State of the Unions

As you’ve seen in the past, we here at the Omaha Blog are dedicated to analyzing the most exciting issues in this city.  Today, we tackle a crowd favorite – union contracts.

We’ve got ourselves a heavy weight fight brewing in Omaha, but this fight looks more like a Royal Rumble.  Let’s throw a bunch of people in the ring and see who comes out on top.  We’ve got the firefighters, the police, the mayor, the city council, outside interest groups, and more.

One of the most interesting characters to emerge from the union spat is Jean Stothert.  She stands 5′ 8″ and weighs in at… ok, time to end the metaphor.

First, let’s take a look at where we stand on the union contracts.  I’m going to focus more on the police contract and the negotiation process.  I’ll probably do a more detailed post about the fire contract later on.

The current fight over union contracts is starting to look an awful lot like the national health care debate.  There are a lot of sub-plots and characters to watch over the coming weeks.

The police contract is much further along than the fire contract.  The police contract has been negotiated, approved by union members, and is now waiting council approval.  The council has sent the contract to a labor lawyer for review and feedback.

Last year, The Bates Commission (a group of gray haired business men) came out with a series of recommendations on the upcoming union contracts.  Almost all the recommendations were met in the police contract.  I can’t comment on the fire contract because it hasn’t been released.  That doesn’t stop some people from criticizing the fire contract – I’ll talk about that later.

Chuck Sigerson sat on the Bates Commission.  If he was to vote on the police contract, he would probably vote “yes”.  In a negation, neither party gets everything it wants – that’s why it’s called a negotiation.  Financially, this contract is much better for the city than the old one.

Spiking has been eliminated.  Well, I take that back.  It depends on your definition of spiking.  Jean Stothert and her ever changing definition of “spiking” has led her to question the new police contract.  The new contract averages a police officers pay over their entire career to determine pension benefits.  A police officer can no longer work a lot of overtime right before retirement to “spike” benefits.

Last week, Mayor Suttle released examples of why he thinks his plan eliminates spiking.

One example showed a 22-year officer who retired two years ago with pay spiked to a 12-month high of $133,000. That officer is getting a pension topping $84,000 per year. Suttle’s plan said that if that officer retired under the new contract, the pension would only be about $57,000.

What did critics have to say?  Dave Nabity – “Our first glance at the numbers, they don’t look right to us. We’re going to study them.” A week later, still no word from Nabity on whether the numbers are right or not.  Stothert didn’t even bother to criticize the numbers.  She stuck with the company line – “I don’t think that spiking is eliminated”.  She doesn’t elaborate on why she “thinks” that or what her definition of “spiking” is.

Jean Stothert’s other issue with the police contract is its length.  The contract covers five years.  In reality, the contract is retroactive; it covers 2009 and the next four years.  A four year contract is useful because it’s impossible to negotiate a contract during an election year – just ask Mike Fahey.  The current contract has taken over a year to negotiate.  Do you want your elected officials to be perpetually negotiating union contracts when there are other important issues to tackle?  If the contract is good for the city, there is no reason it shouldn’t be 5 years or longer.  The “length” argument is bogus political cover.

Stothert has made it abundantly clear that she is no friend of the unions.  The unions aren’t very popular in the city right now, and Stothert is taking advantage of that.  In the coming days and weeks, watch Stothert’s criticism of the union contracts closely.  Stothert’s criticism won’t contain much substance.  She’s mastered the art of speaking in platitudes.  She’ll say a five year contract is bad, but not explain why this five year contract is bad.  She’ll say spiking hasn’t ended, but you won’t hear her definition of “spiking” or her solution.

Her new talking point is “how are we going to pay for this”.  Her criticism is not how to pay for the new police union contract, it’s how to pay for the pension shortfall.  These are two related but separate issues.  In its recommendations, The Bates Commission wanted the unions to cover half of the pension shortfall and the city to pay for the other half.  The police contract comes close to that split.  The city is on the hook for some of the pension shortfall – it’s just a matter of how much.  The question of “how are we going to pay for this” is a whole different debate and a whole separate blog post.

It’s also critical to watch the vote on the police contract because it will directly impact the fire contract.  The fire union is stalling.  They are waiting to see how the police union contract goes over with the council.  If the police contract is voted down, the fire union will likely walk away from the negotiating table.  Then things will get interesting.  Right now, I’ll assume the police contract will pass.

The council vote on the police contract is when things start to get politically delicate for Stothert.  If the police contract passes the council with Stothert opposing it, she loses all credibility when it comes to criticizing the fire contract.  If she votes “yes” on the police contract, she can come out publicly and say I have no problems with unions but I have a huge problem with the fire union contract.  If you know for a fact that someone is going to vote “no” on something without even looking at it, what’s the point in having that person in the room.  While shaping health care legislation, Democrats kept most Republicans out of the room for this very reason.  Voting “yes” on the police union contract keeps Stothert in the room and gives her weight she can throw around during the fire contract debate.

If Stothert can convince other council members to vote “no” on either contract, then the contract dispute might head to the Nebraska Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR).  The CIR has consistently sided with unions in most labor disputes.  So, the contract coming out of the CIR would likely be better for the unions and worse for the tax payers – that’s the great irony in all of this.  By blocking the contracts, the council could actually be doing the unions a favor, and that is why this situation is so politically delicate.

Another interesting character to develop during the contract debate is Dave Nabity from the Omaha Alliance For The Private Sector (OAPS).  Nabity doesn’t like the negotiation process and wants to bring in Donald Trump to represent the city. Omaha Alliance For The Private Sector is group with about 20 members.  I don’t think any of them have ever been a part of a union contract negotiation on behalf of a city, but I could be wrong.  They apparently speak with authority on contract relations because they are bizzznass people.

I’m all for constructive criticism, but it’s hard to take a group seriously when one of their criticisms of the current fire contract is it’s too many pages.  Yes, they’re upset that it’s too many pages.  It’s ironic that a bizznass man would criticize a contract for being to thorough.  Apparently, with David Nabity and OAPS bigger is never better. [Hey, you there, get your head out of the gutter.]  This is a political ploy taken right from the health care debate.  People criticized the health care bill because it was 1,000+.  It didn’t matter what was in it; it was bad because it was big.

Stothert doesn’t like the police contract because its length in years, and Nabity doesn’t like the fire contract because its length in pages.  The Republicans are anti-length.

At the time of the press release, Nabity wanted the city to cease all negotiations and start from scratch.  Here’s a quote from a KPTM story.  “What we are asking the mayor and city council to do, is hire an independent negotiator. Someone who has a background in legal documents, and has no interest in the outcome of the contract,” said Nabity.

The notion that there is a Donald Trump-like figure that could be brought in to negotiate a better deal for the city is ridiculous.  Actually, there is no such thing as an “independent negotiator” who “has no interest in the outcome of the contract”. By definition, a negotiator has an interest in the outcome of the contract.  Nabity is just upset that Mayor Suttle is the person who sets the priorities for the city’s side of the negotiations.  Imagine if Nabity was mayor and someone brought up this idea, he’d call it ridiculous.  God forbid the mayor, an elected official, represent the city’s interest in a negotiation.  Silly democracy.

Nabity is only interested in political theater.  At the time of the press release, Nabity had not seen either contract, but it didn’t stop him from saying the contracts need to be thrown out.  Doesn’t that sound a lot like health care?  Let’s bash the bill before there’s a bill.