Left In Lowell

Jason, an occasional commentator on LiL had interesting and informative remarks about municipal contract negotiations from a City employee and union members’ perspective. I thought it was worthy of its own post for further discussion. —M.

A point was made in a recent Sun editorial arguing against renewing Manager Lynch’s contract because there have not been any contract negotiations completed yet with any of the unions, though I know some are ongoing. The Sun conveniently using organized labor for its own purposes in an argument is always amusing, at least to me. I still think the editorial [Timing is Wrong on Contract Extension] is garbage and easy to see through, but again that’s just me. I disagree with a lot of the Sun’s editorials. Given the city’s budget situation, ongoing projects and plans for building up reserves, I’d say the manager will be hard pressed to give much in the way of raises to workers, even IF he wanted to give away the store. I’m not sure there is much to worry about there.

The guy [CM Lynch] is doing alright and I as a taxpayer (yes even as a municipal employee in this City) am impressed. I like the openness, free flow of information and structured method he is using to run the City. I do not know what is being discussed in negotiations for my job and I may not agree with every decision management makes, but what worker can say they do? As a taxpayer I can’t honestly say I don’t think my best interest is being represented. I think every attempt is being made to conduct city business in as open a manner as possible. Knowing where you stand is a good thing. Maybe as a city employee I have the good fortune of gaining more perspective on what the give and take really means on an every day operating level. Sometimes that reality is good and sometimes it’s discouraging. If you are familiar with the concept of opportunity cost , you know what I mean. The new or current council can still act at any time to remove the manager, if everything were to suddenly go bad. It would not be the first time in government history a future group had to pay for another’s mistakes now would it? That’s pretty much the history of government in America.

With regard to union contracts (and to some extent the Stoklosa School information) the reason topics are not made public during negotiations is to give the chosen and elected representatives on both sides of the table the best chance to negotiate in good faith. A good parallel is a criminal case. You can’t release information that can harm the investigation or chances of a conviction at trial. When an agreement is brought forward it is then considered the best contract both sides feel they can produce, which is then subject to votes of the bodies of the two sides represented: labor (all represented workers) and management (in this case elected officials of the government).

Because each agreement is a series of trade-offs of what each side wants, the whole contract is voted up or down, not cherry picked. If the contract is voted down by either body, both sides have to start all over again with negotiations. If each point is subject to discussion of the masses, not much can get done. It’s the same reason you elect representatives to deal with issues in the house, senate and city council, everyone can’t know all issues thoroughly and put in the time. It also keeps uninformed people out of the negotiations. There are actually issues organized labor is concerned about like job specific working conditions and safety that the general public would not be familiar with. It is not all about salary and benefits. For those who say there aren’t concessions or that labor never gives anything up, I’m sorry it’s not true. Some years we don’t get raises, or we give up monetary benefits, like longevity to keep something else. Every time we take less of a raise than we ask for. Many times there are language or working condition changes (for both sides) that never make the news. Drug testing, work schedule structure, seniority and maintenance of certifications all are recent examples that come to mind.

As a union member I have been on a bargaining team and also not been involved. Believe me, not much information is given to the general body of membership during the process for a reason. We’d spend our time debating everything with our members instead of getting anything done. Even union members don’t all agree on everything. The union members are even more of a pain in the butt and want to know what is going on more that the public. Think about it: How bad would you want to know if you were getting a raise or taking a cut somewhere? We are not told minute by minute, point by point by our bargaining team, so our leaders can do their job. Imagine trying to keep a few hundred or thousand union members happy at every turn, never mind a manager having to individually do the same for 100,000 or so taxpayers or even 9 councilors. It’s not possible. When the best deal is hammered out, everyone gets to see it at the same time.

And negotiating sites (generally neutral ones) are chosen by both parties, if you don’t want to pay the heat, light, paper, etc. Let your elected representatives know. Then they can instruct the city manager to pay 50% of the hall or conference facility rental instead. The unions have to set aside money for bargaining costs, we’ll cover the other half. I’m sure the unions would be happy to hold the negotiations in their own hall if coming to “enemy” turf isn’t a problem. If you want we’ll just negotiate during the good weather, we can sit out at a public park (the permit fees are pretty reasonable) if you don’t object to blocking the sunlight on your grass. Of all the things to complain about in negotiations this isn’t it. You’d be amazed what has been spent on outside counsel in the past.

I think what I find most amusing is that people assume that the negotiating process, among many other municipal functions, haven’t been well thought out and tested over time. If there was a better process than collective bargaining I’m pretty sure they’d use it. If bargaining doesn’t work, the issues go to arbitration. That is normally the last resort and in most places non-binding.

Whether you are talking about labor contracts or other issues conducted in closed session, once in a while you need to cut them some slack to do their jobs, even if that means you can’t know everything instantly. The vast majority of elected officials and public workers really give a damn and work hard for the public’s benefit. They deserve your trust until they prove otherwise. Some of us actually like serving the public, you know the whole higher calling thing. Why else would we be here? It’s not because we enjoy having our entire work life, salary and benefits subject to debate by the public. That I will guarantee you.

Finally, one last point. The best part about government is that if you don’t like the way its being done you can always run for office and give it a go yourself. That IS the best process there is