City Council candidates are perhaps breathing a sigh of relief
now that a city attorney’s recommendation on binding arbitration
for public safety seems to make it a non-issue for the upcoming
election.
City Council candidates are perhaps breathing a sigh of relief now that a city attorney’s recommendation on binding arbitration for public safety seems to make it a non-issue for the upcoming election.
That assumption would be a mistake. Binding arbitration remains a top-of-mind issue for Gilroyans, and we hope voters will make it clear to all candidates that their position on it will play a large role in determining how they vote.
Why is it so important? Because binding arbitration allows an unelected arbiter, responsible to no one, to tell Gilroyans how they must spend their money. If the arbiter decides that police or firefighters must be given a benefit or pay increase, it must be done, regardless of whether the city can afford it, regardless of what other city services must be cut to pay for it, regardless of whether its how Gilroyans or their elected representatives think their money ought to be spent.
Gilroy instituted binding arbitration when Gilroyans approved a ballot measure in the late 1980s. Since then, we’ve seen the true cost of this ill-advised labor plan, as police and fire unions force the city into binding arbitration to win fat retirement packages and expensive staffing level requirements.
Recently City Council members floated the idea of asking voters to reconsider binding arbitration, but have temporarily backed down after a city attorney advised that the issue must first be discussed at the negotiating table.
This much is clear: The binding arbitration experiment has failed taxpayers. Gilroy spends an obscene portion of its general fund on police and fire services. It’s time to let voters reconsider; if not immediately, then as soon as feasibly possible.
City Council members work for Gilroy taxpayers, not for the police and fire unions. Because of that fiduciary role, citizens have a right and a duty to learn where candidates stand on the issue of binding arbitration.
Firefighter and police officer union representatives aren’t going to forget about this issue. “The fire union will be having an endorsement process this year, most likely with the POA again,” Jim Buessing, a firefighter union official, told reporter Serdar Tumgoren. “We do have a list of questions that we ask all the candidates. Fairness and equity at the bargaining table is going to be one of the things we ask about.”
We’ll be asking about it, too, because we believe that binding arbitration and fairness and equity have proven themselves to be mutually exclusive concepts over the last two decades. Voters this November should pay close attention to City Council candidates’ answers and keep an especially keen ear for the sound of waffling.
