Loading images

Communications sent to several Sacramento County supervisors during an Oct. 20 meeting reveal a significant disconnect between some union members and their leadership regarding furloughs.  More than 20 e-mails were sent to Supervisors Susan Peters and Jimmie Yee during the meeting, the vast majority of which supported furloughs over firings.

"I was never asked by my union rep if I would prefer furloughs over layoff. I was never notified of any meetings," wrote one woman. "Of course I would rather be furloughed than laid off!" 

"The meetings that I have gone to seem to be rallies with incomplete information and a slant toward the union's position," wrote one social worker.

John Lewis, Stationary Engineers Local 39 representative, explained his union's opposition to furloughs at the meeting.  "We find [layoffs] distasteful, but probably a better choice." 

Supervisor Peters appeared dumbfounded by his statement.  

"I've spent my whole life in the private sector, as an employee and employer, and all those years it was very clear that people would rather have everyone take a little bit of a hair cut rather than have people [be] laid off ... Explain to me why your members would rather have layoffs ... Our whole staff is furloughed 20 percent," Peters said.

"Did you actually go to your membership to vote on whether they preferred furloughs?" interjected Supervisor Yee.

"We kept our membership informed," Lewis replied. "Over the past couple of months, we've had many, many meetings ... by and large, we feel like we know what they want and need." 

"But, I've received a lot of e-mails from employees saying that they prefer furloughs as opposed to layoffs," Yee said.

"Had our discussions gone just a tiny bit differently, we may be on the list [of unions that struck furlough agreements with the county]," Lewis said.

"But you did poll your membership?" Yee asked.

"Yes we did."

"And what were the results?  Can you make that public?"

"How do you mean?" Lewis responded.

"How did they vote?" Yee and Peters asked in tandem.

"We did not [vote]," Lewis said.

"I would encourage you to do polling because as we're sitting here, in this moment, we are getting e-mails saying that the consensus of employees is that they would rather be furloughed," Peters said.

"I would gladly move to take a reduction in hours to save my job," wrote one Local 39 member. "As a junior member, I will be thrown under the bus by my own membership."

Local 39's labor agreement with the county states that a "layoff shall be based on seniority."  Junior members will be laid off first and senior members last, regardless of job performance, salary, or any other metric.  Other county labor agreements mirror this stipulation.

The messages sent to the supervisors represent the viewpoints of a small number of the 6,200 nonfurloughed county workers.  They illustrate, however, conflicting agendas within the unions.  During the summer, contractually-obligated cost of living increases were issued to union employees while the county eliminated 700 positions and furloughed nonunionized management personnel.  Additionally, scheduled salary increases threaten more county jobs next year. 

Unable to issue furloughs without union approval, county officials proposed a .908 work reduction plan, which would have reduced employee hours by about 10 percent.  Unions were opposed and the .908 plan was not approved at the Oct. 20 supervisors meeting.  

Some unions, however, did reach furlough and other cost-saving agreements with the county.  According to county labor negotiator Steve Keil, agreements with the Service Employees International Union have saved five positions.  

Many labor unions, however, failed to reach agreement with the county.

"Parts of the county workforce have gotten step [pay] increases, cost of living increases, and have not participated in sharing the significant financial problems of the county," said County Executive Terry Schutten.

Photocredit: anthonybento.com