Outside counsel hired for Fire Dept negotiations

[andy157]

One difference I think I see in the stalemate on city/FD that wasn't there for city/PD, assuming reports here are accurate.

for city/FD, there seems to be a requirement by FD that any agreement will need to include language re city got slapped in arbitration. the reports appear to be FD offered to forego the raise, even roll over an existing contract, but that language remained in some fashion as part of the offer.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. If not, maybe the better option is to drop the language and go forward, both sides starting fresh. Maybe that is simply not possible, but it seems like it ought to be.

Your right about the difference between the FD and the PD which is causing the stalemate. You are also correct in regards to the language in the arbitrators ruling, so no, your not reading it wrong. As far as it being a better option to drop the language you have to ask yourself a couple of questions. Better for who? Better why? Who stands to gain by dropping the language? What do they stand to gain? Let me here your thoughts and I'll come back with the answers.

[Steve]

OKCsmoke, would you say firefighters' pay and benefits grew at a slower rate than the private sector this past decade?

[okcsmokeandfire]

OKCsmoke, would you say firefighters' pay and benefits grew at a slower rate than the private sector this past decade?

Steve,

I dont know whether or not our wages and benefits have grown at a slower rate than those in the private sector.

What I do know is our wages and benefits are supposed to be based on a 10 city average, which is how the city wanted to base our wages on in the 1st place. We have been lucky to keep pace with the 10 city average, even in the good times.

Like I said in earlier post, it is not uncommon for us to go 5-6 months into the next fiscal year before we get our contract settled.

My guess is that the city must draw a great deal of interest off of that money for those 5-6 months, so in essence they are getting something for nothing or they wouldnt be doing this.

Back to the private sector, that is a broad topic. I think that there are some industries in the private sector whose wages and benefits have grown exponentially in the last decade, and the inverse is true as well, there are different industries whose wages and benefits have barely kept pace with the cost of living or worse. I can assure you that our wages and benefits have been at best keeping up with the cost of living, but again our wages are determined by the 10 city avg. which we are 5th or 6th, if I am not mistaken. Help me out Andy.

Back to our contract, we understand that there is a hiring freeze and we have offered to give back the raise and rollover our last years contract.

Anything else that the city would want has absolutely nothing to do with wages and benefits.

[Mikemarsh51]

Update as of 3/9/10. The city negotiation teams has offered to roll over our contract 09/10 with all of the language restored. The caveat is the city wants all language removed that finds them guilty of unfair labor practices.

[kevinpate]

andy, and others close to the actual language -

Not knowing the specific language, I'm not sure why it is considered important.
If the language being used by the FD is not necessary to securing a rollover contract, which the FD apparently supports, then it is seemingly just an obstacle.

Would not including the language change the past?
If it is not included in these negotiations, does the slap to the city from arbitration simply vaporize, or otherwise get vacated, or is that finding from arbitration still in fact of record somewhere?

I've not suggested it should be treated as though it never happened, but perhaps there is a way to acknowledge it separate from starting fresh with an otherwise acceptable rollover of the existing contract terms.

Again, perhaps not, but stalemates rarely benefit anyone long term, so perhaps its existence on the mantle across the room is enough.

Just trying to understand better.

[andy157]

andy, and others close to the actual language -

Not knowing the specific language, I'm not sure why it is considered important.
If the language being used by the FD is not necessary to securing a rollover contract, which the FD apparently supports, then it is seemingly just an obstacle.

Would not including the language change the past?
If it is not included in these negotiations, does the slap to the city from arbitration simply vaporize, or otherwise get vacated, or is that finding from arbitration still in fact of record somewhere?

I've not suggested it should be treated as though it never happened, but perhaps there is a way to acknowledge it separate from starting fresh with an otherwise acceptable rollover of the existing contract terms.

Again, perhaps not, but stalemates rarely benefit anyone long term, so perhaps its existence on the mantle across the room is enough.

Just trying to understand better.

Kevinpate, this issue has less to do about specific language, and more to do about specific decisions and rulings that occurred after the Union and the City exchanged their Last and Best Offers. These rulings against the City for their act of bad faith, though just and fair, not to mention long overdue, were groundbreaking to say the least.

Remember, this is not the first time the City has been slapped down, or ruled against for acting in bad faith. For example, see the Supreme Courts ruling in Stone-Taylor v. Johnson / and the City of OKC, and the subsequent arbitration cases in which the Union has prevailed. However, it may be by far the most significant.

What makes it so significant, and why the City is so concerned that it be vacated and abolished as though it never happen is because, as I said, they have lost before yet declined going to a vote. Why, the odds of winning were not in their favor. Because of the economy, this was the year they were willing to roll the dice. However, their plan backfired when justice prevailed.

This precedent setting, if not landmark establishing decision and ruling should finally take away their ability, or at least their willingness, to act in bad faith, I doubt it, but it should. That is why the City wants this ruling treated as though it never happen.