The Municipal and County Government Employees Organization (MCGEO), which represents most county employees other than police officers, fire fighters and school workers, has included the following six questions in its questionnaire for County Council candidates.
Question 4.
The County Council cannot force the School Board to equitably share in the furloughs - this year or next. However, it is apparent to the Police Officers, Firefighters and MCGEO represented county employees that the council was collectively unable/unwilling to summon the political courage to cut the school budget deep enough to force the council to distribute equitable furloughs. While some councilmembers postured for a deeper cut (2%), it was never brought to a vote. In fact, some councilmembers seemed to turn weak in the knees when dealing with the Superintendent of schools. You all collectively sought the shelter of the “lowest common denominator” and cut only $24.4 million out of a $2-billion dollar budget. This lack of leadership resulted in the council willing to confine the furloughs to the only side of the budget which accounts for just 1/3 of the employees funded by it. This devalues our service and the services we provide. OUR MEMBERS ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES!
If you are an incumbent, please explain:
• How do you justify this?
• Do you admit that Jerry Weast is a better negotiator than you?
• What, if any, regrets do you have?
• Can we expect the same response next year?
If you are a challenger, please explain what you would do differently:
• Would you cut the school budget?
Question 5.
The County Council makes decisions to allocate resources that fund both the school board and county services. The school board currently gets 56-57% of the total funds allocated by the council.
Do you think the share should: (Circle One)
(A) Be increased
(B) Stay the same
(C) Be reduced to a more equitable balance
Question 14.
The current economic crisis is placing substantial pressure on the County budget which funds both County and School Board services. If the State mandated Maintenance of Effort (MOE) is not waived then the County side of the budget must absorb the vast majority of budget cuts, layoffs and furloughs. If the MOE is waived, then the resulting impact of cuts, especially number of furlough days could be more equitably distributed across both County government and School Board systems resulting in fewer furlough days per employee regardless of employer.
Would you waive MOE in order to more equitably distribute the sacrifice across the employers?
Yes No (Circle One)
Comments:
Would you temporarily waive MOE and disperse the pain more equitably?
Yes No (Circle One)
Comments:
Question 15.
Montgomery County has a system where all school board members are elected county wide, although 5 must live in a district and 2 can live anywhere in the County. Do you favor electing school board members by single member districts?
Yes No (Circle One)
Question 16.
Do you think it was fair that only county employees were asked to do furloughs and the school system refused to do so?
Yes No (Circle One)
Question 17.
If endorsed by our Union, will you commit to writing a $4,000-$5,000 check to our PAC, like you would to MCEA, to assist our Union’s campaign on your behalf?
#####
The intent behind these questions is obvious. MCGEO sees the budget as a zero-sum game between the county government (which also includes the police and the fire fighters) and the schools (which have three other unions including the teachers, supervisors and support staff). MCGEO is apparently trying to lock in County Council candidates to support its priorities even at the direct expense of the schools. So if any candidates agree with MCGEO, they put their endorsements from the teachers and the other school unions at risk. (To be fair, the teachers advocate for their budget too, but their questionnaires are not so heavy-handed.) And looming over all of this is the Washington Post, which is pressuring candidates to reject all public employee union support.
This is creating an impossible situation for any county-level politician who would like to deal reasonably, but not slavishly, with labor. We would not be surprised if more than one candidate refused to complete this questionnaire.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
MCGEO Targets Schools in Questionnaire
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Consequences of the Budget, Part Three
The school system was not the only powerful institution that was challenged by the budget. Also in the crosshairs were the public employee unions.
Labor
When analyzing the unions, it’s important to keep in mind their differences rather than assume them to be monolithic. There are six county employee unions. MCEA, which represents teachers, SEIU Local 500, which represents school support staff, and the Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel (MCAASP), which represents school supervisors, all have members in the school system. They negotiate their contracts with the Superintendent, who sends them to the elected Board of Education for approval. The County Council can set the overall size of the school budget, but they cannot dictate line items in school contracts or specific employee policies (like furloughs). The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 represents police officers, the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1664 represents career fire fighters and MCGEO represents nearly all other non-managerial line workers. These three unions negotiate contracts with the County Executive, which are then approved by the council. The County Council has lots of authority over these contracts, and can reject them, refuse to fund increases contained in them and can even strike individual provisions in them. In most years, the six unions get similar gains, but this year was different.
One significant result of this budget is an angry split between the public employee unions. None of them are getting general wage adjustments or step increases, but in other ways they are being treated differently. The County Executive’s original proposal subjected non-public safety employees to ten days of furloughs each. (The Executive does not have the authority to decide questions related to staffing in the school system.) So of the six public employee unions, only MCGEO – which represents nearly everyone except for police officers, fire fighters and education employees – would have been hit by furloughs.
MCGEO fought back, arguing that they were unfairly targeted and basic fairness held that all employees should be furloughed at the same rate. Four County Council Members agreed with MCGEO in principle at their parking garage rally. Council staff found that if furloughs were spread across the government, each employee would only have to take 1.5 days. This prompted a response from the school unions, who raised questions about the feasibility of furloughs in the schools and argued that changes to the county reserves would be sufficient to prevent all furloughs. But the council, which was under pressure from bond rating agencies, did not buy it. In the end, they chose to implement a progressive furlough structure of three to eight days for non-school employees, with higher-paid workers taking more furlough days. The school system took a budget cut but did not have to take furloughs.
This approach created winners and losers among the unions. MCGEO is a loser, but it did suffer fewer furlough days than under the Executive’s proposal. The police and fire fighters are big losers. The Executive did not propose furloughs for them, but the council implemented them anyway. The school unions successfully held off all furloughs.
Most importantly, the six unions could not agree on a common approach to the budget. While the three school unions largely stuck together, the remaining three county government unions (MCGEO, the police and fire fighters) not only went against the schools, they also went against each other. Next year could see a similar conflict. While there has always been occasional friction between the unions owing to different budget priorities and different styles (especially among the leaders), it has been a LONG time since they were this far apart.
This picture of a public safety worker protesting Council Member Nancy Navarro’s fundraiser says it all about the state of inter-union relations.
The big question is whether the unions’ disagreements over the budget will spill over into their electoral cooperation. Regardless of their squabbling, they are all better off if they make the same endorsements and work together on behalf of their candidates. If not, only their hardened enemies on the council will benefit.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at the long term.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
The Post Owes the County Council an Apology
Do you still read the Washington Post’s coverage of Montgomery County? If you do, you know its editorials routinely portray MoCo politicians as tools of the public employee unions, especially the teachers, despite clear evidence that recent teacher pay increases have been comparable to other jurisdictions. Its reporting focuses on labor issues to the exclusion of most other matters. The Post even insinuated that the unions were involved in last year’s Council President fight when they had no evidence to back up that assertion. Post readers have been conditioned to believe that Montgomery County Council Members are nothing more than creatures of the unions who sell out taxpayers.
But the council has proven them wrong.
Yesterday, every single member of the County Council agreed to freeze county employee pay, take away a bargained pension benefit and spread furloughs across the entire county government – even onto the teachers. That followed a sharply-worded letter from the school unions arguing against it. The letter was signed by none other than MCEA, whom the Post accuses of wielding a “toxic influence” over the council because of the Apple Ballot.
Far from being tools of the unions, the council is currently in heated conflict with them. In many recent conversations your author has had with Council Members, fear of the unions has not been in evidence. Instead, they are all worried about the county’s bond rating and are intensely interested in protecting it. Several of the union leaders are FURIOUS at the council for not considering alternatives to furloughs, including drawing on the rainy day fund. One union leader even threatened to endorse exactly none of the incumbents. Is this really an instance of politicians being in the thrall of unions as the Post alleges?
Last week, the Post sent a delegation of editors and reporters to meet with the full council. They said they wanted to improve their coverage of the county and renew their relationship with Council Members. Several Council Members remarked on their “arrogance,” noting their gold cufflinks and their attitude that the council was lucky to receive such a visit. One Council Member even asked them why they were getting scooped by blogs. (The Post bosses admitted that was a problem for which they had no answer.) No one found the visit to be particularly useful.
If the Post truly wants a new beginning in Montgomery County, there is no need for delegation visits or the flashing of cufflinks. All they have to do is apologize to the council and stop portraying them as cartoon characters jerked around by the unions’ non-existent chains.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
MCGEO Slams Leggett for "Obvious Lack of Vision"
In a letter to the County Council last week, MCGEO President Gino Renne sharply criticized County Executive Ike Leggett for failing to abide by language he negotiated with the union calling for a "formal partnership" and "a cost efficiency study group to conduct a top-to-bottom analysis of the County’s management and operational practices." Renne asks the County Council to "step into the leadership void that the Executive Branch has created" and consider "alternatives to the punitive and lopsided recommendations that have been advanced by the County Executive."
Following is the complete letter dated April 16 and posted on MCGEO's website on April 19.
#####
Dear Montgomery County Councilmembers:
When I testified before you on April 6th I said the members of our union have only one expectation: “your work product must be fair and balanced.” Make no mistake, the final budget that you authorize for the coming year will be your product and the voters will judge you—and the County Executive—by the outcome.
All of you espouse the core principles that are the bulwark of the Democratic Party—principles which I personally share. Among those principles is an abiding faith in effective government that serves constituents and values fairness and equality. There has never been a time when those principles were more important to the future of our County and its citizens.
It’s easy to lead when the goals are clear and resources are at hand. But the true test of leadership is how we respond in the toughest of times. I am asking you to step into the leadership void that the Executive Branch has created.
My Union’s members, my Executive Board and I all understand that we will not get through this crisis without some pain and we are prepared to accept our fair share—but only our fair share.
One of the key principles that drives our Union is the acceptance of our responsibility within the context of our collective bargaining agreement and our employment obligations. Our end of the deal is that each member gives our best effort to the job to maintain the quality of services that residents demand and expect. In return, our members expect competitive wages, safe and decent working conditions and a meaningful voice on the job.
I have criticized the Executive extensively for his obvious lack of vision in proposing a budget plan that—for the third consecutive budget cycle—cuts vital services to the County’s most vulnerable citizens and imposes the heaviest burden of sacrifice on the members of our union. This year, the Executive has gone beyond previous years, putting a disproportionate amount of the load on the shoulders of front-line county government workers and the county’s most vulnerable citizens—while barely touching management layers and failing to ask for similar sacrifices from two-thirds of the County’s workforce.
Our Union’s disappointment with the Executive extends beyond the budget document. The recent history of collective bargaining with the County Executive reflects a serious deterioration of the relationship. For example, there is concrete language within our existing collective bargaining agreement that establishes a formal partnership between the County and the Union. Unfortunately, the Executive has totally repudiated the letter and the spirit of that provision. Because the County Council is also a de facto partner by virtue of that agreement, we call on you to be cognizant of that partnership and approach this budget review with the explicit obligations of that partnership in mind.
Last fall, when the Union and the County Executive concluded an interim agreement to help deal with the growing fiscal crisis, the final document also included a provision to establish, fund and participate in a cost efficiency study group to conduct a top-to-bottom analysis of the County’s management and operational practices. That action has not been taken. I call on the Council to act to fulfill this contractual obligation as an integral element in fixing the failures of this budget and to effectively deal with the challenges that we all know are on the horizon.
For better or worse, now, the responsibility falls to you and your colleagues on the Council to do the right thing. Make no mistake, voters are watching and their expectations are reasonable. They expect nothing less than responsible leadership.
Each Council member sits on a committee to oversee various County administrative agencies. You have the authority and the responsibility to exercise that oversight in the interest of County residents. I am asking you directly to make certain that the agency officials who appear before you in the coming weeks provide candid and comprehensive information about the genuine budget alternatives that exist. You should ask for explanations as to why their reduction-in-force plans leave managerial levels virtually untouched, and they must respond. You must hold the County’s bureaucrats accountable because voters will ultimately hold you accountable, and because it is the right thing to do.
In summary, we are asking the Council to take several significant steps:
1. Exercise your oversight responsibility to prod agency heads and department directors to examine alternatives to the punitive and lopsided recommendations that have been advanced by the County Executive.
2. Direct the Executive to observe the letter and the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement between the County and UFCW Local 1994, especially as it pertains to partnership and the establishment of a cost efficiency study committee.
3. Work with us to re-craft this budget document to make it fair and balanced in the interest of the welfare of our County’s residents, its employees and the county itself.
On behalf of the members of UFCW Local 1994, I thank you for your concern and I urge you to continue to exercise independent leadership and judgment.
Sincerely,
Gino Renne
President
UFCW International Vice President
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
MCGEO Lays Siege to Rockville
They came from every corner of the county, from every race, age and ethnicity of humankind, united only by their shirts of radioactive yellow. That is the war color of MCGEO, the giant Montgomery County government employees union. The union leaders sent out their call and in swarmed the members last night, over five hundred in number. First they yelled defiantly at the council building, fists pumping and signs aloft. Then they invaded.
MCGEO is known for its tough talk, its theatrics and its ability to mobilize bodies – lots and lots of bodies. They did not disappoint. Their yellow-clad hordes blanketed the council parking garage’s roof to hear the battle cries of their leadership. They also gathered to evaluate politicians, and many of them showed up. Some came to encourage. Others came to caution. Still others came to curry favor. But for whatever reason, the politicians came and that’s what mattered.
Four incumbent Council Members spoke to the teeming masses: George Leventhal, Valerie Ervin (a long-time member of MCGEO’s parent union), Marc Elrich and Nancy Navarro. Four challengers also spoke: at-large candidates Hans Riemer and Becky Wagner, District 1 challenger Ilaya Hopkins and District 2 challenger Sharon Dooley.
Left to right: George Leventhal, Valerie Ervin, Nancy Navarro and Marc Elrich.
The union did not ask any of the politicians to support pay increases, and none offered to do so. It is widely understood that the county’s budget problems prevent any pay hikes. Rather, MCGEO’s issue is fairness. They believe their members are carrying an unfair share of the County Executive’s proposed budget cuts.
MCGEO’s case rests on two issues. First, they are the only union whose members are to be furloughed. The school unions, the police and the fire fighters are exempt. The County Executive’s budget proposal cut the police and fire fighter budgets by single digits while several departments represented by MCGEO were cut by 20% or more. Second, the union claims management positions were largely spared while hundreds of rank-and-file workers will be laid off. That is because the agency budgets are developed by – you guessed it – managers. And the agency budgets collectively form the Executive’s proposal.
During his testimony before the County Council later that night, fearsome MCGEO President Gino Renne claimed that county managers made 59% more money than their counterparts in neighboring jurisdictions while line workers made just 10% more. And so the managers’ high pay is augmented by greater job security. Who says the county is not learning from the private sector?
MCGEO clearly wants the budget pain to be shared with other unions as well as management. That is a hard sell to the five other county employee unions, each of whom is going without pay increases. The teachers are about to endure an increase in average class size of one student. “How do you furlough teachers?” asked one MCEA member of your author. Such views do not elicit sympathy from MCGEO.
The budget process is producing some degree of split in labor. All observers noted the presence of two separate employee rallies: the yellow mass march of MCGEO and a smaller rally by the school unions held on the council steps at the same time. Ominously for the other unions, all four incumbent Council Members who spoke before MCGEO said they would work towards smoothing out the sacrifice. (George Leventhal even cried out, “The Washington Post wants us to beat up on you!” What will their rabidly anti-union editors think of that?) Whatever their budget differences, the unions must come together at election time. Otherwise, their enemies will triumph.
MCGEO Yellow and SEIU Purple in the council hearing room – a moment of solidarity.
Finally, the numbers, the yellow, the politicians, the chants and the unbearable crush of human flesh in the council hearing room were not enough for MCGEO. They needed a symbol for their outrage and they produced one: a gleaming golden toilet emblematic of the County Executive’s bathroom preferences. The toilet was so weighted down by its golden crust that it required four beefy union members to haul it up the steps to the speaking platform, where it was raised aloft for the cheering crowd like a royal trophy. Politicians should beware else they are flushed.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
WMATA: No to Employee Raises, Yes to Goodies for Catoe
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 689, which represents WMATA employees, has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to enforce an arbitrator’s decision granting pay increases to its members. WMATA is crying poverty, claiming that they cannot afford the raises. But poverty did not stop WMATA from giving their General Manager, Jack Catoe, some juicy morsels in his contract extension just two months ago.
Last year, WMATA budgeted $44 million for FY 2009 for a 3% wage increase for non-union employees (including managers), another 2% for “salary adjustments and special recognitions” and an unspecified amount for “fair and affordable settlements on union contracts.” But since Local 689’s contract expired on 6/30/08 and was not renewed during the fiscal year, union employees received no raises while non-union workers and management received their 3% hikes.
By August 2008, the union began complaining that WMATA was not bargaining in good faith. Their President wrote in a newsletter: It appears that although we are attempting to negotiate in good faith through very uncomfortable issues, we continue to hit a brick wall. Since April 4th every obstacle that could be placed in front of us has been attempted. From stone walling on the beginning of the process to just plain walking away from the table, you name it and they have done it. We have patiently sat in rooms talking for hours that have led to nowhere. It appears that what we are asking to improve upon, they refuse to give and/or the price they are asking us to pay is just too dog-gone high!
The union filed for arbitration a month later. On November 4, the arbitrator awarded three percent wage increases for each year beginning on 7/1/09, 7/1/10 and 7/1/11. WMATA seemed to anticipate having to pay an increase, originally budgeting $12 million in FY 2010 for a “wage settlement” before revoking it in February. Nevertheless, WMATA vowed to appeal the arbitrator’s decision, claiming that it broke federal law by forcing it to pay “salaries and other benefits that exceed the interstate compact agency’s funding ability.” In other words, WMATA claimed that it could not afford a wage hike.
Few public employees are getting substantial raises these days. In Maryland, the state government and most county governments are not granting any general wage adjustments to their employees. But WMATA’s argument would be easier to sustain if it had not already given raises to non-union employees and managers last year while giving nothing to union workers. And its position is further undermined by its lavish generosity to General Manager Jack Catoe.
Catoe has been WMATA’s General Manager since January 2007 and was named the top transportation manager in the U.S. in May. But then Catoe had to deal with the June 22 Red Line accident, the biggest disaster in WMATA history. While the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has not determined the cause of the accident, much speculation centers on the old 1000-series Rohr cars that comprised the striking train. In 2006, NTSB advised phasing out the old cars because they were “vulnerable to catastrophic telescoping damage,” a recommendation that Catoe never implemented. Now the union is claiming that WMATA is allocating money to rehabilitating the HVAC systems in the old cars rather than replacing them. NTSB’s final report is sure to include plenty of finger-pointing directed at WMATA.
Despite the huge negative publicity and service disruptions caused by the crash, WMATA extended Catoe’s contract by three years in September. Catoe’s pay ($315,000 per year) and housing allowance ($5,000 per month) did not change, but the contract contained three generous new items.
1. Retention Incentive Payment (Section 3.3.2)On the Effective Date of this Agreement, Executive shall receive a retention incentive payment of $50,000 net of taxes and other deductions. Should Executive remain employed with WMATA on January 30, 2012, then Executive shall receive an additional retention incentive payment of $50,000 net of taxes and other deductions.
2. Nonqualified Annuity (Section 3.5.5.2)WMATA shall provide an annuity to Executive in the amount of $27,000 with WMATA retaining all incidents of ownership in such annuity. Such annuity will be subject to the claims of WMATA’s creditors. Executive shall be vested in 50% of the annuity amount upon completion of the first year as General Manager under this Agreement. Executive shall be vested in an additional 25% of the annuity amount at the completion of the second year under this Agreement and the remaining 25% of the annuity amount at the end of the third year of this Agreement.
3. Extra Health Care Payments (First Amendment to Agreement)For calendar year 2009, WMATA will reimburse Executive for up to $6,000 incurred after the date of this First Amendment for additional medical or wellness premiums, costs or other expenditures not covered by the insured health care program. Reimbursement shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 3.4 of the Agreement. Executive shall bear the cost of any taxes imposed on such payments.
Catoe is also eligible for bonuses, is entitled to 26 weeks of pay if he is terminated without cause, gets 27 days of paid annual leave and participates in WMATA’s deferred compensation plan, qualified retirement plan and welfare plan.
And so WMATA, an agency that gave its besieged General Manager a $50,000 retention payment and a $27,000 annuity three months after the worst disaster in its history, is now claiming that it cannot give rank-and-file workers a dime more. If only they had made that claim prior to enriching Catoe, it would be easier to believe them.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Hard Hats and Small Politics in Rockville
What does the mock hard hat below have to do with the current relationship between Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and the County Council? Quite a bit, actually.
At last week’s unveiling of the new Silver Spring library, Executive Branch staff handed out the above hats calling for a pedestrian bridge between the Wayne Avenue parking garage and the library. (Just Up the Pike posted a picture showing the director of the library system holding one of the hats.) Leggett advocated for the bridge to enable greater accessibility for disabled people. The County Council voted down the bridge in July by 8-1, with George Leventhal dissenting, citing the bridge’s $750,000 cost and the fact that the library was ADA-compliant without it. There is no indication that the council will reverse that vote in the near future, if ever. But Leggett made a point of noting that the building’s design would accommodate the bridge and had the above hats passed out to make a point: namely, that he is right and the council is wrong. Advocates for the disabled, who favor the bridge, are no doubt applauding.
We express no opinion on the merits of the bridge, but this episode is part of an evolving pattern of the Executive’s budgetary conduct and his relations with the County Council. On the one hand, Ike Leggett is definitely running for a second term as a fiscal conservative. There is no question that he has moved to limit the growth of spending to match the county’s anemic revenues, as he is required to do by law. The FY 2010 operating budget recently passed by the County Council contains the first tax-supported budget cut since FY 1992. But Leggett also negotiated the most recent union contracts with MCGEO, the Fire Fighters and the Police that have been criticized by Council President Phil Andrews and others as unaffordable. And the council trimmed $20 million from Leggett’s charter-limit-breaking tax increase in 2008 at the behest of Andrews, Duchy Trachtenberg and Roger Berliner, all of whom believed “labor savings” were important at that early stage of the budget crisis.
At the same time that Leggett is preaching fiscal conservatism, he is supporting small but prominent spending items sometimes aimed at noisy constituencies. The Silver Spring library pedestrian bridge, which appeals to the disabled, is one example. Two others include the $150,000 appropriation for Sligo Creek Golf Course, which was approved by the council, and the new police helicopters, which will probably never get council approval. Leggett shows no sign of backing off on the bridge or the helicopters despite their massive unpopularity with the council. This is smart politics since small, highly motivated constituencies make for excellent field soldiers in an election. But some Council Members will see this as little more than posturing that is inconsistent with the Executive’s attempts to acquire the high ground on the issue of fiscal prudence. It is the council, after all, that has the responsibility for deciding the ultimate fate of the budget.
And so when Ike Leggett’s people pass out “Build the Library Bridge” hats, they are poking eight Council Members in the eye over an issue that has already been decided. That has not escaped their notice. Leggett is still the Executive, and likely will still be the Executive after 2010, but his current politics of going small will only shrink his political capital with the council.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Ten Random Questions
Here are ten random questions we – and the spies – have been asking.
1. Will progressives find someone to run against Rona Kramer?
Senator Rona Kramer (D-14) is the bane of the left, having an even worse labor and environmental record than her brother, Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19). And Rona had no coattails for Ben, pulling in only three of sixteen precincts in her district for his County Council race. But the left has not yet found a plausible candidate to take her out. If they do – watch out!
2. Will Saqib Ali challenge Nancy King?
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39) reported a cash balance of $87,423.54 in January 2009 – higher than any other Delegate except Susan Lee (D-16) and more than double District 39 Senator Nancy King ($40,217.23). Ali competed with King for the Senate appointment and criticized her months after she won, leading to speculation of a contest ever since. If Ali does challenge King, it endangers any chance of an incumbent slate and may make District 39 Delegate Kirill Reznik vulnerable. This rumor refuses to die.
3. How many open seats will there be in District 19?
Most observers believe Delegate Hank Heller will retire. Delegate Ben Kramer has made it clear that he would rather be on the County Council. So how many Delegate seats will be open? If there is more than one, how many people will come out of the woodwork to grab one? As if this is not enough, we hear Senator Mike Lenett may draw an opponent.
4. Once Jim Smith runs for Comptroller, what will MoCo Dems do?
Comptroller Pete Franchot may be the most hated man in Annapolis, but he is a statewide incumbent from Montgomery County. On the other hand, once Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith finally announces his challenge, there could be pressure from friends of Franchot targets Martin O’Malley and Mike “Big Daddy” Miller to support Smith. That will put many members of the Montgomery delegation – especially those from Franchot’s home base in District 20 – in a tight spot.
5. When will the state make its decision on the Purple Line?
Last fall, the Maryland Transit Administration released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement listing eight options for the Purple Line: no-build, maintenance of existing bus service, three options for Bus Rapid Transit (with one of them on Jones Bridge Road) and three for light rail. We expected the state to make its decision by now and begin the federal review process. Which option will they pick? And why are they taking so long?
6. What is happening at the Washington Post?
Change is coming to the Post, but not in a good way. The organization is undergoing its fourth buyout since 2003 and Greater Greater Washington has written that at least one local reporter is leaving. The Post ombudsman is already warning of a drop in coverage quality. Montgomery County reporters Ann Marimow and Miranda Spivack together produce only about three articles a week. (A blog with that little output would struggle to hold its readership.) If either of them takes a buyout, the impact on local coverage would be devastating.
Meanwhile, one of the county’s politicians recently asked us, “So, did anything come of the Post editorial story, or did they arrogantly ignore it like the lazy monopolists they are?” Unfortunately, the Post continues to employ an intern to write its editorials despite conduct that would have gotten him fired anywhere else. One of his latest MoCo editorials saying, “Maryland bureaucrats think they know best about Montgomery County school funding,” mimicked the county’s press release on the state School Board waiver, which said, “This is a classic example of state bureaucrats second-guessing an agreement reached on the local level by Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Public Schools to fully fund County school programs.” We deserve better.
7. What will happen to the fifth floor?
The County Council has two kinds of staff: political and merit. Political staffers (on the sixth floor) work directly for individual Council Members. Merit staffers (on the fifth floor) are technical experts in their subject areas who perform policy work for multiple members and often last over several councils. While some of the political staffers are excellent - and some are not - much of the institutional knowledge of the place resides with the merit staff. And the best of them are approaching retirement age in the next few years, including Staff Director Steve Farber, Deputy Staff Director Glenn Orlin (known as “the tenth Council Member”) and Senior Legislative Attorney Mike Faden. If all of them retire at the same time and are not replaced by top-notch people, Rockville will go down the tubes.
8. How tough will Ike Leggett be at the bargaining table?
We all know that County Executive Ike Leggett wants to run for re-election as a fiscal conservative. Later this year, he will get his chance to prove his conservatism because five of the six public employee union contracts (all except the Fire Fighters) will come up for bargaining prior to their expiration. Leggett’s team will handle the negotiations with the police and MCGEO directly. While Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast will bargain with the three education unions, Leggett will have some influence over that process because of his ability to recommend funding levels for the education budget. So will Leggett be a tough bargainer? Few of our spies expect that. If he is not, then he will be leaving it to the council to decide whether to fund any cost-of-living increases. That will be a tough argument to have in an election year with another multi-hundred-million dollar budget deficit looming over Rockville.
9. Who will build momentum in the Prince George’s County Executive race?
Right now, we see three credible candidates in the hunt: former Delegate Rushern Baker (D-22B), who nearly defeated term-limited incumbent Jack Johnson in 2006, Senator C. Anthony Muse (D-26) and State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey. A few months ago, we picked Ivey as the early leader, partially because Baker’s and Muse’s finances were in terrible shape. But there is a long time to go in this race. Montgomery County residents have a lot at stake here because Prince George’s dysfunction often spills over the border, especially with regards to WSSC. Most of our spies with an opinion favor Ivey, with one calling the dropoff between him and the other Prince George’s politicians “huge.”
10. When will the At-Large challengers announce?
We have received an awful lot of traffic on our Whispers of the At-Large Race series. We are hearing that we have missed a couple prospective candidates and we may have to revisit them. In the meantime, only two at-large hopefuls have websites up: Jane De Winter and Guled Kassim.
We cannot stress to the challengers how difficult this race will be. All four incumbents are running again. The county is a huge and expensive place in which to run. Money is tough to raise. Whoever jumps out first and shows some game will have an edge in generating buzz, lobbying for endorsements and getting some backing. There is no reason why any plausible candidate would want to cede these advantages to his or her rivals. So we are looking for some action soon.
Lordy, people, that is enough trouble-making for one day!
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Duchy Trachtenberg’s Labor Record
Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg recently wrote to the Gazette protesting a flyer critical of her that was distributed by the Municipal and County Government Employees Organization (MCGEO) at the Montgomery County Democrats’ Spring Ball. The exchange between Ms. Trachtenberg and MCGEO may have been entertaining, but it is time to put aside the rhetoric and focus on the underlying issue: Ms. Trachtenberg’s labor record.
Consider the following:
1. When Council Members George Leventhal and Marc Elrich introduced a bill to require contracts for domestic workers Ms. Trachtenberg criticized it as providing “false promises” and said that education of workers was the answer. After the bill’s advocates pushed back, Ms. Trachtenberg eventually supported it.
2. In 2008, Ms. Trachtenberg proposed a two-point cost-of-living reduction for public employees at a time when the county could afford to abide by their contracts. She did not have enough votes to push the reduction through the council.
3. Last summer, the county’s Inspector General issued a report describing management oversight problems in the disability program. Ms. Trachtenberg and her colleague, Phil Andrews, responded with a bill that would have dictated collective bargaining outcomes even when that idea was never proposed by the report. In the end, only those items agreed to by the County Executive and the police union were approved by the council.
4. Prior to the 2009 District 4 primary, Ms. Trachtenberg did not support a proposal to allow early voting. That proposal would have aided working people with multiple jobs and long hours to vote on days other than Tuesday, including the weekend.
5. Ms. Trachtenberg twice opposed District 4 candidate Nancy Navarro, who was supported two years in a row by nearly the entire county’s labor movement. The candidates Ms. Trachtenberg backed instead were Don Praisner, who voted against prevailing wage, and Ben Kramer, who had the worst labor record of any Montgomery Delegate. Furthermore, Ms. Trachtenberg has employed Eric Hensal, who managed both campaigns opposing Navarro, as an advisor in seeking concessions from the unions.
6. Ms. Trachtenberg co-sponsored the Montgomery County prevailing wage law, which protected labor standards on county-owned construction projects. She deserves great credit for supporting that bill. (Disclosure: your author lobbied for it.) She also deserves credit for being a firm advocate of light rail on the Purple Line, a project that enjoys the support of a large coalition including labor.
Ms. Trachtenberg was understandably unhappy about MCGEO’s comparison of her to the infamous former Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI). Those are not the words of your author. We do not believe that Senator McCarthy is a suitable comparison for any Montgomery office holder, including the Council Member.
But Ms. Trachtenberg’s overall record is a disappointment to most of labor. Time after time, they have asked for her support and found her on the opposite side. Labor expects that from Council Member Phil Andrews, a principled budget hawk who honestly – and civilly – disagrees with most of their priorities. It is a different thing coming from Ms. Trachtenberg, who is the granddaughter of a union organizer and still claims to be pro-union even while repeatedly voting against them.
Look at all the labor organizations that endorsed Duchy Trachtenberg in 2006.
Given her record, how empty will that page be next year?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Massive Interest in Police Disability Post (Updated)
Right now, 44% of the traffic to this site is comprised of direct visits to our article, "What the Post Does Not Want You to Know About Disability."
That's fairly uncommon for this blog, on which the vast majority of visits usually come from regular readers clicking on our home page. The last time an individual post attracted this much interest was on April 8, when the District 4 Mail Scandal went national. A LOT of people are now seeing the other side of the story on the police disability program.
Updated: Now it's 49%. The word is definitely getting out.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
What the Post Does Not Want You to Know About Disability
We will give anti-government employee Post intern Steven Stein credit for one thing: he’s a persistent young man. His latest editorial attacks a County Council compromise on the disability issue as “an unacceptable outcome that would speak to the undue influence that union leaders exert over some council members.” But Stein has been sitting on a significant number of facts that, if known to Washington Post readers, would paint the issue in a far different light.
Last fall, Stein contacted the Fraternal Order of Police about the disability program, which was then the subject of a report by Montgomery County’s Inspector General Thomas Dagley. The police provided him the research below which showed that the number of officers retiring on disability has averaged 11 per year since 1985. Those officers include managers who are not in the bargaining unit.
The police updated this data and provided it again to the Post. Through 2008, disability retirements only accounted for 1.2% of the county’s actual sworn officers. The percentage in 2008 (1.0%) is the lowest since 2004. It’s difficult to portray the system as “absurd” or “outrageous” when it is so seldom used. Neither Stein nor Washington Post reporter Ann Marimow have ever revealed this data to their readers.
Another point that Stein refuses to discuss is that the Inspector General’s report primarily relates to management oversight. Dagley states in his enclosure letter:The findings relate to the need for the Office of Human Resources (OHR) to improve internal controls and management oversight to ensure SCDR [service-connected disability retirement] benefits are protected against abuse, and for the Department of Police to ensure compliance with medical examination program requirements and related standards regarding the health status and functional capabilities of police officers.
The report went on to recommend improving “internal controls and management oversight” and ensuring periodic medical examination procedures. The first issue is under the direct control of department management. The second issue has actually earned the agreement of the police union, who presented a proposal calling for mandatory medical reexaminations overseen by a Disability Review Board of 4 impartial doctors. Their proposal, which has been ignored by Stein but printed on this blog entry, appears below.
Several months ago, County Council Members Phil Andrews and Duchy Trachtenberg proposed a bill calling for a two-tier disability system, a measure that was not suggested by the Inspector General’s report. The Post promptly endorsed the bill. But in bashing the police union and the “spinelessness” of the bill’s critics, Stein ignored the Post’s own reporting identifying two Assistant Police Chiefs who benefited from the system. Those Assistant Chiefs are not members of the union bargaining unit and were directly supervised by MCPD Chief Tom Manger. Where are the anti-Manger editorials?
As the bill advanced, the County Council’s staff produced two memos on its legality and effects. The staff estimated that the savings from a move towards a two-tier system would amount to “more than $1.5 million” based on the experience of the career Fire Fighters’ move to such a system in 2002. First, that amount equals just 0.26% of the county’s $587 million budget deficit and 0.03% of the $4.3 billion operating budget. Second, the Fire Fighters’ experience should be considered in light of the fact that they negotiated a new deferred retirement option plan at the same time they went to a two-tier disability system.
Here’s another fact that Stein has never told his readers: the police union itself offered a three-tier system starting with 2009 hires to the County Executive, as we show in their proposal above. That would establish a similar system for the police as currently prevails for the career Fire Fighters. Stein also never gives credit to the union for giving back its 4.25% general wage adjustment, a move that saved the county $4.9 million. If the union is as greedy and obstructionist as Stein would have us believe, what can explain these concessions?
Stein’s views are rooted in his characterization of collective bargaining as a “ruse.” He prefers that the County Council unilaterally set working conditions for employees, which is the same position as all employers who oppose workplace democracy. If Steven Stein knew anything about Montgomery County, he would remember that county employee collective bargaining was approved by multiple charter amendments that attracted overwhelming support from voters. Most of our residents do not believe that employees should get everything they want, but they do believe employees should have a voice at work. As an intern who is one year out of college and has no acquaintance with our history and politics, Stein does not appreciate that basic fact.
Finally, let’s go back to the Inspector General’s report, which started this entire debate. It identified the disability issue as a management oversight issue requiring corrective action by management. Chief Manger is free to tighten oversight of the system and the police union – by its own written proposal – agrees with that goal. But because of the overlapping anti-government employee agendas of intern Steven Stein, the Washington Post Company and multiple members of the Montgomery County Council, the issue has mutated into an attack on labor. The County Council is on the verge of settling the matter through an amendment proposed by Council Member George Leventhal codifying some items agreed to by both management and labor and sending the rest back to bargaining. A reasonable compromise may therefore be in reach.
That would be good for the county. Too bad that it’s not good for the Boy King’s crusade against the men and women in our government service.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Fire Fighters and Leggett Strike Deal
County Executive Ike Leggett and the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association have reached a Memorandum of Agreement amending the union’s contract. Here are the key provisions.
1. The union’s 4 percent wage increase is “postponed” and will not be effective in Fiscal Year 2010. Salary-based benefits, like pensions, will not be affected by the postponement and will be calculated as if the postponement had not taken place. (This provision will require legislation to be submitted by the Executive.) The agreement does not specify when the postponed wage increase will take effect.
2. The contract will include new provisions laying out personal leave and compensatory leave credits.
3. Members will be permitted to wear union logos on their uniforms and helmets.
4. The County Executive and the union will jointly seek to vacate the Labor Relations Administrator’s decision that the Executive need not include salary increases for the Fire Fighters in his proposed budget. We suggested this deal could be made weeks ago. The memorandum says:The Union has filed an appeal of LRA Strongin’s March 28, 2009 Decision and Award. The parties shall file a joint motion and proposed Order (attached as Exhibit A) with LRA Strongin asking him to vacate the March, 28 2009 Decision and Award. If he signs the Order vacating the Decision and Award, the Union will voluntarily dismiss its appeal. The parties agree that they will neither cite nor attempt to rely on the vacated decision in any way. In the event that LRA Strongin does not issue an Order vacating the March 28, 2009 Decision and Award, the parties shall file a joint motion and proposed Order (attached as Exhibit B) with the Circuit Court requesting the Court to vacate the LRA Decision and Award and to dismiss the appeal. In the event that the Circuit Court does not enter the Order, the Union will pursue the appeal.
5. The memorandum contains this statement on County Council and senior management pay:The parties recognize the economic situation facing the County, particularly the shortfall in projected revenues for FY10. The County is calling on all of its employees to come together to deal with this grave situation. The Union and the County Executive, on his own behalf and on behalf of the non-represented employees in County leadership positions, are willing to make financial sacrifices in FY10, and the parties call on each member of the County Council to make similar sacrifices. Postponement of the general wage increase described in Paragraph 1 above shall be rescinded and the County Executive agrees to promptly seek funding from the County Council to retroactively pay such general wage increase unless (a) the County Executive returns to the County the net mandated pay increase required to go into effect in December 2009 under Section Sec. 1A-106 of the Code and (b) no general wage adjustment is given in FY10 to any appointed member of the Senior Management Team. The Parties recognize and agree that this provision does not impact salary schedule step increases.
Politicians’ pay raises are an increasingly dicey subject. According to the Post, D.C. Council Members and Fairfax Supervisors decided not to take raises in Fiscal 2010, but Calvert County Commissioners and Prince William Supervisors will get them. Raises for Prince George’s County politicians are up in the air. Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and City Council Members received a 2.5 percent raise last December, but the Mayor donated her increase to charity. Many state legislators chose to give part of their salaries back to the state to match state employee furloughs. If Montgomery County Council Members are required to accept their pay by law (as are state legislators), will they follow the example of the state legislators or Mayor Dixon?
Following are the memorandums of agreement between the County Executive and the Fire Fighters, the Fraternal Order of Police and MCGEO.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Fire Fighter Decision Threatens Nationwide Public Labor Movement (Updated)
We published our post “A Heavy Blow to Public Collective Bargaining” on Wednesday, April 8. But exactly a week later, it received an avalanche of direct visits from all over the country. And the visitor roster is an ominous development for public employee unions all across the United States.
Our post concerned a decision by the county’s Labor Relations Administrator (LRA) on the issue of whether the County Executive was required to propose a budget that included the Fire Fighters’ cost of living increases. The union cited sections of the county code requiring the Executive to respect the results of collective bargaining agreements he negotiated. The County Executive’s position was that the code did not bind him in his role of proposing a budget since that was a “legislative” function. The LRA agreed with the County Executive and the Fire Fighters are mulling an appeal.
The matter remained local until yesterday. Suddenly, the post began to be emailed all across the country. At one point, direct visits to that post accounted for more than a quarter of our traffic, an unusual event for this blog. Here are just a few of the entities who accessed it:
State of Arkansas
State of Maryland
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Miami-Dade County, Florida
City of Milwaukee
State of Minnesota
New York State Office of Comptroller
Oakland County, Michigan
Prince George’s County, Maryland
Public Employees Retirement Systems of Ohio
Stanislaus County, California
City of Tallahassee
Vermont Public Schools
Wayne County, Michigan
Wisconsin Public Schools
Many state and county governments around the country are experiencing financial problems similar to Montgomery County. More than a few of them are looking for a mechanism to escape their collectively bargained obligations. The LRA’s decision gives them a possible model for doing that.
But it could be worse. The Fire Fighters are considering an appeal to the court system. If they appeal and lose, the resulting court decision will be even more dangerous. Governments all over the U.S. could mimic the court’s reasoning to bust contracts everywhere.
We hear that there may be a way to step back from the brink. Our informants tell us that the Leggett administration is ready to join the Fire Fighters in asking that the LRA’s decision be vacated. That would rob the decision of its value as a precedent and render court action moot. In return, the administration would ask the Fire Fighters to stop pursuit of their cost of living increases. The Fire Fighters do not have much to lose by doing so since the County Council will certainly refuse to fund their increases even if the Executive proposes them. Everyone gets something out of the deal: the Fire Fighters can erase a bad labor decision, Leggett can resolve the last union contract issue and the rest of the nation’s labor movement will have one less problem to confront.
The deal makes sense. Will it happen?
Update: The Gazette has more.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
A Heavy Blow to Public Collective Bargaining in MoCo
A new decision by Montgomery County Labor Relations Administrator Andrew M. Strongin that the County Executive does not need to abide by collective bargaining agreements threatens significant damage to public sector unionism for police, fire fighters and non-school employees as we know it.
The decision has its roots in County Executive Ike Leggett’s decision not to fund the career Fire Fighters’ wage increase in his FY 2010 budget proposal. The County Executive had never renegotiated the Fire Fighters’ agreement to eliminate their cost-of-living increase, but he eliminated funding for the increase in his budget anyway. The Fire Fighters filed a complaint with the Labor Relations Administrator (LRA) alleging that the County Executive was bound by county law to provide the increases in his budget proposal. (Regardless of what the Executive proposes, no one challenges the ability of the County Council to underfund contracts.) The union cited two sections in the County Code:
Section 33, 153(l):In each proposed annual operating budget, the County Executive must describe any collective bargaining agreement or amendment to an agreement that is scheduled to take effect in the next fiscal year and estimate the cost of implementing that agreement. The annual operating budget must include sufficient funds to pay for the items in the parties' final agreement. The employer must expressly identify to the Council by April 1, unless extenuating circumstances require a later date, all terms and conditions in the agreement that:
Section 33, 154(a)(8) states:
(1) require an appropriation of funds, or
(2) are inconsistent with any County law or regulation, or
(3) require the enactment or adoption of any County law or regulation, or
(4) which have or may have a present or future fiscal impact.
If a later submission is necessary, the employer must specify the submission date and the reasons for delay to the Council President by April 1. The employer must make a good faith effort to have the Council take action to implement all terms and conditions in the parties' final agreement.(a) The employer and its agents or representatives must not:
County Attorney Leon Rodriguez, representing the Leggett administration, replied that the Code was subordinate to the Charter, which is effectively Montgomery County’s Constitution. Rodriguez asserted that the County Executive’s authority to propose budgets as granted by Charter Section 303 was “legislative” in nature and therefore could not be limited by statutes, including those that regulated collective bargaining. According to Rodriguez, the County Code could limit the County Executive’s executive conduct (such as his requirement to negotiate with the union), but not could limit his “legislative” function of proposing a budget. Only a Charter Amendment can bind county legislators. (These arguments are reminiscent of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s contentions that he was actually a part of the U.S. Congress and therefore not subject to laws covering the Executive Branch.)
(8) directly or indirectly oppose the appropriation of funds or the enactment of legislation by the County Council to implement an agreement reached under this Article...
In his decision, the LRA found, “the County Executive manifestly violated the terms of Secs. 33-153(l) and 33-154(a)(8) of the Bargaining Law, and thereby committed a prohibited practice as defined by the County Council...” But the LRA went on to conclude that these sections of the law were “neither valid nor enforceable.”
Why?
The LRA agreed with Rodriguez’s position that the County Executive is acting in a legislative capacity when he is submitting a proposed budget to the council. The LRA then takes note of Section 510A of the Charter, which states:The Montgomery County Council shall provide by law for collective bargaining with binding arbitration with an authorized representative of the Montgomery County career fire fighters. Any law so enacted shall prohibit strikes or work stoppages by career fire fighters.
Doesn’t this section of the Charter require the Executive to respect collective bargaining agreements? According to the LRA, it does not. He states, “There simply is not any necessary conflict between the Council’s obligation to provide for collective bargaining with the firefighters and the Executive’s power to propose an operating budget.”
The LRA ignores one central fact: roughly 80% of the operating budget is accounted for by employee compensation. If the charter provides for collective bargaining, wouldn’t it make sense that the Executive take account of the results of that bargaining in his proposed budget? The LRA says no: collective bargaining outcomes have no relationship to the budget. That may fly in the face of reality, but the LRA has made his decision.
The consequences to the Fire Fighters, as well as the police and the government employees (MCGEO), are enormous. (The school employees negotiate with the Superintendent and are regulated by state law.) If the LRA’s decision stands, no County Executive will ever have to abide by a collective bargaining agreement in formulating his budget. That means the union contracts would become a set of promises or wish lists to be fulfilled at the Executive’s option.
On the other hand, if the Fire Fighters appeal and a court upholds the decision, labor faces even more trouble. Now a court precedent would be established that could last for decades and maybe even spread to other parts of the state. An administrative decision might be contained through negotiation, but a court decision against labor would be an unmitigated disaster for all county employees.
Friday, April 03, 2009
How Hard Will MoCo be Hit by State Cuts?
The state’s budget crisis will inevitably impact state aid to counties. What will it cost Montgomery?
At the moment, the House and the Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee (B&T) have passed different versions of the state’s FY10 budget. Each version contains different sets of cuts. Here’s how they would affect Montgomery County:
There are three principal differences between the budgets. The House budget cuts transportation aid to Montgomery by $11.2 million while the Senate cuts $24 million. The House withholds $12.1 million in local income taxes collected by the state but due to the county while the Senate does not do that. Those two items largely negate each other. But the Senate proposes to reduce Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) funding, which steers extra education aid to expensive jurisdictions, by $12.4 million while the House does not. GCEI is one of the few programs in the state budget that disproportionately benefits Montgomery (along with Baltimore City and Prince George’s County). The Senate is making that cut, along with other items, because it would like to leave a larger general fund reserve than the House in case the Board of Public Works has to make more cuts after the General Assembly session ends.
So the overall impact of state aid cuts will cost Montgomery County $40.9-54.8 million. In his proposed budget, County Executive Ike Leggett did not assume any cuts in state aid. One of my Rockville sources defended that decision, saying, “To do otherwise would have been akin to placing a ‘kick me’ sign on the County’s backside.” Such is the gamesmanship played between the county and the state on all budgetary matters. But the fact remains that the County Council will now have to cut more money from somewhere.
Our prediction is that a new fight between the council and the county’s public employee unions will now ensue. In the recent contract renegotiations, most of the unions gave up their cost-of-living increases but not the step increases earned by employees who gain seniority. Those increases are mostly in the 1-2% range and account for an amount that may be in the low tens of millions. Some County Council Members will want to take them back while the unions will say they have given up enough.
Looks like we may be headed for another revolt.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Is the Washington Post Credible on Labor Issues?
Last Sunday, a Washington Post editorial slammed Montgomery County’s recently-passed budget as full of “sweetheart deals” for the county’s public employee unions. The week before, the Post ran an article by Ann Marimow titled “Union Influence Sways Budget Talks” during the middle of the County Council’s budget deliberations. And when the Post endorsed labor-backed Nancy Navarro during the District 4 County Council special election, they offered one caveat:
Ms. Navarro makes no bones about her alliance with labor, but we hope she will be sufficiently independent-minded to see that annual pay increases of 8 percent are simply not sustainable in the current budgetary environment.These may not be disconnected events. In fact, they could be a product of the Washington Post’s long, contentious history with its own employees’ labor unions. Today we expose that history for our readers.
The Post’s labor difficulties date back at least to the early 1970s. At the time, two craft unions – the printers (who set type for the paper) and the pressmen (who ran the printing machines) – dominated the newspaper’s physical production. They occasionally abused their power with job actions, including a wildcat (unsanctioned) strike in 1973. The Post decided to fight back by introducing a new set of labor-saving photographic composition equipment, secretly training non-union workers to operate it in an Oklahoma City “scab school.” In 1975, the Post installed their new equipment in their headquarters, causing the printers and pressmen to walk out. But the pressmen sabotaged the new machines, set fire to one of them and viciously beat a manager on their way out, thus igniting a 139-day strike. Keeping the paper running with non-union labor, the Post eventually settled with the printers and permanently replaced the pressmen, crushing the latter union once and for all. Management’s experience with the violent, Luddite pressmen has shaped its labor philosophy ever since. (You can read accounts of this infamous strike here, here and here.)
Among the concessions secured by the Post from the rest of its now-intimidated unions was a two-tier wage scale. Current employees were given raises but the entry-level scale was not changed. As a result, new employees were often paid less than veterans even though they occupied the same positions and did the same work. Management made things worse by bumping up some new workers to veteran scale while not doing the same for others, a practice perceived by the workforce as reeking of favoritism. And the new, lower-paid workers were more likely to be minorities, adding a racial element to the tension.
In 1987, the Post declared a bargaining impasse with their reporters in the Newspaper Guild after 16 months of negotiation over this issue and others. Guild members retaliated with a “byline strike” during which they refused to allow their bylines to be used in their articles. The Post ignored the tactic and unilaterally imposed its terms on the union. The Newspaper Guild launched two more byline strikes in 2002 and was able to slightly improve the Post’s offer in that bargaining round.
The Post’s latest labor dispute involves its production workers, who are represented by the Communications Workers of America (CWA). When CWA’s contract expired in May 2003, the Post insisted on withdrawing from the union’s defined benefit pension plan. After five years of stalled bargaining and no pay increases, CWA struck back with a publicity campaign. The Post has also not renewed a labor agreement covering 26 electricians that expired last December.
Do the Post’s recurring labor problems affect its coverage? Ann Marimow’s article describing union influence over the county’s budget may have appeared during the critical final week of the County Council’s deliberations, but a few of her sources tell me that it was being prepared for at least two weeks prior. Some political actors in Rockville suspect that the timing of the article’s release (which is not controlled by Ms. Marimow) was deliberately designed to shape the outcome of the County Council’s budget decisions. That suspicion may not be justified but the very fact that it is regarded as credible at all is a big problem for the Post.
The Post’s tempestuous union history calls into question its impartiality on labor reporting, especially with regards to local labor issues. I am not an impartial source on labor myself. As a result, I frequently disclose to MPW readers: “The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.” Our readers should consider that fact when they read my reporting and opinion. Perhaps the Washington Post should issue a disclosure statement after every one of its articles on labor issues such as, “The Post is a unionized employer and has been party to numerous labor disputes over the years.” MPW readers have a right to disclosure. So too do readers of the Washington Post.
