 |
 |
One of the hot topics of discussion by Santa Rosa’s Charter Review Committee is whether to repeal Santa Rosa’s binding arbitration provision which voters adopted 15 years ago. This is slated to be the main agenda item at committee’s next meeting on Nov. 17.
But Palo Alto is one step ahead. Voters there went to the polls on Tuesday and decided it was time to take away that provision. Binding arbitration is essentially a guarantee that any impasse between the city and police and fire unions over pay, benefits and other issues will go to an outside arbiter who will decide who is right based on benefits of comparable cities.
Measure D in Palo Alto, calling for repealing of binding arbitration, won by more than a 2-1 margin.
Public safety unions vigorously support it, but critics contend that it’s one reason pay and benefits have escalated so rapidly – because cities are wary of going through the expense and complication of such a process. Opponents also contend that it unfairly steers public spending toward police and fire at the expense of other departments. Proponents of the Measure D in Palo Alto noted that spending on public safety had increased 80 percent in the past decade while spending on other departments has been essentially flat.
Santa Rosa voters approved binding arbitration in 1996. Only about 5 percent of California cities have the provision. San Luis Obispo overwhelmingly voted to repeal it on Aug. 30.
Santa Rosa could be voting on something similar a year from now.
- Paul Gullixson
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Not that anyone cared about accuracy or facts, Vallejo voted to remove binding arbitration earlier this year.
Still ignorangce abounds. Arbitrators choose one side or the other. The bargaining units puts up their request. The city/county puts up theirs. They choose one or the other. The DO NOT and can not change either offer. It can only be the last offer on the table, one side or the other. One of you out there is saying it has never been used or threatened and others saying it was threatened repeatedly and thats why things are like they are. Someone knows and someone is lying. SNAFU
Headline: Palo Alto Repeals Binding Arbitration by wide margin
The voters of Palo Alto repealed binding arbitration for fire and police employees this week. The vote was 67.3% to repeal binding arbitration. This was a clear victory for the residents of Palo Alto and a defeat for the firefighters and police in Palo Alto.
The City Council was concerned that an arbitrator could award fire or police large wage and benefit increases and then walk away with no responsility to pay for the increases. Millions would have to come out of other city departments and services to cover the awarded costs.
This is the same concern many have here in Santa Rosa where the threat of binding arbitration has led to big wage and benefit increases granted by the city council to public safety.
Binding arbitration has not been good for Santa Rosa. It has caused other nonsafety important services in the city to be cut or substantially reduced.
Binding Arbitration needs to be repealed in Santa Rosa for firefighters and police.
@ John
Since the firefighters have had the city council in their back pocket for years, it is no wonder interest arbitration has never been invoked.
I will bet the panel you refer to has three members, one selected by the firefighters, one selected by the city and one chosen by agreement between the two panel members.
So it ends up a 1-1 vote and the third member, the real arbitrator is the decision maker. That’s the way interest arbitration works.
As I said, arbitrators want to work so they divide the award so as not to offend the union.
You have had control over the city council for years and all you have had to do is let the council think about binding arbitration if they ever thought of getting out of line and a big el foldo suddenly occurs within the council ranks. It has driven up firefighters wages and benefits for years.
That is way binding interest arbitration is bad for local government. The city budget and the taxpayers are the real losers.
The idea that all cities of similar size should pay the same for Public Safety is idiotic on its face.
Not all similar sized cities have similar financial situations.
This is ridiculous. Binding Arbitration would have helped the city last year. There is no way the police and fire would have gone to an impartial mediator for a better deal when the city had declared fiscal emergency. They would have LOST. No impartial mediator was going to make the city give them more. Besides they didn’t need binding arbitration because they had already made a backroom deal with Olivares, Ours and Bartley who gave them everything they wanted in exchange for their endorsement. This whole kabuki theater being put on for the benefit of the public is a joke. If you really want fair bargaining you have a better chance with a neutral arbitrator than will sell outs like Olivares, Sawyer, Bartley and Ours. Don’t believe me? See who public safety endorses in the 1st Supervisorial Race. I’ll bet it’s “their’ candidate Sawyer.
@John – the other unions supported you back in 1996; it was assumed that what helped one group would help all groups. But that has not been the case. Safety has been taking an ever larger share of the General Fund, to the detriment of non-safety. As your retirement costs continue to rise faster than any other City cost, you will see the shift continue. At some point, there will only be safety employees left, and then you will see the number of safety employees start to fall as well, since each one will cost so much more. You claim that binding arbitration has never been used, but just the threat is enough. I don’t see you guys offering to get rid of it, so it must be important to you. You talk about the sacrifices Fire has made, yet for all that, we’ve never seen an actual cut in pay for any Fire (unit 2) employee. No layoffs. No bumping. No days off without pay. All retirements need to be modified, but Fire and Police retirements are like a cancer, and will kill the City if they are not fixed quickly.
How about MANDITORY binding arbitration?
At least then the decision to approve & deny the Union’s demands would be taken away from the people who depend on Union support to KEEP THEIR JOBS!
It’s just mind boggling that people don’t see that clear conflict of interest and what it has done to us.
“Proponents of the measure in Palo Alto – known as Measure D – note that spending on public safety has increased 80 percent in the past decade”
“But it has been on the books in Palo Alto for more than 30 years”
I’m pretty sure a decade is 10 years. So what happened the other 20 years Palo Alto had binding arbitration on the books? Maybe it is not Binding Arbitration that has caused the spending to go up.
@ Stop the… – You are factually incorrect in your assesment. First, it is not one person who arbitrates, it is a panel of people.
Second, Ability to afford and industry standards are often seriously considered.
Third, Public sector and public safety are two different groups when it comes to strikes. Public Safety cannot strike so without binding arbitration cities have Absolutely no desire or incentive to even negotiate with employee groups. In the case of Santa Rosa binding arbitration has NEVER been used or threatened. Currently the unions are willingly coming to the table and helping by giving back.
Binding arbitration works both ways.
It will be interesting to see how the critics of public employees paint this issue in Sonoma County since none of the unions have ever had to use binding arbitration since it was voted in. How has it cost us anything to have, and what will it cost us if we get rid of it?
Binding arbritration is one of the primary reasons the city of Vallejo filed for bankrupacy. It broke the city.
The theory of binding arbritration is that a “neutral” arbitrator is suppose to, with the wisdom of Solomon, decide which side has the better position and award judgement to that superior argument.
In most arbitations, arbitrators split the baby, meaning they give both sides half.
In labor negotiations, that means if the employer states they cannot afford a wage increase and the union demands a 10% increase, the arbritator will give the union at least 5% which the employer may not be able to pay without cutting back on other services.
Why does it work this way? Because arbritrators want to have their services used again especially by other unions. Since there are many unions, they tend to favor the union position. Ruling against a union in total would mean in time the arbritrator would not be called to arbitrate cases.
Arbitration is a bad deal for cities. The cities lose every time if they go to arbitration. The unions argue arbitation prevents them from striking. That is a specious argument. Public sector strikes are illegal in California. Has that stopped public sector unions from striking?
Arbitration is not good for California government and California cities.