Editorial: Binding arbitration disregards ability to pay

The pay and benefits of public safety workers have frustrated municipal governments for decades, so it helps to take the long view before considering the proposed Spokane Firefighters Union contract rejected by the Spokane City Council Monday night.

Here’s an excerpt from The Spokesman-Review, June 18, 1976, regarding a meeting of the Association of Washington Cities in Spokane:

“The AWC contends in its resolution that the state-appointed arbiter is ‘neither responsible nor accountable’ to the electorate for his decisions and the process does not take into account the ability of local governments to pay.”

That was almost 36 years ago, and these simple facts remain the crux of the problem today.

It isn’t about bargaining in good faith or getting a better or worse deal than last time. It isn’t about comparing one department to other departments that operate under the same unreasonable state labor law. It’s about the ability to pay. Yet that’s not even on the table in the binding arbitration process. When arbitrators get involved, cities lose control over nearly half their budgets. That threat skews collective bargaining.

Unless citizens insist on a rewrite of binding arbitration laws, the erosion of city services will continue.

Last year, AWC supported HB 1377, which would’ve required arbitrators to take a comprehensive look at a municipality’s financial limitations. Because of heavy labor influence in Olympia, the bill died. This year, a similar provision was included in a larger municipal governance measure, HB 2641. But arbitration reform has already been stripped out.

This hasn’t sparked outrage, and it won’t until the consequences – service cuts or tax increases – prompt citizens to push back. Too late. The outcome is pretty well decided before the process begins.

The three council members who voted for the proposed contract – Ben Stuckart, Amber Waldref and Jon Snyder – issued a press release on Tuesday that inadvertently highlighted the dilemma. They say it’s a good deal because it’s better than the last deal, and that binding arbitration could mean the city will have to pay even more.

So how about fixing arbitration to get cities out of this fix once and for all? Police and firefighters are well-paid in all the “comparable” cities. Their benefits are extremely generous. Comparing one fire department to another doesn’t reveal whether pay is too high relative to the wealth of the taxpayers. It doesn’t acknowledge that voters have handcuffed municipalities with tax-limiting initiatives.

The city says the proposed contract is about 5 percent below those in comparable cities, but the buying power of a compensation package of, say, $70,000 in Spokane is equivalent to $81,000 in Tacoma, according to the online calculator at bankrate.com. That’s a 13.5 percent difference, but the negotiators look at the 5 percent differential and call it a bargain. Tacoma firefighters will look at it and claim to be underpaid. Look to comparable cities outside Washington, and the comparisons are still further out of whack.

All this disparity is driven by binding arbitration. We can’t afford to keep it.