Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Public Sector Unions Take Big Hit in California Supreme Court

Having been on both sides of the negotiating table with Unions, I can't overstate how important this decision was by the California Supreme Court.

The City of Richmond had argued that it could lay off union workers (in this case firefighters) due to financial stress without the need to consult with the union.

From the article:
Under California law, "a local public entity that is faced with a decline in revenues or other financial adversity may unilaterally decide to lay off some of its employees," Justice Joyce Kennard said in the ruling, which upheld lower-court decisions.
All over the country public unions are having to decide on whether they will accept pay cuts for all employees to save jobs, or to preserve pay and salaries for the most experienced employees while sacrificing numbers.
 
In Camden, New Jersey, this is exactly what happened.  The Camden Police Union decided that preserving pay for senior officers was more important than saving the jobs of the junior officers.  In fact, the union just the other day voted 300-1 to preserve salaries of senior officers rather than to rehire 100 laid-off officers.
The fact is, not a single job need be lost when it comes to these budget cuts.  With thoughtful concessions, all of those officers and city workers could still be employed, albeit with lower wages and less benefits.
 
This decision by the California Supreme Court will certainly strengthen public employer position in negotiating budget cuts.

James

2 comments:

  1. I've always found it interesting that most workers believe that unions exist to protect them. If you examine what unions actually do when push comes to shove, it's evident that most of them exploit their workers for the benefit of a relatively few senior members.

    I suspect that the rank-and-file workers put up with it because (a) most have no choice and (b) they think that one day they will have seniority, and then the benefits will be reaped by them.

    What they overlook is that many of them may never reach seniority: the existing senior members have a nasty habit of sacrificing the rank-and-file to protect their own interests.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom, that is exactly what the situation in New Jersey seems to prove. Not a single member of a union need lose a job if the right concessions are made. But rather sacrifice a bit for the good of the whole, too many time we see sacrifice of jobs for the benefit of those that have had their job the longest. To me, those actions seems contrary to good union membership.

    ReplyDelete