|
|
|
Uploaded: Friday, September 25, 2009, 7:36 AM
A timeline of the negotiations
City of Palo Alto, SEIU still far apart on contract
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff
On Sept. 9, the Service Employees International Union Chapter 521 filed an "unfair practice charge" against Palo Alto, accusing city officials of "bad faith bargaining" and of bypassing the union to discuss compensation issues directly with workers. The union's charge, which was filed with the , included contract proposals offered by both sides throughout the negotiation process. Those proposals, along with other city and union documents, were used to compile the following timeline of the negotiations between SEIU and Palo Alto.
April 2009
City Manager James Keene proposes a budget for fiscal year 2010, which projects a $10 million budget deficit for the following year. In his transmittal letter, Keene said he proposes to achieve $3 million in savings by reducing employee compensation and benefits.
May 2009
Negotiators from the city and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Chapter 521 meet on May 4 to commence negotiations on a new contract. The city's negotiators send the SEIU team a letter saying the city "looks forward to working constructively with the union in the weeks ahead to reach a settlement that will provide a firm foundation for City services and job security." It is the first of more than 20 meetings between May and mid-September.
June 2009
On June 3, the city submits a proposal to the union that includes greater contributions by employees to their pension costs, a new retirement formula and increased employee contributions for retiree health care. The city proposes that its contributions for retiree medical care be limited to 80 percent (the city currently pays 100 percent). The city also proposes switching from a "2.7 at 55" formula for pension payments (2.7 percent of highest annual wage for each year of service for retirement at age 55) to a "2 at 60" formula. On June 8, workers address the City Council and ask the council not to take away any benefits. Greg Schultz, an SEIU negotiator, declares the union's slogan to be "No takeaways." On June 15, the City Council approves the 2010 budget. On June 30, SEIU's contract with the city expires, giving workers the legal right to call a strike. Both sides say they're optimistic a strike can be avoided.
July 2009
SEIU announces that at least 11 union members retired in June, fearing reductions in benefits. In late June and early July, Human Resources Manager Sandra Blanch advises workers that the city would give employees 30-day notice before making any changes to their retirement and health-care plans. The SEIU later calls her discussions with workers a "violation of the city's obligation to deal directly, and only with the SEIU concerning matters within the scope of representation." On July 23, City Manager James Keene sends an e-mail to city staff inviting them to a Town Hall meeting. "It is clear that we have to change; we will have to make some sacrifices and take some losses," the e-mail states. The union later cites the e-mail as evidence that Keene's meetings constitute "improper direct dealing with unit members." Negotiations continue, but the two sides make little progress on benefit reductions.
August 2009
On Aug. 5, the city offers the union a revised proposal that would increase the city's contribution for medical and retiree medical costs from 80 percent in Fiscal Year 2010, to 82 percent in fiscal year 2011. The proposal also includes a 3 percent increase in employees' contributions to the California Public Employees' Retirement System, a $500 cap for tuition reimbursement per employee, and a 1.2 percent wage reduction, effective July 1, 2009.
On Aug. 12, the union submits a revised proposal that includes a 0.5 percent salary increase effective July 1, 2009 and a 3 percent salary increase effective July 1, 2010. On Aug. 18, Palo Alto updates its interactive See-It website and holds an event at City Hall to demonstrate it to the public. On the same evening, the union launches its own website, www.paloaltoisfallingshort.com, which accuses the city of stashing $22 million in secret reserves. The union makes a similar claim on a flier targeting Councilman Larry Klein and misattributes the claim about the $22 million to the Palo Alto Weekly and San Jose Mercury News rather than its own union website. On Aug. 27, SEIU members vote to authorize their negotiators to call a strike. Union officials report that 95 percent of the voting members voted in favor of authorizing the strike. "The city proposals would likely bankrupt our lowest paid employees and their families," Chapter Chair Lynn Krug says.
September 2009
On Sept. 2, SEIU revises its offer and proposes no wage increases for the next two years and a 1 percent furlough between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010. The furlough would save an estimated $650,000. The union also agrees to "open up voluntary furloughs beyond 1 percent" for additional savings. The union also proposes to form a Reorganization Committee consisting of six union members and six City representatives with the goal of $2.5 million in structural savings. As negotiations stall, 151 SEIU workers call in sick on Sept. 8. Union officials deny having organized a "sick-out" but city officials denounce the action. "We appreciate the efforts of all employees who are at work today and those employees who are stepping up to fill in the service gaps to ensure that essential functions will be maintained," City Manager James Keene says in a prepared statement. On Sept. 9, the union files an "unfair practice charge" against Palo Alto with the state Public Employment Relations Board, accusing the city of "bad faith bargaining." On Sept. 22, the union announces that workers will take a "self-imposed furlough" on Sept. 24 and will use the time to volunteer around the city. City officials call the action a one-day strike. On Sept. 24, hundreds of workers picket around City Hall and chant "What do we want? Contracts." City officials declare that 305 of the 526 SEIU workers who were scheduled to appear failed to show up and call the action an "illegal strike."
Source: Russ Carlsen's Negotiations fact sheet (June 24, 2009), cityofpaloalto.org, SEIU's Unfair Practice Charge (Appendixes A to E), www.paloaltoisfallingshort.com, Jim Keene's July 23 e-mail to staff
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by City employee/resident, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2009 at 5:32 pm Employees currently face city "threats of layoffs"?...while the city managemnet writhes in their inability to reorganize around 50+ retirements and 70 frozen funded positions. How much money would that save?
City employees anticipate no raises, no colas, no realignments and cuts ...
I’m lucky there’s just two of us at home…
And the city only wants 2.5 months rent from me!
At my apartment we could “tighten our belts” and give up:
12 months of car payments.
OR groceries for 5 months.
OR 5X my phone bill a month (per month).
OR 2– 3 credit card payments (per month).
OR what I now pay for my daughters braces every three months ..only every month!,
For my coworker just to work here,it costs him to work here, he pays
300 for gas and lunch per month minimum
A significant amount of which he spends in Palo Alto
…So he could give up that.
This city has enough money...and outside of general fund reserves...
1. 225,000 could be saved by changing phone carriers (per auditor).
2. 4.5 Million per year could be saved in onging cost if the city reorganized. (50+ rretirements, and 70 positions on the books that are budget funded - but not filled).
3. The city has carried 22 million in unrestricted funds in IT, Vehicle Maintenance and Health and Benefits for the past 5 + years.
...Thats 22 million a year outside of the general fund reserves every year. Even the city after claiming the funds were "earmarked" was quoted as saying at least 4.9 Million was not.
WE have families.
We have parents and kids that depend on us.
|
|
Posted by Mica, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2009 at 6:30 pm It is crystal clear that the current formula for City of Palo Alto retirement benefits is unsustainable in the long term. Nobody in industry can retire at age 50 or 55 with nearly full pay for the rest of their lives. Full medical benefits for free during your working years AND in retirement is unheard of anywhere in industry. A fair sharing (employer and employee, 50-50 seems fair) of medical insurance costs is the only sustainable formula, and the only reasonable way for the City to go in the future.
If that doesn't work for you, seek employment elsewhere with the compensation and benefits package you and your family must have to survive. Make a list today of the 10 employers who would better meet your needs. Apply to them immediately; beat the rush of other City employees who may feel the same as you AND who have come up with the same employer prospect list.
The community would love to see which Bay Area employers might better meet your compensation package objectives; we do not think they exist.
|
|
Posted by fireman, a resident of another community, on Sep 25, 2009 at 10:32 pm Mica, I do not think you are seeing the whole picture. To retire at 50 you must be a public safety officer. Police or fire. You must be a REAL firefighter. A line firefighter. At 3% per year one must have 30 years on the job. So if you start at 25 you do not get 90% until you are 55. 30 years of service, How many people work 30 years for one employer.
The age 55 is for none line Firefighters and Police and seiu members. they do not get 3% per year that I know of. I think it is 2.5% per year. This takes 35 years to retire at 55 if you started at 20 years old.
Milipitas pays way more than Palo alto, Sunnyvale pays more. Santa Clara pays lots more.
Benefits are not free that is why Palo Alto employees get paid less
Medical is not full, while you work your family is covered if under 18 When you reach the age to retire you then must pay your wifes or husbands insurance payment.
Take a look at Frank Benest retirement. Huge! and he get to stay in his home for how long after working. He then has a million dollars min in his home. 50,000.00 per year means that will last 20 years on top of all the other benefits he gets.
Mica your answer to everything is go some place else. If you do not like the cost of having the great city you say you have with the High property values. Then go some place else. Move to Los Altos Hills? or woodside.
It is like the rabbit and the turtle again. The rabbit earnned good money in the high times and laughed at the turtle. Now that the Rabbit is not doing so good he wants everyone to pay the price? Greed is what fills you heart..
Mica you are not getting all the information..
|
|
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2009 at 11:34 pm If it does come to a strike, the public perception will be that elite and wealthy Palo Alto is kicking their servants in the guts. Especially as other surrounding cities aren't playing this game.
The reactive resentment seen here on these pages will be mimicked and magnified a thousand fold---perfect blowback.
|
|
Posted by Jack, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2009 at 3:54 am "The reactive resentment seen here on these pages will be mimicked and magnified a thousand fold---perfect blowback"
Most of the criticism of SEIU on this forum is well deserved, and the financial siuation for the city is unsustainable. It probably comes as a surprise, or even a shock, that a liberal city like Palo Alto could actually take a stand against organized labor. Perhaps this explains the puerile comment/threat, above.
|
|
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2009 at 10:14 pm Well I've noticed for a long time that the posters here on PA Online are generally very lopsided towards the more extreme right wingers. I don't think that the overall posts here are necessarily reflective of the general population.
But should it come to a strike I have no doubt that...
SEIU and the City Workers won't just go quietly into the night. Apparently the city has already violated basic labor law and will be held to account.
As the full true facts and background (including the timing and agenda of the "Grand Jury" kickoff report) gets a fuller airing the support for the city workers will blossom.
The local police, teachers, fire dept., etc. all know that, should the city prevail in it's quest to economically subjugate it's city workforce, they will be next in line. If the more greedy and arrogant denizens of Palo Alto have their way this time it'll be like blood in the water for sharks. Time to get a bigger net.
|
|
Posted by Jack, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2009 at 1:52 pm "The local police, teachers, fire dept., etc. all know that, should the city prevail in it's quest to economically subjugate it's city workforce, they will be next in line"
Who is being "subjugated"? Palo Alto city jobs pay quite well, and the benefits/retirement package is over-the-line generous. These are financially tough times, and the current contracts need to be brought into line with reality. If current city workers cannot dig the reality, they will lose their jobs, and be replaced with many in line to take them. It won't be pretty, but it will happen. SEIU is not a friend of its members, and the sooner the members understand this, the better off they will be.
|
|
Posted by A Noun Ea Mus, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2009 at 11:00 pm We will see what "reality" things are bought into line with.
Stay tuned.
|
|
|
| |
2007 Awards from the California
Newspaper Publishers Association
Palo Alto Weekly
First Place
Local News Coverage
Local Breaking-News Story
Feature Story
Second Place
Feature Story
Environmental Reporting
Sports Coverage
General News Photo
Photo Essay
Freedom of Information
The Almanac
First Place
Environmental Reporting
Editorial Pages
Lifestyle Coverage
Second Place
Environmental Reporting
Mountain View Voice
Second Place
General Excellence
Editorial Comment
Front-Page Design
|
|
|
Send this story
Print this story
