Glendale Management Association October 2016 News
Who’sGot the Power?By Robin Nahin, Director CEA
1
It is unavoidably true: the standard of living for most public employees is declining. The cost of living continues to rise while raises and benefits slip behind. Why is this happening?Partly because the public doesn’t want to pay taxes, partly because the taxes they do pay don’treally “trickle down” to cities, but more significantly, becausethose revenue streams that DO pour intolocal governmentare not shared equitably amongst the employees in the workforce.
Someemployees (like police, fire and top managers) seem to be a lot “more equal” than others! These employees truly have an easier time feeding, housing and educating their families. Their compensation packages are not only substantial, but substantially disproportional to their numbers in the workplace. In some cities a police officer can cost three times as much as a maintenance worker, and the City Manager could cost 20 times as much! Sworn employees and top managers absorbhuge portions of the budget, while the leftover, “general” employees squabble over the scraps.
This squabbling is often called contract negotiations.The “leftover” employees (who usually represent about two-thirdsof the workforce) do the brunt of the city’s work,rarely receive adequate credit,andstruggle every year to keep the actual value of their paychecks from
going down.
Sadly, there seems to be a quiet acceptance that “This is the way it is supposed to be.” Police and Firefighters must be so loved by the public (or have such magical powers…) that they must “deserve” a huge piece of the pie.
This lack of equity for the majority of employees who do the actual work – fixing the streets and sewers; staffing the parks, libraries and jails; bring in the money, balance the budgets, enforcing health and safety codes, backing up the police and fire fighters -- is a core reason for the decline of the middle class. It’s NOT aninsurmountable problem, but it does require some serious thoughtabout power relations inside local government. In truth it’s almost ALL about POWER.
Here are some ideas about howto improve YOUR union’s power at YOUR place of employment. …
Here’s a good question:
IS IT REALLY TRUE THAT POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES? Are they more important than people who staff 911 phone lines or pick up fallen electrical lines or clear storm drains? Are they more important than the people who take care of your children? How MUCH more important? THREE TIMESmore? Is there any good reason that the child of an Accounting Clerk should have a lower standard of living than the child of a Police Officer? This is America andWe don’t think so.
No one has taken a vote on which jobs are “most important!” When the New York City trash collectors went on strike a few years ago, the public suddenly realized that their job was important. (We think YOUR JOB is important!)
So, why the big disparity? Well… safety employees DO HAVE a lot ofperceived power. They do a much better job of promoting themselvesthan do “general employees.” Their unions are usually well funded and well organized, and they spend a lot of time interacting with local politicians. They also spend money on elections and endorse candidates. And, guess what: the key points in their Contract Negotiations are often worked out long before the normal bargaining process even begins!
Here’s another question:
Where did most “general” employees get the impression that it’s not quite “proper” for them to be involved in local politics.
We think that some top managers give you that impression on purpose. They don’t want you using that “back door” to the City Council. But anyone who has ever sat on a bargaining team understands that “all roads lead to the City Council!” It’s your right to establish a working relationship with the governing body and, to some extent, it’s your responsibility. If you fail to do this you are abandoning the field (and the discretionary money) to the other players.
In many public agencies, the general employees compose the largest union in the City. They probably also have the largest number of members who LIVE and VOTE in the City. This gives them a lot of potential power. While it’s completely true that most working people don’t have as much time as their sworn brethren to sit around and “scheme” about politics, effective action in this arena isn’t time consuming for the average member. It onlyrequires a few activeleadersand a unified membership.
Let’s be blunt: unlike general employees, Police and Firefighters unions don’t squabble internally about whether or not to have a Political Action Committee. The PAC is a given. And they usually have plan: Council interviews, endorsements, financial support, and post-election meetings with Council members.
Here’s the LAST Question:
Why do so many people think it’s OK for sworn employees unions to “play hardball,” when necessary, but NOT the General Employees?
Don’t get me wrong… It’s ALWAYS best to have cooperative labor relations. Managers and Councils who “like you” are much more likely to support you. However, sometimes Management doesn’t play by the rules, and sometimes the Council isn’t getting complete information. Under these circumstances, your Union may need to file a strong grievance or a PERB claim or declare “impasse.” Or it may need to “go public” with the correct information. Police Officers and Fire Fighters generally have no difficulty with a fight. If bargaining doesn’t go their way, they declare impasse, go to the media, file for fact-finding, hint about the “blue flu” and prepare for battle. These actions are often unnecessarily aggressive, but they also often work…
It’s interesting to note that while safety employees are barred from striking in California, “work actions” are perfectly legal for non-sworn employees unions. Strikes are NOT generally an effective tool nowadays, but they ARE an available tool! Why, then, do most non-sworn employees think that they are illegal? Why, even when they have every reason to be really angry,are so many employees afraid to file a simple grievance to enforce their rights?
We could speculate a long time about how public “servants” are brainwashed into chronic “helpfulness,” or intimidated when they try to take formal action; but the bottom line is that sworn employees’ unions move swiftly and legally when their members are threatened. They strategize to control the workplace (which includes control of staffing and overtime.) They maximize their rights and benefits. This is to the financial detriment of the rest of the workforce -- and everyone seems to understand this.
So…The REAL Last Question:
Does the Public REALLY Hate Public Employees? There’s a widespread assumption that “the public hates public employees,” -although they LIKE Police Officers and Fire Fighters. But this assumption has never actually been tested. We know that there has been a well-funded media campaign to malign you, but we also know that most of “the public” are employees themselves. The public in California is also pretty well educated, and NOT unsympathetic to unions. In fact, A LOT of “the public” ARE public employees themselves (!) or RELATED to public employees.
The deck is not as stacked as you may think. When Arnold Schwarzenegger started a fight with the teachers unions a decade ago, the teachers and their public, beat the governor back. Not long after this, the public soundly rejected legislation that would have blocked unions from using members’ dues for lobbying.
The point here is that, unless your local Council or Board is overtly anti-employee, you should not assume that they are out to hurt you. They actuallyneed you to run the city – and they know it!
The biggest reason that everyone thinks “the public (or the Council) like the Firefighters best” is that firefighters generally do a much better job of self-promotion. Whether it’s a booth at the community fairor contributions to the Mayor’s favorite charity, they do this actively, all the time. These kinds of actions can go far in building good will and relationships. You and your union might try them, and then call upon them, next time you are bargaining for your fair share of the pie.
1
Class-Action Lawsuit Claims Gender Discriminationin California's Workers' Compensation System
Equal pay for equal work has been a long term battle for people in “women’s jobs.” And now there is a new twist: a class action lawsuit has been filed against the State, arguing systemic gender discrimination in the system that compensates injured women workers. If this claim is true, it violates both state and federal “equal pay” laws.
The primary argument is pretty simple: workers compensation provides benefits based not only on the severity of a disability resulting from an injury, but on the loss of income caused by the disability. The System, it seems, values the same disability higher for men, in relation to the jobs they normally fill. When a woman’s earning capacity is disrupted, the percentage “rating” for many injuries isn’t as high, nor the loss of income considered so significant, which means the ultimate settlement many women receive is lower than if they were men, or performing manual labor jobs.
One case included in the lawsuit involves a telecommunications specialist who worked a 40-hour week for 17 years. She developed severe pain and numbness in her hands and wrists, as well as major sleep disturbances – and she ultimately lost her job. Although her injuries were fully recognized as work-related, the Medical Examiner who established her “disability rating”lowered her settlement because "she has multiple risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome, primarily age and gender."
The attorneys for the plaintiffs claim that "[e]ven the guide used to determine permanent disability includes biases against women workers, such as undervaluing the disability rating of breast cancer in woman relation to prostate cancer in a man.”
Study Correlates Decline of Unions with
Decline of the Middle Class
A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute shows that all Americans have been impacted by the decline of unions in the U.S. The study finds that, historically, unions have “set the standard” for wages, especially among jobs that don’t require college degrees. They do this even amongst employers that are NOT union because these employers must compete for labor. Some industries, such as medicine, have often paid higher wages in order to preventunionization.
In the ‘60’s and ‘70’s approximately 40% of the workforce was unionized. Today, it is under 8% and the membership has switched primarily from the private sector to the public. The majority of union members today are city, county, state and school employees. This means that, amongst private companies, there is no longer any organized force “setting the bar” for employee wages and benefits. Although the Great Recession obviously diminished wages for the middle class, the EPI estimates that the decline of organized labor has had greater and longer-lasting effects, including these specific impacts:
Lower Wages for Non-Union Men Without College Degrees:For men without a bachelor’s degree weekly wages are an estimated 8 percent lower than if union density had remained at 1979 levels.
Lower Wages For All Non-Union Men:Weekly wages for men, with our without degrees, are an estimated 5 percent lower than if union density had remained at its 1979 levels.
Lower Wages for All Non-Union Women:Weekly wages for women are 2 to 3 percent lower than if union density had remained at its 1979 levels. (This weaker effect reflects the fact that women – and “women’s jobs” – were mostly not unionized in the 1970s.)
In the absence of a union presence to negotiate big contracts and press for equality through legislation, the study argues that ALL employees have suffered. It attributes about one-third of the increased inequality among men and one-fifth of the inequality among women to the decline of unions from 1972 to the present.
How Would the Legalization of Marijuana Affect YOUR Job?
1
Next month, an initiative to allow recreational use of marijuana is on the ballot, and expected to pass. This raises BIG questions about how marijuana usage will be treated differently (or not) in the workplace. Based on the legal decisions in states like Colorado and Washington, which have already decriminalized we can make several predictions:
1) The legalization of marijuana won’t cause most employers to change their policies at all. Employers will STILL want rules in place about “performing under the influence” – just as such rules apply to alcohol.
2) Whatever California voters might decide, marijuana use remains a prohibited substance under federal law.So, if any aspect of your work rules are set by federal regulation (such as the Department of Transportation for truck and bus drivers and “safety sensitive” positions) these won’t change. The federal Drug Free Workplace Act also requires employers who receive federal grant money to have a zero tolerance policy with regard to ANY federally prohibited substance.
What MIGHT Change?
It’s not legal for employers to discriminate against employees for engaging in off duty conduct which is “lawful.” So, if you are drunk at a party, or make a fool of yourself on Facebook, this cannot be grounds for discipline by the City. You’d think that this would apply to smoking marijuana, if it becomes legal, but no one is sure yet. The only published case, so far, was in Colorado where the Supreme Court found that law did not protect a quadriplegic man from termination, even though his marijuana use was off duty and under doctor’s careAND he was protected by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Again, the court cited federal law as the basis of the employer’s right to discipline.
On the other hand, we are likely to see other test cases on this subject soon, and it’s going to become difficult for employers to discipline every employee, equitably, who merely tests positive for marijuana. New precedents may be set – and we will probably see the tide shift to greater tolerance.
What about the Americans With Disabilities Act? (Medical Marijuana)
If you’re disabled, following a doctor’s order and have a prescription for marijuana, aren’t you protected against discipline by the ADA? Not necessarily. The California Supreme Court decided several years ago that the medical marijuana law was “not intend[ed] to affect an employer’s ability to take adverse employment actions…” Even if marijuana becomes legal, neither disability nor medical need will protect your right to be “under the influence” on the job.
Would Anything Definitely Change?
Yes. States which have legalized marijuana have mostly stopped random drug testing, while others have relaxed their “zero tolerance” policies. To some extent this has been necessary because people may have marijuana in their systems without showing any “impairment” in behavior or performance. Unlike alcohol, which passes in and out of the blood stream within a few hours, marijuana is fat soluble, and therefore may show up in a test for weeks after the “mental effects” have worn off.
This circumstance has already created dilemmas for employers (and protection for employees) states where marijuana is legal. In Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, for example, it has become standard that employers who want to terminate employees for marijuana use must show that the employee was actually impairedat work before they fire them.
The level of scientific testing in this field leaves much to be desired. At the moment, it’s nearly impossible to tell when a person with marijuana in his/her system is actually “under the influence.” Failing to pass a screen is not much of a violation if the drug is legal and the employee is having no problems on the job.
1
How Would Legalization of Marijuana Affect Your Agency’s Income?By NikSoukonnikov
1
When California residents have been polled about their position on legalizing marijuana, the subject of tax comes up nearly half the time. There is a general assumption that millions in revenue will find their way to the state coffers. This is because cannabis in Colorado, which was legalized in 2012, has led to taxes and fees which contributed significantly to new schools and roads.
The initiative on California’s November ballot, however, doesn’t designate any “pot-tax” for local government or schools. The estimated $1 billion in new tax revenues would be directed toward specific programs in the areas of drug use prevention and treatment, helping at-risk youth, law enforcement, and environmental clean-up and research. Spokespeople for the Yes on Prop. 64 campaign have said the restrictions on public use of the new tax monies was intentional: “If public agencies were allowed to balance their general budgets with marijuana taxes, it could create an incentive for them to encourage a bigger marijuana industry.”