Afternoon Fizz: Shhh. Don’t Tell Mike McGinn

Because being in a union will somehow make the city not have a deficit? Or because handing over about that much in union dues every month will seem less like a cut?

City Light workers are well paid, have good working conditions, and the only ones who stand to benefit from them unionizing is the union itself.

Unions are great in many context, but here, eh, no.

I guess I don't understand how managers can unionize? I thought that unions were for non-management only….

Unionizing is a bad idea in this situation. Giffy has it right by stating that the Seattle City Light workers seeking to unionize are well paid with good working conditions. This isn't a situation where utility workers on the street are fighting for safe working conditions, sane working hours, or a living wage. This is an attempt not to get laid off.

I've said several times before that McGinn's previous plan to lay off 200 strategic advisors was ill-informed and illogical, but that doesn't mean that some logical structural change isn't needed.

Seattle City Light isn't part of the general fund but Seattle citizens pay for that department with their utility bills every month. If costs for 200 professional and management level employees increase further because of unionization and make it harder to make the departmental changes necessary in this economy, what do you think will happen to your utility rates? Plus, if this group is able to unionize in order to avoid a layoff, don't you think other groups of employees will do the same?

We have to use our resources where they make the most sense. I would rather see some reasonable restructuring within City Light and the resulting saved money used to help the 15-20% of underemployed citizens better afford their utility bills.

Unionization would be a win for 200 Seattle City Light employees but a loss for the citizens of Seattle.

You know the joke. What's big and yellow and sleeps four?

You anti-union people need to quit calling yourselves progressives.

There is nothing progressive about making everyone, including the very poor, pay more for electricity so some people making 60k+ can unionize.

Well– i am very progressive, and I support the union, but if the union streches too far, then i am against it. The Union has recently changed their core value of advocating for the powerless mess to a mouth peice of the specail interest. Nowadays, Unions worry about contracts and dues rather than the well-being of the working class. This is disturbing to many progressive and social justice advocates. The unions need to show that they stand for the progressive values- if they want to earn our support.

For those not following the story: Electricians, line workers, construction drivers, and other physical labor jobs at City Light are already unionized. Those sectors of City Light have already had jobs cut and overtime is strictly curtailed. Next time the power goes out in your neighborhood you'll experience the results of those cuts.

These new “unionizers” are management, planners, and political appointees trying to avoid cuts like the ones they already imposed on the line workers.

I still don't know what's big and yellow and sleeps four.

Line crew truck

A City light or Seattle Public Utility truck…..

Oh give me a break. Seattle's electricity is ridiculously cheap to begin with, and low income people get 50% off it. In addition, there are numerous programs that give you financial assistance, and City Light's credit department will let you string them along for years before cutting you off.

I don't know from union organizing, but crying about electricity rates for anyone in this town is just ridiculous.

Right, we have a pretty good thing going. Why mess it up by unionizing management?

Agreed. So why try to make it into some faux class struggle when we have excellent programs and protections for low income people?

We should be proud of City Light – it has an impressive populist history, and has kept the lights on for over one hundred years – and at rates that are significantly lower than our friends across the lake. Don't degrade that legacy to take shots at unions or employees organizing. Argue your points on their own merit.

If you want something to rail against, how about going after the way that SCL – and to a lesser degree SPU – have been used as the cash cow for pet projects of the council and mayor since the Royer days?

“Tax paying and self-supporting” used to be City Light's motto. That's still true today, but a lot of what they take in ends up in funds that have absolutely nothing to do with low-cost power.

The city's accounting of utility revenue is both arcane and self-serving. It might be something for an investigative reporter to look into….

“Those sectors of City Light have already had jobs cut and overtime is strictly curtailed.”

Not to mention two week's furlough for every unionized employee except for meter readers and journeymen.

Who is taking shots? Unionizing management jeopardizes that legacy! If city light can't trim staff during downtimes where do you think they will get the money to keep the lights on?

Companies with what basically amounts to unions for the well off have a hard time functioning well. I certainly don't want to pay more for electricity to keep well paid people safe from layoffs.

I am not the one trying to change the status quo. I think City light pays its employees well, treats them well, and provides a good service. Let's leave well enough alone.

Not to mention– the rank and file are not all unionized, there is a hiring freeze for most but critical positions, and some positions have been already eliminated. This is also a neo-liberal class war by the managment unionizers who think they should be immune- not really “unfairly” targeted, but not targeted at all.

You're right, “progressive”, how DARE a union be concerned about contracts (working conditions for their members) and dues (operating expenses)?!?! Because everyone knows that their members aren't part of the working class.

If you are such a progressive social justice activist, why aren't you out there trying to reform these unions you know so much about?

Because you don't belong to one, and all you know about them are right-wing talking points.

Unions aren't perfect – nothing ran by humans is – but they're nothing to be afraid of, and they're certainly nothing to deride.

If these folks want to unionize, what business is it yours? They'll still be able to lay them off if that's what you are concerned about – they just need to do it with a little more thought and a little more process.

This whole thing is really sad. I used to work for the City. When new Mayors or Department Heads arrived, most City workers wanted to help them succeed. This Mayor managed to disrespect and threaten his entire management team the first day on the job.

Here's a tip for a new Mayor who's never managed anything. Watch the managers who work for you, the ones you so maligned. Loyalty is a good thing. Good managers are loyal to their employees … the employees will respond by working nights and weekends without pay, turn sommersaults, stand on their heads, anything to help YOU succeed.

I don't know if you can ever regain the confidence and support of your employees. You are going to have to work at it, acknowledge you screwed up, show some respect and demonstrate that you care. Your baby staff too. From what you've shown so far, I don't think you have it in you.

Anything your employees are doing well now is because they care about public service, in spite of you, not due to your leadeship.

It's funny that you point to cuts imposed on the line workers.

Local 77 the IBEW which makes up the majority of City Light's Union line worker staff voted and declined to take furloughs.So they didnt take furloughs. And of the 35 or so positions that were cut in 2009 (many unfilled) a very small portion if not zero of those were Line workers

Your talk of cuts to the the lineworkers is all baloney

Journeymen ARE line workers, and I specifically said they – along with the meter readers – are NOT furloughed.

It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about, but you should at least know the terminology. Otherwise, you look stupid. But I have a feeling that's nothing new for you.

Wouldn't it be great if more of these things were true? Especially the part about managers working nights and weekends “without pay.” But managers and strategic advisors are compensated to get the job done, whether those hours occur during the standard workweek or afterwards.

And it would be great if more of the managers and SAs really did have the qualifications their jobs call for. That's not going to happen given the influence of SMA “networking,” along with hiring practices that are, let's just say, casual.

An unintended consequence–and there's tons of irony here–of the Mayor's Executive Order is that now the manager/strategic advisor group appears safe from any serious review. So when the cuts come, it will be the line staff, once again, who lose their jobs.