but the city’s top priorities have been clear from the start.”
The latest breakdown in negotiations comes after several months of heightening rhetoric over the merits of binding arbitration. City councilmen, led by Mayor Al Pinheiro, have criticized the dispute-resolution procedure as giving an outsider control over the city’s financial fate. Firefighters and police officers, who are prohibited from striking by state law, see binding arbitration as their only way to gain equal footing in labor negotiations.
During a public hearing last week, union officials argued that any ballot measures affecting binding arbitration must first pass through the normal bargaining process.
“They’re saying that even if you meet and confer and come to an impasse, you have to go to an arbitrator to put it on the ballot,” Mayor Al Pinheiro said. “That one to me blows my mind. As far as I know, I don’t think any citizen voted in 1988 for (binding arbitration) to be in perpetuity. I don’t see how an arbitrator can tell us to put it on a ballot. That to me is the epitome of chaos – when you think the voters voted it on, and now they can’t vote it off? The guy we’re trying to eliminate – he’s the one that gets to decide if we get to vote on that or not?”
Union president Amaro said public safety workers “are willing to go to court” over the matter, but city councilmen were not swayed by the threat.
“I think in a way it reinforces my position,” Councilman Roland Velasco said. “The system is seriously flawed if we have to go through binding arbitration to put a ballot before the voters.”
Councilman Bob Dillon said “the city has a great law firm and we usually win.”
City leaders have repeatedly denied claims that they have orchestrated the labor impasse for political reasons, but their refusal to budge on the union’s latest offer renewed suspicions.
“I said five months ago that it was the mayor’s and city administrator’s plan to drive us to impasse, to drive it to the ballot,” union negotiator Ken Heredia said. “Look around now and tell me what you think.”
City Council will hold a special meeting Thursday at 6pm to debate a ballot measure that could end binding arbitration. The meeting takes place in Council Chambers at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna St.
