| |
One of our Challenges
Posted 6-14-2002
One of the biggest challenges
that we face as county commissioners is dealing with the regulatory agencies
and court system regarding employment issues. The most recent example was
the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board ruling that the county must arbitrate
with the court and court-related employees represented by the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU). On the surface, the ruling is a
no-brainer; the employees can't strike, so they can arbitrate. But when the
details of the situation are presented, it is another example of how
regulatory agencies make things more difficult for us to manage taxpayer
dollars.
The issue with SEIU goes back
to the early 1970s. The union was certified in three different units. First
to organize was the group under the commissioners. The next year, the court
units and court-related row offices organized. Then, the row offices that
aren't court-related organized. So, there were three units bargaining as one
union. That is how it has been for thirty (30) years. Even when there were
strikes, the court-related employees worked and never invoked their
arbitration rights. This time, it was different. They bargained as one, and
even shook hands when we had a tentative agreement, as if we had one
agreement. But when it came time to vote, the union leaders let the
court-related members vote separately. As you know overall, the contract
passed by several hundred votes. But the court-related employees, when
counted alone, rejected the contract.
If the union had come to us
initially and said they wanted separate negotiations for the court-related
employees, we would have agreed because they have different rights than the
other employees. However, we had correspondence from the SEIU negotiator
that requested the separate units negotiate as one. That was the past
practice, so we agreed. The request to bargain as one union affected the
attitude we took towards the court-related employees. We negotiate with a
number of different unions, and, when dealing with the ones that have the
right to arbitrate, we take a different stance. They present their demands,
we present ours, and when we can't resolve the differences, we let an
arbitrator settle things somewhere in the middle. With SEIU, we went the
whole way to providing our best and final offer to bring the contract to a
resolution. If we had known the court-related employees were bargaining
separately, we would not have gone as far in the negotiations with them. It
was as if we played poker with our hand showing, and they got to hide their
hand.
The consequence is that we'll
have to spend more public money to go through an arbitration that will put
the union leadership in an awkward position. If they demand more wages for
the court employees, how do they explain that to their other members who
just voted to ratify the contract and accepted our wage offer? If they
demand a different health insurance plan, how do they explain that to their
other union members? There really isn't much for them to demand except a
longer workday.
Right now, court-related
employees work a 32.5-hour week. That is exactly the same as all other
courthouse employees, management, and union alike. Extending work hours
would be costly, would not increase productivity, and would be a managerial
problem because we are not adding more hours to the workday of management
employees. Right now, we can afford the number of employees we have because
of the number of hours they work. If we are forced to add hours, we'll be
forced to re-examine the size of the workforce.
The fact that we are forced
into the arbitration is really part of the much bigger problem county and
local governments face. Employment laws are set up that really limit our
ability to run government like a business. Most unfair is that Congress, who
passes many of the laws that govern employment issues, doesn't have to live
by those same laws.
The best example is when a
new term in office begins for county commissioners, our ability to make
senior management changes has become limited. When a new President takes
office, or a new Governor, senior management changes dramatically. Yet, when
we make a change at the highest, policy-making senior level, we end up being
sued and forced to defend our actions. Why can the President appoint a new
Secretary of Defense, but we cannot appoint a new Public Safety Director
without being sued?
The playing field is severely
stacked against local government leaders. The consequence is that it costs
us more than it should to operate government. We spend more time in court,
more money on litigation, and have a much less ability to make changes in
government. We do work to treat our employees fairly. But, we must balance
that fair treatment with our responsibility to you, the taxpayers. But, we
face barriers to fulfilling our responsibility to you that are imposed by
groups like the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, the arbitrators employed
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and employment laws passed by Congress
that they don't even live by themselves. We can only play with the hand we
are dealt and do the best job possible in serving your interests. |
