Spokane7
68°
February 6, 2012 in City
Spokane Council rejects firefighter labor contract
A tentative labor contract with Spokane firefighters was narrowly rejected Monday night by Spokane City Council members.
The 4-3 decision hinged on Councilman Steve Salvatori, who said he opposed the lack of transparency in how the tentative agreement was struck. Joining him in opposing the deal were council members Nancy McLaughlin, Mike Allen and Mike Fagan.
The three-year contract was negotiated in December by former Mayor Mary Verner in her final days in office.
Under the rejected deal, firefighters would get no cost-of-living raises this year or next. In 2014, they would get a 1.9 percent raise. In exchange, they would get more money in their paychecks by paying none of the cost of their health insurance premiums in 2013 and any portion of health coverage increases beyond 4 percent after that.
Officials said that with the deferred 3 percent raise firefighters received at the beginning of this year, the tentative deal would have increased city spending on Fire Department payroll and benefits by over $1 million per year.
Supporters of the plan said firefighters showed a willingness to compromise in tough times.
Police and firefighters in Washington state are prohibited from striking, so contract disputes are resolved through binding arbitration. Under state labor law, arbitrators determine Spokane’s contract based largely on the wages and benefits paid by nine “comparable” fire departments, including the departments in Tacoma, Spokane Valley, Everett, Bellevue, Kent and Vancouver.
Since most of those comparably sized departments are in Western Washington, where the cost of living is higher, wages also are higher. Binding arbitration, however, doesn’t take cost of living into account.
Council President Ben Stuckart, who supported the deal, warned that binding arbitration could force the city to pay its firefighters much more.
1992 murder trial begins against sex offender 
greenlibertarian on February 06 at 11:00 p.m.
So Stuckert votes on nothing? Just runs the meetings?
I’m sorry to be so ignorant.
Spokanewaste on February 06 at 11:18 p.m.
Congrats my fellow republicans. You’ve just set in motion the path of us paying more than we would have under this deal. We will pay more for this contract and all future contracts. And Steve, you may want to study before speaking. Negotiations are done privately with the results debated publicly. It is the law.
paulti on February 06 at 11:56 p.m.
Stuckert does vote. The vote was 4-3. Stuckert being one of the three. I think we the citizens are going to get screwed because of the arogance and ignorance of the majority. I hope I’m wrong. And I would welcome being wrong.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 07 at 1:18 a.m.
This was rejected purely to stick it to Verner for continuing to do her job until the end and I hope the firefighters get more now to stick it to this city council for rejecting this very fair contract.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 07 at 1:54 a.m.
Verner doesn’t count anymore Libby. She’s gone but she did try to put it to the taxpayers before she left.
It have nothing to do with Republicans… it’s got everything to do with unwinding the millions of fake runs by SFD during routine 911 runs which the Ambulance transport people can do without the incremental charges SFD has charged to the public for years. It’s about time.
For those of you who can and WILL read…from the article
“Officials said that with the deferred 3 percent raise firefighters received at the beginning of this year, the tentative deal would have increased city spending on Fire Department payroll and benefits by over $1 million per year.”
Spokane’s millions in the hole thanks to Verner’s outlandish spending. It’s time the city tighten the belts of everyone..including the poor unions and their HUGE pensions.
It’s you they’re protecting….nice move by Council.
gotcha on February 07 at 5:21 a.m.
Nice to see Spokane Council is looking out for the tax payer and the people of Spokane. Thank You City Council.
Scoutster on February 07 at 6:02 a.m.
They are doing what many people wanted done: spike the contract.
We’ll see how that works out for them. And us.
gotcha on February 07 at 6:10 a.m.
Who voted for the labor contract and possible reasons why….
Jon Snyder sits on the board of Spokane Employees retirement board… Hmmmmmmm
Amber Waldref sits on the board of Police Pensions…Hmmmmm
Public Sector Unions run deep, even in the small city of Spokane…. Hmmmmmm
Smokie on February 07 at 6:37 a.m.
Looks like the three new city councilmen are really on the side of unions after all. When the firefighters wind up getting more than what they asked for because of Allen’s, Salvatori’s and Fagan’s incompetence, I wonder if Local 29 will endorse these three in their reelection bids.
When a politician’s ideology trumps pragmatism, we the citizens are going to pay.
Other unions have now learned how you get treated when you have a history of playing ball with the city via concessions, giveback days, etc. You just look weak to them when your city council majority is now made up of ideologues. I bet the firefighters union just learned that too.
gotcha on February 07 at 7:00 a.m.
They thought they wanted career, turns out they just wanted paychecks, ten day work months, and unfunded pensions.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 7:04 a.m.
With bargaining extending into 2012, it should be around May or June that we begin to hear the word “Layoffs” with regard to Police and Fire.
Albert on February 07 at 7:26 a.m.
brian….sounds good to me, especially SPD. Let’s start at the top and work down. They can join 1/4 of my friends in the neighborhood who are looking for work.
beakaye on February 07 at 7:39 a.m.
A big improvement would be to remove SFD from 911 calls….AMR does 90% of the work, and probably get’s paid half of what the SFD folks do! Then they built the Taj Mahal firehouse on 1st and Maple……SFD needs to be scaled back a bit!!
brianrbreen on February 07 at 8:09 a.m.
@Albert
I can’t speak to the Fire Department, but it looks to me that there is room for cuts on the SPD. I don’t ever remember a Department Head, Fire / Police, or the union members that haven’t come out publicly saying how much layoffs/demotions will hurt the public, then when it does happen not a whole lot changes.
The threat of layoffs is part of the bargaining game, and both sides know that, but I think at least this time from the City’s perspective because of the financial situation they have to take a serious look at the possibility of layoffs and demotions especially if both contracts end up in binding arbitration. It looks to me like the City is in a better position with the PD contract because a lot of the things they are seeking go beyond wages and benefits. Where as the FD appears to be a matter of primarily wages and benefits. In either case if the unions want more money, I think they have to consider that his time the old layoff/demotion tactic might not be a tactic and could easily become a reality. When the old “layoff” term comes up I’m sure we will see Williams, Stephens, and the unions screaming about how it would kill services, something the Mayor and the Council can count on. Then it will be the blame game, the unions will blame the Mayor and Council for not caring enough to provide the public services they deserve, and the Mayor and Council will blame the unions for demanding so much money that they can’t afford to provide the services.
The truth of the matter is probably somewhere in the middle.
Verbal on February 07 at 8:23 a.m.
The part of this contract that struck me odd was the city paying for 100% of dependents health coverage. If true, that alone should have been reason enough for spiking the contract. Penny wise and pound foolish? Maybe. Time will tell.
Also, how can/could the city get the comparables changed?
brianrbreen on February 07 at 8:33 a.m.
@Verbal
I could be wrong, and it might have changed. But if I remember correctly each side submits their own comparables and the arbitrator decides which one he/she wants to use.
tomnsahl on February 07 at 8:46 a.m.
Big brother BB is right about the layoff threat tactic - it occurred to me during my 1st year, after a HUGE increase in pay/benefits during binding arbitration the previous year.
BUT - this is about the SFD’s contract so - back to the topic of this article. We called the unnecessary ladder trucks and firefighters the evidence eradication unit when they were (and still are) dispatched routinely to non-fire calls. While I appreciate the work firefighters and medics do - we all need a better coordinated response protocol that does not waste the precious few resources we have.
Sensible cuts can/should be made. If the Council’s vote causes even higher costs of service - we all lose.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 9:03 a.m.
I know that Cities and Counties have been scared to death of Binding Arbitration since some, including the City of Spokane got spanked several years back. But I don’t ever remember Spokane County having gone to Binding Arbitration, and it has been a heck of a long time since the City of Spokane has. Maybe it is time to just say okay guys/gals lets do it, and see where it ends up. If the City loses big they can blame it on Binding Arbitration, the unions can say I told you so, and the City will just have to make it up somewhere, which of course means cutting staff. On the other hand if the City wins they can say I told you so, the unions wouldn’t have much to say, but they would likely keep the same staffing levels, and not lose some of their people.
I say …Lets Go!
brianrbreen on February 07 at 9:08 a.m.
@tomnshal
And I don’t remember us old guys getting a thank you from you new guys for the “HUGE” increase.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 9:14 a.m.
@tomnshal
I honestly don’t have a clue, where “Sensible cuts can/should be made” on the SFD, but I find it hard to believe there aren’t some areas where those type of cuts could be made.
ldchristi on February 07 at 9:15 a.m.
I hope last night’s meeting isn’t an indication of what we are to face with this new council. Such grandstanding and playing to the camera was obnoxious; and the syrupy kissiness was silly. Please eliminate the nasty subtle digs at the former council and mayor. They are uncalled for and undignified and do not show the level of professionalism that we voters expect.
drywitt99 on February 07 at 9:18 a.m.
An example of what happens with the ‘baggers in charge……their anti-union fetish resulting in the people paying more in the end.
Good job!!!!
Verbal on February 07 at 9:25 a.m.
@Idchristi
“They are uncalled for and undignified and do not show the level of professionalism that we voters expect.”??
You do realize that this is the city that voted Joe Shogan as Council President - twice - don’t you?
I didn’t see the council meeting last night, so I’m curious as what this “kissiness” was all about.
Also, thanks for the answer Brianrbreen!!
johnclarke on February 07 at 9:28 a.m.
Verbal on February 07 at 8:23 a.m.
The part of this contract that struck me odd was the city paying for 100% of dependents health coverage
Yeah, this is stunning. What company on earth pays for dependent health coverage. I like and respect ya Smokie, but I’m sorry that is plain greedy. How can this be justified ?
gotcha on February 07 at 9:34 a.m.
Public employees have only themselves to blame. For decades they’ve conspired with ploiticans to hide the eventual true cost of their pensions and post-employment healthcare, that has led to underfunding, and now its time to pay the piper. The public at large, suffering from decades of decline in private sector wages and benefits, is now told it must pay up more money to maintain current services while also back-filling pensions deficits. Naturally, the public is unwilling to support this; personnel cuts are the only solution…
The blowback from the pension abuses that the public employee unions aided, abetted, exploited, and benefitted from for decades is now coming home to roost.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 9:38 a.m.
I’m not a bagger or whatever the opposite of that would be, but if you read this story and look at all the back and forth rhetoric with a different Council and Mayor, it makes one wonder. As far as I know they haven’t, refilled the position at the higher cost, and I haven’t heard there have been any problems.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/dec/19/deputy-fire-chief-cut-stirs-furor/
IanJones on February 07 at 9:41 a.m.
Brian in regards to a post on another article you posted on….and My dad always told me….Son, never go to someone elses territory….keep it on neutral ground…which apparently you refuse to do……and the possible outcome of doing that, would you be showing me the light….or not….
brianrbreen on February 07 at 9:49 a.m.
@IanJones
I guess you don’t have the $1.97. 701-2382
The_Seer on February 07 at 9:55 a.m.
When FF aren’t out on calls, give them a broom and get to sweeping sidewalks, streets, picking up garbage, etc. Time to quit paying grown men 50+ dollars an hour to sit around eating crab legs and prime rib on your dime!
The_Seer on February 07 at 10:03 a.m.
gotcha: Why is it that you’ve become convinced that the working class must settle for less and less while our “masters” take home more and more? You are a class traitor and we need to rid ourselves of your ilk, not public sector unions. The decline in private sector wages/benefits you bemoan coincides with a steep decline in unionized private sector workers.
Coincidence?
Why do nearly half of all U.S. workers consistently vote against their best interests? Must be the public education system.
The_Seer on February 07 at 10:09 a.m.
Breen: You sure know how to inspire online urination contests.
In keeping with the SR’s forum guidelines I’ll get back on topic: I see Ian has become your latest fire hydrant.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 10:13 a.m.
@The_Seer
I sure as heck don’t try. Thought we were on FD contracts…I was anyway.
Blacksheep3 on February 07 at 10:26 a.m.
The best way to solve potential SFD layoffs would be to eliminate “D” shift and have them work a 24/48 instead of the 24/72 schedule they currently work. That would provide them with more than enough staffing. Especially that new west plains station, which is probably the new “retirement” station.
Bill_Jackman on February 07 at 10:34 a.m.
I was saddened to see that Local 29 President was hung out to dry by himself before the City Council. The elephant in the room is the changing nature of the fire service. It calls for total transparency by city management and not emotional rhetoric by several of these postings.
The actual number of working fires continues to decline every year. When you take the wages and benefit cost of the SFD fire management alone - it works out to about $43,000 dollars per working fire. That’s just to pay for the management without addressing the cost of the people who are doing the work. The average fire loss is about $100k/fire.
Even if you double the SFD budget and staffing, the average fire loss will not change in any measurable way. Conversely, that’s the reason why past budget cuts are hardly measurable in terms of fire loss.
8 out of the 10 highest paid city employees work at the Spokane Fire Department. This didn’t happen because of binding arbitration, it happened because of poor management and a dire lack of transparency.
If it cost around $50 million per year to run the SFD (wages, benefits, equipment and EMS levy) how can you pencil out $3-5 million a year in actual fire loss? That’s a management problem that needs full disclosure.
As for the promise of eternal life thru Spokane Public Safety. Just the facts please: Just state for the record the actual number of people saved by SFD CPR per year - hint: it’s a very small number.
The majority of the 911 EMS calls could be handled by private ambulances if there were more of them available. Because of the current ambulance monopoly policy, AMR is the only provider. Because the calls are routed thru 911, AMR is allowed by Medicare guidelines to charge patients the emergency rate for non-emergency work (per 2008 AMR contract).
It’s all about making money and very little is said about providing public service that has value. Chief Williams, is a very arrogant and self serving person. It’s no small wonder he is the highest paid person in the city.
The rank and file firefighters shouldn’t be the scapegoats for the city budget woes. Attention should be shifted to the management at the Spokane Fire Department. Don’t blame the workers who are following the example set by their leader.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 07 at 10:48 a.m.
I hope Bobby WIlliams is paying attention to your post Bill.
Scandalous management only looking after their own interests. $1 million right there….and for what? It’s a gouge by any other name.
Verner let the unions run over her. COndon won’t let that happen…but especially the new council won’t let that happen to them.
If the CIty would selll off Verner’s goofy real estate, the city becomes more solvent.
IanJones on February 07 at 11:05 a.m.
Brian…cant exactly SEE these documents and secret information you elude to having via telephone now can I??? Just listen to more of you one sided biased opinions… Knew you wouldnt agree to a face to face… because you might have to SHOW all these facts you claim to have…
But I digress….I am off topic, and so will wait for the next Zehm article to come out to comment on….shouldn’t be too long….
brianrbreen on February 07 at 11:14 a.m.
@IanJones
I’m sorry…thought you wanted a neutral meet, that ‘s why I posted my number, to arrange it.
Do whatever you think will float your boat.
liveinfearoftheSPD on February 07 at 12:00 p.m.
Who picks the 9 cities that the SFD is compared to for arbitration?
It would seem to be more fair to taxpayers if they actually took into account the cost of living.
o_pleez on February 07 at 12:42 p.m.
The collective bargaining law states how comparables are selected.
A comparable can be up to 50% larger, or 50% smaller, which pretty much limits Eastern Wa. options for Spokane to Spokane Valley.
COL is not part of the equation, as the collective bargaining laws are currently written.
The four “no” voters want to make this a test case for overturning interest arbitration for public employees, however, the law isn’t going to be changed in time to make a difference on this contract negotiation.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 12:48 p.m.
@o_pleeze
Is it still a case where both sides submit their list of comparables, and the arbitrator decides which one to use?
o_pleez on February 07 at 12:58 p.m.
I believe so, but it still has to fall within the guidelines of the law.
The city can’t claim Cheney, and labor can’t claim Seattle.
johnclarke on February 07 at 1:09 p.m.
Bill_Jackman on February 07 at 10:34 a.m.
This is the best post I have ever seen on this topic. The fire department has become a country club for those at the top.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 1:30 p.m.
@o_pleeze
I got you. If I remember right the comparables aren’t necessarily limited to Washington State. I seem to remember some Idaho and California agencies being submitted for comparables, but it has been a long time.
Also I believe it has to go through mediation before binding arbitration, and that is where both parties get some idea of how they might do in binding arbitration.
liveinfearoftheSPD on February 07 at 1:33 p.m.
It would just make sense to me to change the laws so the cost of living is taken into account. Or at least make it an even number of cities so half could be in the 50% larger and half in the 50% smaller.
As it is now doesn’t seem to work out to well if people take a hosing from arbitration.
But what do I know? (Not enough on this subject)
liveinfearoftheSPD on February 07 at 1:34 p.m.
BTW
Thank you o_pleez for your answer.
o_pleez on February 07 at 2:04 p.m.
Brain—
AFIK, the only agency in Washington that’s allowed to go out of state is Seattle, due to there not being a true comparable for them in state. You are correct that it has to go to mediation first.
o_pleez on February 07 at 2:07 p.m.
Fear–
The size of the cities isn’t really relevant to compensation. Some smaller cities are actually higher paid than larger cities, so having an equal number of smaller vs larger doesn’t affect the end #’s all that much.
As I said before, the law isn’t going to change/be changed in time to have an impact on this contract.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 2:08 p.m.
@o_pleez
Thanks…that makes sense.
Verbal on February 07 at 2:28 p.m.
One more question for anyone who may know:
Who represents the city when they present their case in front of the arbitrator? Someone of the mayor’s choosing? City council’s?
o_pleez on February 07 at 3:58 p.m.
Generally the lead negotiator, as s/he is the most informed on the subject.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 4:05 p.m.
@verbal
Basically I think the Mayor decides whom he wants to use because he is responsible for negotiating the employee contracts. I think Keller W. Allen (from a local labor law firm) has argued the last couple. But the City got spanked in the Ombudsman investigative powers deal, and recently this one…so who knows.
http://www.perc.wa.gov/databases/ULP/11263.htm
I think the SPD still uses Chris Vick (Seattle firm), but I’m not sure whom the SFD uses.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 4:25 p.m.
@o_pleeze
I’m sorry I thought he meant arbitrator.
brianrbreen on February 07 at 5:28 p.m.
@o_pleez
I’m not a union guy or a no-union guy. But if you read the PERC Decision I linked above, it sure demonstrates how management and department heads can be sneaky little devils, just like some union folks can be. So someone has to watch out for the rank and file, both Firefighters and Police Officers.
It looks to me like the arbitrator caught the department head in this one.
The arbitrator footnoted this because she apparently found out it might not have been true what the department head was telling the Sergeants.
The chief also advised in her e-mail that she was willing to give the sergeants “consequential discipline” that “should minimize any challenge [to the severance] if it doesn’t stop a challenge in its tracks.” Based on her experience in Federal Way, granting consequential discipline was enough to have the rank above patrol officer seen as supervising the patrol officers. Granting this type of disciplinary authority in Federal Way caused that supervising level to be put into a bargaining unit separate from the police officer unit. [1]
Here is the footnote:
[1] Commission records show that the Federal Way Police Guild was certified on March 18, 1997 in City of Federal Way, Decision 5875 (PECB, 1997), to represent a bargaining unit of “All full-time and regular part-time commissioned police officers of the City of Federal Way, excluding supervisors, confidential employees, and all other employees of the employer.” The certification does not list what ranks are included in the bargaining unit. There is a later Commission certification for the Federal Way Lieutenants Association to represent a bargaining unit of commissioned lieutenants. City of Federal Way, Decision 8825, (PECB, 2005). The record is unclear whether the supervisors who were granted consequential discipline to be separated from the police officers held the rank of sergeant or lieutenant. If the rank involved sergeants, it appears that the supervisors were severed from the unit by agreement among the parties.