Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 12:45 AM

Palo Alto imposes 'last, best and final' terms
Unilateral action follows rejection of union proposal for mediation -- will save about $2.5 million this year toward a $10 million reduction goal

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Karen, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 7:46 am

Yiaway Yeh was the lone vote against imposing the City labor offer. The unions quietly supported both Councilmember Yeh and Councilmember Espinosa is the last election.

The unions are quietly supporting Council candidates Gail Price, Nancy Shepherd, and Corey Levens this time around.

Labor negotiations are part of the job description of every Councilmember. Thus, I will not vote for a candidate receiving substantial labor support as Price, Shepherd, and Levens are. It is a clear conflict of interest.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 8:05 am

"Mayor Peter Drekmeier called the Monday vote the most difficult decision the council has faced during his four-year tenure. He said with the city's dwindling revenues and growing list of obligations there's no way to get around reduced compensations."

Speaking of a growing list of obligations, today's Daily Post reports that the city will pay a sculpture $270,000 for a piece of "art" to be at the rebuilt Mitchell Park library.

The union obviously needs to make some concessions from the generous compensation that our city pays them, however our city council has been very lax about finances and overly generous in what they spend our money on (bonuses for showing up to work, Color of Palo Alto, Destination PA, a sustainability coordinator, overly generous Senior Game donations etc).

We need to start cutting some of the fat and focus on infrastructure repair and vital services--that means no more money for the Children Theatre, city museums, cut back on the number of libraries etc.

Posted by Union support of Candidates, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 8:12 am

WOW!

This is a big eye opener for voters. I recommend re-reading (maybe read it 3 times) to get the essence of how the dynamics of union support for candidates work.

Posted by Brian Steen, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 8:45 am

As a Council candidate who declined union endorsement, I believe Palo Alto is taking the correct path with SEIU. The prolonged negotiations (25 meetings!) have been costly and resolution is essential. Now is the time for decisive, not conflicted, leadership. See the City's website for good updated information: Web Link

Posted by Retired Staffer, a resident of another community, on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:07 am

Obviously the Council doesn't want a third party to inspect the finances. Probably for the same reason they halted televising the Finance Committee meetings. Their position won't stand up to scrutiny.

Posted by follow da money, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:12 am

SEIU tried to pay an "independent" analyst to say that Palo Alto had cooked the books. After looking at the books, the analyst wasn't able to back up SEIU's claims.

The union could have requested mediation long ago. They only want it now that terms are being forced.

Tells you all you really need to know.

Posted by Timothy Gray, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 9:29 am

Thank you to Brian and others who see the conflict of interest. There are loopholes in the rules that the Union-Supported candidates use to avoid disclosure, but our community is too awake to not see things as they truly are. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Unions Buy Candidates, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:40 am

This is really amazing! The unions are clearly trying to stall until they get 3 more candidates elected, so that, in their words, they will have a majority (5) union-backed council members! Look what happened last night; Yeh voted against, and the other union-backed council member (Espinosa) who could not bring himself to vote against the union that backed him, chose to be absent!!

Now we have Shepherd, Price and Levens backed by the unions. Shepherd says things like "well, I take endorsements from everyone" and somehow thinks this gets her off the hook. How naive! These 3 are underminimg the City's negotiations with the unions. Imagine what would have happened if all the current candidates had refused these endorsements; this would have brought the unions to the table. So if we get a strike, these 3 share in the blame!

Posted by A Noun Ea Mus, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:41 am

Stay tuned....

Posted by Liberty, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:45 am

Can you imagine if your boss walked in today and announced:

“Hello employees, last night we had a meeting and changed a few policies. First of all, from now on we will be paying for 90% of your health insurance for you and your family. Secondly, we’ve decided that if you work here for 30 years we’ll continue to pay you 80% of your salary for the rest of your life.”

At every company I’ve ever worked for there would be a huge celebration!

But the City workers are going to go on strike because it is not enough?! HA!

The City should cut all these benefits in half.

Posted by Enough, a resident of the Palo Alto Orchards neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:54 am

I support the City workers.

Posted by follow da money, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:57 am

"By imposing these working conditions, what you're stating is that you don't care about (the workers') thoughts, morale and feelings," Steinmeier said.

All along, I've found that the union PR skills have been found wanting. The workers really need spokespeople that know how to represent an organization. Not a chief negotiator with no idea on public speaking and how his comments are perceived.

Seriously, Steinmeier, re-read your comment. You should be ashamed. Step down and let someone that knows what they're doing take over the role.

Posted by YSK, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:03 am

@Liberty: is that really the case here?

Posted by Jo Ann, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:03 am

One benefit the city should cut is subsidized utility rates. That might give present employees some incentive to control the utility costs.

Posted by Tired of double standards, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:26 am

For those of you who say you won't vote for anyone with a union endorsement: you have a perfect right to take that stance, but it is time to be consistent. I expect all of you to not to vote for anyone who accepts endorsements or money from any of the following because their interests may come before the council: Developers, Realtors, Business Owners, Homeowners, Property Owners, anyone in building or construction, anyone working for Stanford, anyone working for any corporate interests within Palo Alto.

That leaves you with Tim Gray. Good luck with that!

Posted by Karen, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:29 am

SEIU management is asking 630 of its Palo Alto members to go on strike to save less than $30 per month, the maximum amount of their participation in their health benefits under the imposed City plan.

Pension formulas and benefits only apply to those hired AFTER the new agreement is in place.

Most employees work about 2,000 hours per year. If the average compensation of a Palo Alto SEIU member is $115,000 (including benefits), that's $57.50 per hour. Each hour on strike will cost them the equivalent of what they might eventually be paying for 2 months of health benefits. One day on strike is more than a full year's worth of their now-mandated participation in health benefits.

Those City of Palo Alto members of SEIU who go on strike easily qualify as the dumbest employees in town. The City would be well advised to get rid of them as soon as possible, they can't be pulling their own weight.

Posted by Benny, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:36 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:40 am

I agree with Marvin - he mentions some key points and has the most balancd view of the complete situation -- the reality -- here in Palo Alto

Posted by ES, a mediator, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:41 am

Some City Council members and others commented that since past negotiations between management and the SEIU did not result in mutual agreement, it would be pointless to consider mediation. An advantage of mediation is that skilled neutral mediators can help the parties to hear and see each other and the issues in a different way than they do in direct confrontation with each other. They act as buffers who can often help parties reach mutually acceptable resolutions that they often can't achieve in direct negotiations with each other. So, do reconsider the possibility of mediation, a process that has helped parties not only resolve their differences but has helped them maintain or regain good relationships with each other.

Posted by rwj, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:45 am

The union benefits remain outrageous and too expensive for the city. This is my top election-decision issue, and I thank you for the info re: Price, Leavens, and Shepherd==they will not receive my vote.

Re: the union rhetoric about respect/not caring about morale and feelings/etc.==working for the city is a great job (emphasis on job in this economic climate), and the benefits remain absolutely excellent. The union is threatening strike because the city will pay for "only" 90% of their family health care costs!?!?!? There are many people ready to take the job of any city worker who thinks they can find a better one elsewhere.

I didn't realize Yeh was pro-union--I will not vote for him again.

Posted by Moochie, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:51 am

"One benefit the city should cut is subsidized utility rates. "

We should just spin off our utility. It's just Palo Alto's way of increasing taxes anyway.

Posted by Thoughts, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:57 am

Perhaps the reason for the 10-day mediation deadline is so the deadline would be after the election. Then the unions could tell if their 3 new candidates won. That would mean 5 candidates they supported having been elected to council.

I've worked for private companies and universities, and I don't recall a single job in which I've had all of my medical premiums fully paid by the employer. And who gets a defined benefit pension these days? Private sector employees get defined contribution plans, where the employee faces all the investment risk, these days.

Only Social Security is defined benefit.

Sure Palo Alto wastes money. Companies do too. We need a complete audit of Public Works, for example. We need a comparison with neighboring communities, on how effectively Palo Alto spends money.

But that being said, the pension changes made under Mr. Benest just a few years ago, to fatten the pension benefits should be reversed for new employees (we can't go back for existing employees, unfortunately). And making contributions to the medical benefits seems fair to me.

I support unions, but not when they are being overly greedy, particularly in really bad economy.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:07 pm

"the pension changes made under Mr. Benest just a few years ago, to fatten the pension benefits should be reversed for new employees..."

Benest had a swooning starstruck council that, for example, giddily bought him a personal retirement home at taxpayer expense.

But, as any Goldman Sachs exec will tell you, you get the quality of employees you pay for and vice-versa. If you think city services have been less than stellar, wait till the word of what a crummy place to work Palo Alto is becoming gets around. Unless, of course, you are a sharp sculptor or a canny photog.

Posted by PolicySage, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:40 pm

In today's job market, the City could easily hire equally or better qualified workers from the ranks of Santa Clara County's skilled, jobless people. The wages and benefits package offered by the City is superb. Let's get good people to work for us who are willing to realize that there is a bad Recession going on.

Posted by Cheapskate, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Palo Alto deserves the very finest services at the lowest possible cost. As much City work as poosible should be out-sourced to Third World nations with very low wages, no government regulation whatsoever, and no unions.

Posted by Jon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 12:58 pm

I agree with PolicySage. Every organization even Stanford has had to reduce costs drastically. PA should not be immune. Time for the city and especially council to stand up and be counted.

PS I had no idea how much union pockets were supporting some of the current crop of candidates. Really worrying...

Posted by Jo Ann, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Paul, you said "as any Goldman Sachs exec will tell you, you get the quality of employees you pay for....."

Hello. We bailed out Goldman Sachs with so they could pay billions in bonuses to people who destroyed the economy with their derivatives and short-selling. And we sure paid for it.

Re the "quality" of city employees, I've lived here for almost 30 years and the only positive interactions I ever had with city employees was when they were honest enough to say that their bosses did want to be bothered hearing any complaints. The $300K police dispatcher ($95K in overtime plus fully loaded salary) is rude and lazy, saying problems have been solved when you're LOOKING at the cause of complaints.

The receptionist gave me the number for the manager responsible for screwed up traffic lights even though she shouldn't have and man, was he furious he got a real resident complaining. Then he tried to worm out of even checking the problem because his secretary was gone. Have the delays at Middlefield/Embarcadero been corrected yet? No way.

Moochie's right about spinning off Palo Alto Utilities. Why pay 25% more in rates AND have all those employees with a $600,000,000 budget.

Time to get real.

Posted by Spendthrift, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:42 pm

How well is the city communicating about money it is mismanaging?

if 11 new SEIU employees werer hired for the month of October 2009 which equals 1.25 million a year in onging cost...what has city manager saved? There are at least an additional 30 frozen and budgeted/funded unfilled positions. Why doesn't the city manager reorganize and save the city 3.75 million?

Of the 22 milion SEIU pointed out Lalo Perez states that 4.9 of that is unassigned funds...also not attributed to the city general or enterprise reserve funds. Why is that?

Posted by Cheapskate, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Surely eighty percent or more of what City workers do can be out-sourced to Sri Lanka, Cambodia, or Haiti using modern telecommunications.

Why should Palo Alto residents pay high American wages when workers in those countries will do the job for just a penny on the dollar and no benefits or labor protections at all.

Silicon Valley companies do this all the time. Why not the City of Palo Alto? Who knows? Some of these companies may be managed by posters to Town Square Forum. Creative thinking is urgently needed!

Posted by Retired Staffer, a resident of another community, on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Evidently "follow da money" is drinking from the same knowledge well as Jack Morton. If this is true, why not allow a mediator to negotiate for a short period of time? And why are the Finance Committee meetings no longer televised?

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Right on, Cheapskate. Next time my street sewer clogs up, I'll just dig it up and FedEx it to India for cleanout. (On that subject, anybody know a plumber around here that makes house calls?)

"Hello. We bailed out Goldman Sachs with so they could pay billions in bonuses to people who destroyed the economy with their derivatives and short-selling. And we sure paid for it."

Hello yourself. If you'd been listening to Wall Street you'd know they pay those big bonuses so they can attract and keep the very best and brightest. (That's why our council gave Frank Benest everything he wanted. They said as much.) So where's your patriotism? Do you want our country and capitalism itself being held hostage by less than the best and brightest?

Besides, would you take one of those jobs for less than $1m/month, plus $10m at Xmas? You'd get no respect at all.

So, if you believe Wall Street (and those people are a lot richer than you, so they must know more), you better believe that those city employees you don't like are a lot better than what's coming along with the new pay and benefit package.

Posted by follow da money, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm

That's right because with 12% unemployment in Santa Clara county, everyone's going to give up their jobs.

Karen's 2nd post above puts it all in perspective.

Not sure what retired staffer's smokin'

Posted by peninsula commuter, a resident of another community, on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm

You folks who say "Outsource the city work to India or Sri Lanka" or "Have PG&E take over" really have NO CLUE what you are talking about. Have you actually called a tech support center in India lately to get, say, help for a computer software problem? In the real world, it takes half an hour or more of being placed on hold, followed by a conversation with a "tech support" person reading from a script. Is this the kind of lowest common denominator service you want from your city? PG&E uses call centers too, better than the ones in India but no substitute for having a local office to visit when you have issues with your city services.

Sure the Bay Area has 12% unemployment, but finding qualified workers (after you fire the existing ones) is not as easy as you think. I know, I have been involved with filling vacant job positions lately. I have sorted thru 50+ resumes of laid off Home Depot and Radio Shack employees in order to find even one or two people who are qualified enough to make an interview worthwile. Try doing that for 600+ positions that become vacant all at once.

Posted by Cheapskate, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Peninsula Commuter,

Just using some irony to lampoon those tightwads in this fair community that demand premium service but don't want to pay for it. Yep, the same poeple who delight in playing at being hard-driving, stone-hearted Simon Legrees.

Posted by follow da money, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by peninsula commuter, a resident of another community, on Oct 27, 2009 at 3:10 pm

I stand corrected, I did miss the irony in some of your comments - my bad.

But I stand by my experience in filling job positions. I have found that 48 or 49 applicants out of 50 are as incompetent in their reasoning skills as "follow da money" and therefore not capable of actually solving everyday problems in the workplace.

Posted by Outraged, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 3:51 pm

follow da money, you are right on. Karen's 2nd post sums it up. Read it again everyone.

Posted by follow da money, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm

"But I stand by my experience in filling job positions. I have found that 48 or 49 applicants out of 50 are as incompetent in their reasoning skills as "follow da money" and therefore not capable of actually solving everyday problems in the workplace."

Soon to be joined by over 600 palo alto workers. Hope y'all like it out there in the real world!

Posted by Cheapskate, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 4:25 pm

follow da money,

Will you be applying to be what is referred to in polite circles as a "replacement worker" for striking City of Palo Alto employees? Either doing that or running for City Council with a write-in campaign are two logical options available to you in support of your beliefs. Will you choose to do either?

Posted by Sam, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm

A Noun Ea Mus,

Let us all know when the vote is over.

Strikes come and strikes go.

In the end the utility milk cow will give...and give.

Posted by Janice, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Interestingly enough, I got two phone calls last night from self-described "local volunteers" urging me to vote for three top candidates for city council,Gail Price, Nancy Shepherd, and Corey Lewins. When I said I was a Democrat and asked which group the caller was affiliated with, both times the response was the Labor Council....

Posted by R, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Janice,

When I got a call from "local volunteers" ... it was from a phone bank in San Carlos. Did you notice what your caller-id said?

Posted by R, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm

While my opinion is: "These are reasonable, fair reductions attacking the long term structural financial problems. We can't just do short-term budget trickery."

... I poked around to find what the SEIU had been proposing. In some sense it is irrelevant ... except in trying to understand/predict the SEIU members' attitudes.

Web Link

Biggest item is agreeing to a reduced COLA (for 2011): $1,950,000

Second biggest: extract it from the new hires. "New Lower Salary Step" $819,000 (savings over 2 years). "Employees share of PERS": $658,000 (savings over 2 years).

* Well ... so much for stated objection that the City's contract will make it harder to hire new employees. The SEIU proposed contract also hits the new employees the hardest.

Third biggest "Reorganization": $1,250,000 (savings over 2 years)

* I assume this means: reduce the number of employees. Reduce services. Fewer library hours and things like that?

* We may well *also* cut back on services as part of this budget process. This doesn't reduce $$ that needs to come out of the SEIU contract.

* Hopefully we wouldn't reduce employees in a way that increases the number of employees racking up gigantic overtime pay? ... seems like we are getting suckered on that in the Fire and Police Depts.

Posted by Willing to work, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 7:52 pm

I've already given my name to staff to call me as a replacement worker, temporary or permanent.

Posted by Sign Up, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 8:14 pm

WtW, where do you sign up?

Posted by cc, a resident of the Southgate neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 8:16 pm

To Willing to work:

What are your qualifications? Have a look at the job descriptions, and find one that fits your skills.

Web Link

Oh, and it better be an 'essential' position, or you'll be out of luck.

Also, what are your qualifications for crossing a picket line? I hope it is worth the karma and grief you'll bring upon your self just to make a buck or two. Oh, and which "staff" did you give your info to? Probably an SEIU worker or former one at least. Probably went straight to the round file...

Posted by union man, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:17 pm

What a bunch of mean-spirited stingy people posting here! The city workers are real people, your friends and neighbors! Why are you so eager to treat like dirt? to treat them as disposable? Why is the city afraid of mediation? An independent outsider would look at the finances and see if that really is the best offer the city can come up with. Seems like an easy thing to do. Couldn't hurt, could it? Why not give it a try?

Posted by city worker, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2009 at 10:40 pm

I don't think the city is afraid of mediation.....they simply don't want to postpone the inevitable a minute longer. They've made it very clear that they want long term savings, not furloughs, not a lower pay step, etc. They don't care about trying to reach an agreement. They got pretty much what they wanted.

Posted by Jake, a resident of another community, on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Has anybody ever seen City Manager James Keene and the previous City Manager in the same room??

I think they are one in the same, a wolf in kittens clothing.

Nothing has changed, same old rhetoric and same old tactics.

Posted by peninsula commuter, a resident of another community, on Oct 28, 2009 at 8:02 am

Follow da money,

So what's your decision, apply for a "replacement worker" job or run for Palo Alto city council? Or apply for a management position (assuming you meet the job qualifications)?

I gather from the tone of your emails that you are either out of work, or unhappy with your present job. So why not back up your beliefs with some action?

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2009 at 9:51 am

"They've [the city] made it very clear that they want long term savings..."

Absolutely. Our city faced a choice and resolutely made its decision. The money for that new $quarter-mil sculpture has to come from somewhere.

Posted by concerned resident, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 28, 2009 at 9:53 am

Please take the time to look at what Yiaway Yeh said regarding his vote before you swiftly conclude that he is simply a union guy. It's just not that black and white folks! He actually is pushing for large reductions to benefits that are at least as great as what was proposed on Monday. He was simply asking for different kinds of reductions based upon the fiscal needs of the city, uncertainty in the future regarding costs of certain programs, and what was prioritized by thousands of workers as their top need during the negotiation process. Is it unreasonable to propose an alternative in which you could achieve the city's fiscal goals without having to cut the number one priority need of the party you're negotiating with? Yeh's position is based on thoughtful and principled thinking -- not just a need to defend the union's position. Again, if you look at the transcripts he did NOT simply back the unions. Please do your homework before having a knee jerk reaction to a council member.

Posted by Midtowner, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Sure enough, today in my mail I received an ad urging us to vote for Levens, Price and Shepherd for City Council. It bears the mention "South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council COPE". I am not voting for them.