City Council Does the Impossible --- A Unified Agreement --- But Not Without The Usual Controversy

I kid. I kid.  Well, partly ... that is because it wouldn’t be Chula Vista without some form of controversy.

In a nutshell, the entire council voted unanimously to support collective bargaining rights of employees.  Why? 

It would be safe to say that the action was primarily a symbolic response to movements in other parts of the nation to dismantle these rights and a way of recognizing the sacrifice and compromises that our local labor groups have agreed to for the fiscal health of our city.

Even our Mayor, a Republican, expressed her support for collective bargaining rights “when done fairly without tricks.” 

Personally, I couldn’t have been more thrilled that our council took this - albeit symbolic  action.  The collective bargaining rights of workers has been lauded by Americans from all sides of the spectrum and in between.

They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.

 - Former President Ronald Reagan, 1980 Labor Day Speech

If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.

 - President Barack Obama, 2007 Presidential Campaign Speech

And lastly, Chula Vista employees are our hard working friends and neighbors who truly care, and they have proven year after year that they are willing to - and have - sacrifice for Chula Vista and its residents.

So what controversy?

More like an irony, I suppose, but in the very next agenda item (following the support for collective bargaining) was a recommendation to break a negotiated agreement with one of the city’s collective bargaining groups.

If you remember, each collective bargaining group was asked to contribute savings to the city to help close the budget deficit.  Each group was asked to forgo upcoming pay raises and to begin paying the employee share of pension costs. In the end, the city reached agreement with all groups.  One group, the Police Officer Association (POA), agreed  to up to 11 layoffs instead of forgoing their upcoming pay raises.

So here's the irony - the Council’s Public Safety Subcommittee’s recommendation to not layoff five (5) officers and instead address any needed layoffs in budget talks for next year.  The number of officers is reduced from 11 to five due to a variation of retirements and resignations.

It will cost $48,040 in this year’s budget to keep these five (5) officers on the payroll until June 30.  To keep the positions permanently, after June 30, it will cost $609,120 in next year’s budget. These costs were not included in the balanced budget presented to the council since the negotiated agreement with POA assumed the layoffs and would have provided cost savings to the city.

The council subcommittee stated that the council’s priority is what the people want and not a negotiated agreement.  (Personally, I wonder if this rationale would work if the recommendation was to increase the number of layoffs rather than reduce layoffs - I don’t remember this perspective when folks were begging to have libraries and rec centers stay open. Hmmm).

Others on the council did not agree and highlighted the request as trickery, politics and an undermining of all future negotiations with collective bargaining groups.

In the end, three voted to support the halt of the layoffs.  The city will be placing this on the May 3 agenda for official approval.  

The celebration of agreement and unity was short-lived to say the least.  What does this mean for you and me .... stay tuned for my next entry.

Z