It looks like contract negotiations with the city of Long Beach's largest employee union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, aren't going well.
City Manager Pat West is asking the City Council at next Tuesday's meeting to approve 15 days of unpaid furloughs over the next year for the 3,800 workers represented by IAM. The furloughs are necessary to cut $10.1 million from all city budgets, including $3.5 million from the general fund, according to a staff report. What that will mean for residents is unclear, since IAM workers make up the bulk of city employees and handle most of the day-to-day services. For the last five months, City Hall and most city offices were closed one Friday per month as every city employee other than public safety workers was forced to take furloughs.
Negotiations seem to be going better with the other employee associations. The police association has already inked a money-saving deal with the city. Tuesday's meeting agenda includes new memorandums of understanding with unions representing firefighters, prosecutors, attorneys, management, lifeguards and confidential workers that will avoid pay raises in this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, to keep the city's budget in the black.
The only employee association not mentioned in the agenda is the engineers union, with which city officials have said they are continuing to negotiate.
Paul Eakins reports on Long Beach City Hall, and local and regional
politics. A newcomer to the Press-
Kris Hanson reports on the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles,
covering environmental issues, economic triumphs and
pitfalls and trade trends of America’s largest port.
He also writes a weekly column “On The Waterfront”,
appearing Tuesdays, and also produces an occassional video
and column titled “On The Job,” which follows the hard-working
men and women who keep Southern California’s economy humming.
Karen Robes Meeks came to work for the Press-
Let us not forget that the city did better with the POA and Fire because they promised them no furloughs.
IAM just lost my membership. Now's not the time for a hard-line stance. We didnt even elect our Local Lodge, they've been taken over by the National IAMAW. It makes me sad that my, and my family's financial futures rests with these clowns.
The City stated during talks that any employee group that assisted with the deficit for FY 10 would not be subject to furloughs.
The IAM agreed to this and was prepared to defer $8.5 million in employee costs including $3.5 million to the General Fund in exchange for that guarantee.
The City then pulled that offer.
Read you Council agenda: POA and Fire are being guaranteed no furlough and Confidental is getting a 2% raise.
There is no point furloughing sworn personnel. The community and council has been clear that the top priority is to keep cops and firefighters on the streets. Furlough of these employees would have to be covered by overtime. The overtime would cost more than the furlough would save. Then the City would have to make more cuts to make up the difference. The offer made to POA and FFA has absolutely no practical relationship to IAM's situation.
This issue about an earlier offer of no furloughs if IAM made concessions sounds like semantics. If we don't negotiate about our raises, we will be definitely and immediately furloughed. If we do negotiate, we won't. The City seems uncomfortable tying their hands about the potential need for a future furlough. Why? Because if they cannot furlough us, they will have to lay some of us off and reduce city services. Why is the City doing more to protect employees from layoffs than the union? Are only our most senior members in the most critical positions worth protecting? Is the slight chance of their future, temporary furlough worth leaving our newer or less fortuitously placed peers that exposed? For the record, I'm in the first group, and I'm still appalled.
Comparable unions have negotiated triggers for any future furloughs, therefore providing a safeguard against any risk of unnecessary furloughing. Certainly we could get the same or better. This should also provide some reassurance to those who don't realize how little City leadership wants us furloughed (it cuts into service delivery - no one wants to do that). If IAM refuses to negotiate, common sense and basic math suggests the resulting definite and immediate 15 day furlough will cost us considerably more in take-home pay than a salary freeze due to the fact that the furlough will also have to cover the added cost of benefits that will come with the contractual salary increase.