Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
County's layoffs/reduced hours plan is "illegal," union alleges
by Kathleen Haley, published on August 27, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Storyline: Sacramento County Budget
Loading images
A union that represents Sacramento County clerical workers and social workers is alleging that the county government’s plans to cut 360 positions and reduce employee hours are illegal. In response, the county’s labor relations director said the county’s plans are “perfectly legal.”
The United Public Employees Local 1 is fighting county management’s planned cuts to positions and hours. County Executive Terry Schutten outlined county management’s proposal for the layoffs and cutbacks in an Aug. 24 memo that can be read here.
Schutten’s memo says the county now has a $54.5 million deficit. Plus, $7.8 million will need to be cut from the county’s budget because building activity is poor, Schutten wrote.
The county has proposed to cut 360 positions on Sept. 27. County management is also planning to take 16 hours per month out of the work schedule of county employees who are represented by unions. A new schedule with the decreased work hours is planned to start Nov. 8.
“We believe Mr. Schutten’s proposal is in direct violation of our contract in many ways,” Ted Somera, executive director of UPE Local 1, told The Sacramento Press Thursday. “We will fight this. We believe, like I said, it’s illegal.”
The union notes on its website that UPE members currently hold roughly 238 of the positions that are proposed to be eliminated.
Though Somera said UPE Local 1 is fighting Schutten’s proposal, he also noted that the union is open to holding talks with county management.
“We’re not even interested in entertaining their proposal,” Somera said. “What we’re interested in is what we can do collectively to mitigate layoffs, as well as to continue to provide those services to the communities.”
Sacramento County Labor Relations Director Steve Keil said he appreciates Somera’s willingness to meet with county managers. The county has sent an invitation to meet with UPE Local 1, as well as all other county employee groups to discuss how the proposal would be implemented and alternatives that may come from the unions.
In response to Somera’s allegation that the proposal is illegal, Keil said, “Obviously, we disagree.” The cutbacks of positions and work hours would be made through a process that is “perfectly legal,” Keil said.
The layoffs of county employees will create “a hardship in terms of our ability to provide services,” Keil said.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Don't they get it? There's no money in the till to pay employees so layoffs are in their future.
@ trapper--I think we all realize there's no money. But it IS illegal to violate a current contract.
It's always someone else right sjs?
BTW, who are these people toni? I love it, you say the unions get it but the now the County and State don't! Sorry, but the unions also saw this coming several years ago but instead choose to ask for more pay and benefits.
Times are tough everywhere, just because your part of a union doe's not mean you won't feel the pain of layoffs too.
Leaders lead, and they should be taking the biggest cuts and working the overtime, that is what leading is about. Thats is what happens in real-wold, where raises and benifits are earned based on productivity.
sjs, contracts are renegotiated all the time prior to the expiration, in the spirit of goodwill towards the parties involved. The contract is no good if the govenrment is bankrupt, and everyone loses.
Problem solved.
If I make a contract that states that I agree to pay you $45,000. And then I break that contract by paying only $40,000. What's wrong with asking for the other $5,000.
If appears that the County made a bad deal. The County should make sure that never happens again.
The County is free to lay-off, they just can't break a legally binding contract. If the County wants to ask the Unions to agree to change the contract the County may do so. And the membership of the union, through its elected board, will make its decision as to whether the accept the county proposal or take the layoffs.
The County, however, cannot just change the contract without meet and negotiating with the Union. This is why what the County is doing is illegal. There is a way for the County to get what they want legally, they just refuse to do it.
When times are good, and there is inflation, everything goes up. Landlords increase rent, employees demand higher wages, etc, etc, etc. Thats just how it works.
Government workers cannot be immune the the market forces. They go up in positive market forces, they need to go down in poor markets too.
If you have not renegotiated your mortgage when rates decline that is your decision to not take savings. Right now you can renegotiate every aspect of your life for a lower amount, except for government run things like utilities, etc. Your cable company, your phone company, your internet provider, your landlord, your motgage company, all of them will lower yours just for the asking.
Thats called renegotiating.
The County of Sacramento has not said that this is a proposal that is subject to negotitation. Rather they are simply saying "we have the right to break the contract unilaterally." If the County wants to enter into negotitations it should change its stance. Currently, the County is stating that it's offer is take it or leave it. The unions, which are democractically run through an electoral process, has chosen to leave it. The County can't then just force the change on its workers.
To use my prior example, this is a case where you have an agreement with your gardener that for the next four years you will pay him $50 a month to mow your yard. In year two things go badly for you and you ask him if you can pay him only $35 a month to mow your yard. He says no. You then send him only $35 and then demand he stilll mow your yard. Have you broken the contract? Yes. Can he take you to court and receive his expectation damages of $50 a month for the rest of the four year contract? Yes. Is he forced to agree to a renegotiation? No.
Now substituted the County for you and the county workers for the gardner. This is what the County is trying to do. If the contract was a bad one from the County's prespective, then maybe the County should fire the person who negotiated it or at least offer the unions something in return if they agree to renegotiate the contract. But don't blame the workers for merely enforcing their contractual rights.
Working in the private sector has huge advantages over civil service. Job security is about the only thing they have going for them and apparantly thats not even assured. I think we often forget that the stereotypes of the 70's and 80's do not apply anymore. Civil service is not sexy. Even in this economic downturn we are already seeing signs of improvement (I know we are at our firm), and when we are profiting, county employees will have to strike just to get back to where they are now, a point in time where we all want them to pay the wages of the housing market bust.
County board members want us to feel that they have done everything in their power to rectify the mess they created, including punishing county employees first because we all know "Unions are the devil". When it was Unions of the past that created the extraordinary middle class we have now (which if we don't take care will shrink into nothingness). Before you jump on me, no, I am not a Union lover. I just realize that the history of our working class grew from the productive roots of organized labor. Todays unions are as much of a sham as our governments.
What I am saying is look beyond the smokescreen and ask yourself this question. Should county employees, who are already subject to layoffs and cuts per their existing contract, be forced to pay the wages of our collective sins (ie...the housing and economic bubble)? The sad part is I fear that most of you out there would rather it be them than us. If they pay more then we won't mind a small rate or tax increase. We will vote back in those people responsible for not taking steps to protect county coffers in the first place. All because someone else was forced (and probably illegaly) to take the hit first or pay more.