Unions: County Council Member’s Labor Proposal Is a Nonstarter

fire them.

The union rep seems to be saying that he prefers laying off the junior members of his his union so the senior members will keep getting wage increases during this depression.

Dow and Lambert are correct. We need to have mechanisms in place for down years that will keep services in place and people working.
'
Public servants need to realize that the economy has changed and average working people are really hurting.

Question for union leadership: Suppose you must choose between layoffs, on the one hand, and furloughs, wage reductions, etc., on the other hand, and you (in leadership) and all of your union members have an equal chance of being laid off, which option would you choose?

As a city union member, I voted for the furloughs, and will vote for them again next year, because I'm sure they will be needed again. However, I am often frustrated by my union's seemingly tone-deafness to anything but the concerns of senior employees.

My solution to thinning the ranks while creating the least amount of stress to both employees and the public is simple: Offer to keep paying the health care coverage for all employees with enough time in to retire. It's a cheap and easy way to liven up the employee gene pool, and get rid of a lot of the deadwood who are just hanging on until they are eligible for medicare.

The Union does not seem to get it. The rest of us have salary reductions, increased health care copays, less stable jobs, and are willing to work with our employers. “tantamount to giving up all bargaining rights” – what? It seems to me this is dealing with a recession like we have not seen in over three quarters of a century in a common sense way. Maybe they should lay off lots of employees to make the union happy.

The whole thing is an exercise in self-interest, really, and I've seen it happen before. The employees that expect to survive layoffs will vote for layoffs; those who fear getting axed will vote against layoffs. Since the former group is more influential, it wins out. But when the county executive, who is a liberal Democrat, sees what needs to be done to keep the county functioning, then the writing is on the wall.

Aside from the union, who else is against Lambert's proposal?

A protracted negotiation process would likely bring a deadline and process breakdown occurs when there is a known deadline. It would probably sound like: (1) budget shortfall vs. holes in the budget; (2) economy's bad vs. “we're not like the private sector”; (3) concessions let you keep your job vs. more with less = slow spiraling death. Or (4) YOU (employee) spend beyond your means vs. no, YOU (government) spend beyond your means.

So it's “what part of no money don't you get” vs. “it sets a bad precedent.”

Bring in an arbitrator at the front of the process, maybe that's what Dow's thinking. This could be a Klassic trying to run a strained organization against contract principles. More recently, the governor of NH laid off 250 state workers after four months of bargaining against a deadline which resulted in an agreement, which was followed by a majority vote against it (as encouraged by union leaders). They wouldn't take the furlough days/more with less.

All those months of bargaining resulted in an agreement, though, but it took a day or two for the union leadership to sway its members to reject it.

Council Members earn far more then the average union worker. First the Council Members should take a pay and benefit cut before asking others to do so. Then the Council should look at other ways Council costs should be cut. It is very easy to cut another person's benefits and leave you own in tack.

We are in an era when it is fashionable to spend trillions bailing out banks, insurance companies and wall street while they still earn 100's of billions in bonuses. Yet the government refuses to tax them fairly while at the same demanding austerity for the middle class.

Just how many millions did the county lose when they bought derivatives? 14 million? Why should county workers and tax payers have to make up the short fall?

What of the numerous public/private partnership projects? Have they made the county any money? Outsourcing has that save the county any money?

I think that all transactions and functions of county government should be audited before we decide to cut benefits and services.

How unsurprising: the anti-union folks out in droves here on Publicola; proving once again that this generation of “green” Economist reading conservatives don't get it, but will find out when their gravy train dires up– at the age of 40.

The county should declare Chapter 9 Bankrupty and have a judge re-write the contracts.

not interested in doing more with less! We are all doing more with less in private sector. These public unions are totally out of touch. We cannot afford their demands. I'm for the bankruptcy option as well

hmmm,

I think its fair to say our generation just wants a fair shot at economic success in a system where merit determines outcomes. The unions generally prefer protecting the benefits of tenured employees at the expense of new ones. So, we don't want a gravy train, we want competition.

In terms of benefits, we know from simple demographic numbers that we do not have enough workers to support the level of benefits promised to prior generations, and that the economy is not growing fast enough to make up the difference. That's why, on a national level, the Social Security age must go up or level of benefits go down (or go Greek and just have a sovereign debt crisis) at some point. Locally, we can't afford to guarantee 2% raises to public unions when overall levels of income are dropping, nor can we afford to provide the level of benefits to retirees in 2010 that we could to retirees in 1980. Some of this we could see coming, hence the move from PERS 1 to 2 and now 3. What was less appreciable was the level of economic growth moving ahead. From 1980-2000, the national economy grew at a tremendous annual rate, largely driven by the expansion of debt. All the while, incomes did not grow much at all, largely due to global wage arbitrage and outsourcing. What little growth that did occur in inflation adjusted terms accrued to the top 1% of the population that benefited most from the globalization trend. Now that Fed has lost control of the wagon (interest rates at zero at still no lend – hello Japan) the housing bubble cannot be re-inflated, the home ATM is closed and we'll see the underlying trend that has been with us for the last 30 years much more clearly.

Couple this reality with demographics and you see why locking in 2% public sector wage growth is not prudent

(why aren't these posts numbered, BTW?)

Unions sometimes only have the resources to protect senior employees because of their weakened bargaining power. Their barganing power is weakened because of the so called “free market” discipline imposed upon individual workers and their tiny (by comparison to companies and governments) unions, while these employer institutions get all of the advantages. The second any union gets any kind of advantage whatsoever, people cry “foul” because they assume that if someone is doing better in wages, they are screwing everyone else over (keeping up with the Joneses mentality). Yes, it is also true that employers can leverage their power to say, effectively “you can give your senior employees something, or we can give you nothing at all”. To blame the concept of a union for this predicament is asinine. Read your history.

Seriously though– you sound like a neo lib trying to trot out the globalization argument to justify lewer wages, as if these macro decisions we the result of an invisible hand, and not the result of actual policy made by real people, and that all of the terrible things that we must lie down and accept are just inevitable; sonds like the Boomer mentality has worn off on you. That shows that you have not really attempted to investigate how economics work.

In short, argue for parity with senior employees. That's fair. Tear down people just to get nothing in return– wth? Some Republican says they are going to roll out some cost cutting measure– dream on. It's grandstanding, because that is not how barganing works– in most circumstances. Go to communties where it has and see what poverty has manifested.

Ella, you really need to take an econ class. You're advocating the basic equivalent of a 2x tax on the private sector: we're already on the hook for the first one (bank bailouts, which have in large part been repaid, aside from a portion of Citi & largely AIG; some other small banks haven't but the larger big boys mostly have), the 2nd however, would come in terms of more expensive cost of living once the government closes these “loop holes” and enbarks upon their “witch hunt” will just lead to those “punished companies” passing it all back onto the consumer – you and I.

And whom do you propose pay for the County's investment in derivatives (I suspect it may be more than $14 million)? The banks? Who will then pass that on in one form or another to tax payers (spread out nationally however, so you may be onto something).

I think the County should be treated like every other business out there. When revenues go down, you make cuts; what's the ratio of “private” employees taking pay cuts and working more hours (and not getting paid for overtime) compared to county (and city) employees taking pay cuts, working more hours, and not getting paid overtime (I think they get paid for anything over 40 hours of work). You see, governmental jobs are mostly “cush” that's the reason some people aspire to work for them.

Welcome to the real world folks…..

Lest we forget the “tax base” is shrinking…it only gets worse – who's going to pay for that?!?

the slog has a better, well-thought out post on this same topic.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/…

the slog makes the point that if the council approves this, then labor will always bear the brunt of budget cuts rather than forcing policy makers to look for other cuts (i.e., cutting nonessential but pet projects or programs)… which is true. looking at the 2010 budget, employees aren't furloughing this year — and lo and behold, the county was able to find other cuts instead, which to my limited knowledge, didn't result in a huge number of layoffs. so where did those savings come from?

also, if labor is always expected to make concessions, there's no incentive for anyone to look at our (regressive) tax structure and try to improve it.

another thought — could this result in a work force that retains “dead weight” employees longer than if layoffs occurred and those people were laid off in times of contraction? (cutting the overall pay/benefits of your work force rather than laying off could mean the best employees will have incentive to leave…)

as a union employee i would also say that personally i don't philosophically disagree with making the COLA minimum zero. however, a couple thoughts: there is a cap of 6%, which I would argue should go away, AND the actual COLA employees get each year is only 90% of the actual COLA… so if we set the minimum at zero, it would be more fair to set the employee COLA at 100% of actual COLA.

Union Employee, thank you for your post. Can you please answer whether or not you have to pay for health insurance benefits for you and your family? Also, do you get paid overtime if you work more than 40 hours in the week? Also, is there any mandatory overtime provision if you, say, work more than 15 minutes past an hour (like do you get paid for a full hour or anything like some in the the construction industry and longshoreman I think get 2 hours), how many paid holidays to you get and how many vacation and or sick days do you get? It's really hard to compare the private sector with public sector when we don't have all the facts.

Thank you!

A bankruptcy would destroy the County's credit rating making borrowing much more expensive. Cramming down the employees is not as simple as you think.

I was not justifying it, just stating the fact: against the backdrop of larger economic/policy dynamics, we don't have the local tax base to support wages rising faster for public unions than for the overall population. I don't want public employees to be unfairly burdened by spending cuts, either. My issue was with the union head saying that they were unwilling to do more with less, e.g., sacrifice at all, when all of the rest of us are doing so.

I am fully aware that globalization could take a different shape if we choose different policies at the federal level, both in terms of trade regs (i.e., enforce similar enviro standards in china as here) and taxation policies (I'm firmly in favor of higher taxes for the highest income earners since they are the ones benefitting most handsomely from the more globalized economy).

Finally, I support private unions in their negotiations with corporate management – go to it. The stockhholders or owners are the counter-party. But for public unions at local government, its our local taxpayer money, so the negotiating you speak of is really just robbing peter to pay paul, so there's no net effect on poverty.

Just want to point out: your bit about OT is simply not true. The public employees who do get paid overtime are primarily sheriff deputies, jail guards and bus drivers — there are no comparables in the private sector and the county has trouble filling those positions, and I doubt there are many people who think those positions SHOULDN'T get overtime. Very few other county employees get OT. So as our colleagues leave through attrition or get laid off (and in past years as we've furloughed), most of us DO have to work more hours without any additional pay.

It's true that we have yet to take an actual “cut” in pay, but in the good times, we also don't get bonuses (unlike the private sector) or raises above 4-5% generally including the cost of living adjustment. So when most people I know in the private sector were getting fat bonuses and raises when the economy was hot, I didn't hear any of them saying we public sector employees should be getting bonuses and raises…… This is the flip side.

Oh, I just posted some info above. Happy to repeat and add. (BTW, thanks for asking rather than just slamming.)

Most county employees don't get OT (I would guess). The only ones I know of are sheriff's deputies, jail guards and bus drivers — no comps in the private sector, but if we were to not pay them OT, they would definitely leave to go work for the city, Pierce, Snohomish, etc…. Most county employees ARE picking up more work as our workforce gets smaller. Also, I'd point out, sheriff and jail guards are probably the biggest parts of general county government, so as we've tried to keep public safety prioritized and minimize cuts there, the rest of the government is getting squeezed.

I don't know about mandatory OT for those folks, but as I mentioned, I think the OT rate for the rest of county employees is small (maybe some receptionists, etc., but not the county as a whole). I can't say that for sure. Obviously, I get zero OT. I wish I got OT.

Paid holidays, we get Xmas, New Year's, MLK Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving (plus the day after). Most of my friends in the private sector get all of the same (though maybe not MLK or Presidents Day, some do, some don't). I accrue about 1 day of vacation and 1 day of sick leave per month. I don't know how that compares to most private sector employees. I don't get any other regular leave beyond that.

Also, as I mentioned above, it's true that we have yet to take an actual “cut” in pay except when we furloughed, but in the good times, we also don't get bonuses (unlike the private sector) or raises above 4-5% generally including the cost of living adjustment. So when most people I know in the private sector were getting fat bonuses and raises when the economy was hot, we in the public sector employees were just staying ahead of the rate of inflation (and I definitely didn't hear anyone in the private sector articulating that we should be getting raises/bonuses)…… Unfortunately, this is the flip side, and it makes private sector folks mad. We'll never make lots and lots of money or see huge raises, but we do generally enjoy some stability.

Re: health care.

We do not pay any monthly fixed amounts. We do have deductibles/co-pays that vary depending on whether you have a family/spouse and whether you are categorized as “Gold/Silver/Bronze” per our healthy incentives program. (Basically, if you answer a health survey and track your exercise or what you eat every day for 2 or 3 months, you can be in Gold.) If you're Gold your deductible is something like $1000 for a family and the county pays a % of costs after you pay your deductible. (I think it's 85%.)

I would definitely acknowledge that our health plans are generous. (But I'd hate to see that get cut as opposed to seeing real health care reform happen so everyone can benefit from having good access to health care.)

Union Employee, thank you for your response. I appreciate you clearing up my “bit” on OT, please note, I stated “I think” not for sure, but now I know. Although, I have met with plenty of people on various county bodies who say they do get paid OT for anything over 40 hours, but probably not enough to sway either way. I agree with you (if I understood correct) that certain positions are a no brainer for OT; many are not however. There are plenty of people in the private sector who should not either, so we agree on that too. The difference though, a portion of private sector wages are paid from people who actually own the businesses and take the risk of loss (like their net worths, for example); very few in the public sector have anything at risk – so please, evaluate the risk premium, you can't paint with a broad brush and consider equal because they're not. Moreover, many companies that pay bonuses, do so out of their own pockets or profitability; County is substantially different from private because there is limited risk, funded by tax payers (mostly) and you cannot use the same measurement tools because they are drastically different businesses. You can always get a private sector job and enjoy the same perks but you can't compare the two.

Public servants should be compensated fairly, I do not question or deny that, but you also cannot compare the two – I've worked across the table from plenty of public employees and there is simply no comparison.

Union Employee, thank you for responding. Yup, County gets a better package than some or most private. Private sector pays for spouse and dependents and some pay for a portion of their own premiums; health plans sound familiar – but, please note, you're already getting an added $5,000 to $12,000 per year in benefits (yup, that's what it costs the private sector w/kids and spouse), so technicially you're either making that much more than private, or private is making that much less, and we still have deductibles as well. Health care reform will add more costs (and reduce pay packages in many cases). Good concept just not well thought out, IMO. Holidays are similar. Vacation & sick, hard to tell, depends on tenure and also the company. But, a lot of private sector companies these days don't offer sick but will usually give 15 days per year either way (that's a 9 day paid difference right there). Also, many in the private sector have not had raise or bonuses for many years, so don't lump us all in the same boat…still waiting, been since 2004. Anyway, the point is (don't take personally) some folks out there need to consider everything and can't just jump on a bandwagon because a newspaper (or blog) profiles certain groups or people, not all are the same and many don't have the lucrative packages out there. BUT, when I see Boeing employees striking as the economy is clearly going into the shitter, jobs are going left and right, and they're asking for raises, guarantees, all sorts of this – it's pretty friggin ridiculous…so, I am also guilty of assuming all unions are the same (county vs. boeing, for example), but, I suspect none of the leaders of any of these unions have sacrificed; I think the union members need to look at their leadership and really ask – “are they doing this for me and what's good for me, or themselves” I would be amazed if that answer were greater than 50% for the union member.

Thanks again for your correspondence and honesty.

I agree 10000 percent that you can't compare the two… that's why I actually think it's ludicrous to think we should get huge bonuses or raises… but I would question why then in your original post did you write the following (my theory is that private sector employees like to compare when it's to their advantage, but not to compare when it's to the public sector employee's advantage):

“I think the County should be treated like every other business out there. When revenues go down, you make cuts; what's the ratio of “private” employees taking pay cuts and working more hours (and not getting paid for overtime) compared to county (and city) employees taking pay cuts, working more hours, and not getting paid overtime (I think they get paid for anything over 40 hours of work). You see, governmental jobs are mostly “cush” that's the reason some people aspire to work for them.”

Union Employee, I wrote the quoted text because I believe a lot of individuals seek public employment for the security and limited risk of layoffs, substantially different from private sector. There's a HUGE value to that comfort, a comfort that many in the private sector do not enjoy unless they own their own business; otherwise we're always a step away from the chopping block.

Point being, if people want to argue the two from an equality perspective there are certain “psychological benefits” that come with public sector employment, that's really my point.

The councilmembers were in the paper last year as taking cuts in their salaries. I read recently that they cut their budgets 13% while the sherrif got a 1% cut. The county as all government agencies are audited regularly by the state and internally. Yes, the county lost money as did all the other accounts across the state who are experiencing the economic downturn. Outsourcing is not something the county does much as the jobs stay with the county employees. Auditing will be getting easier and easier as the budget shrinks……