*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
2/6/12- Weekend Insiders, Quote of the Week- The Arizona Republic
Quote/tweet of the week"I'm a public servant, not a public slave." -- Frank Piccioli, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960, protesting a slate of anti-union bills advancing at the Legislature.
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
2/2/12- Arizona bill targets public employee unions- The Arizona Republic
Arizona unions representing tens of thousands of public workers would be banned from collective bargaining with local governments and school districts as part of a sweeping package of legislation moving forward at the state Capitol.
The four bills also would allow taxpayers to bring a special action against a state agency or political subdivision if collective bargaining occurs, make it tougher for unions to deduct dues though members' public paychecks and ban compensation of public employees for union work while on the job.
The Senate Government Reform Committee passed the bills 4-2 along party lines on Wednesday. The bills next go to vote before the full Senate.
![]()
The legislation is tougher than similar measures in Wisconsin that banned nearly all collective-bargaining rights from public-sector unions. Critics launched a recall effort against the state's Republican Gov. Scott Walker and other state lawmakers.
Arizona's proposals come as Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is pushing a $53.7million plan to give raises to certain state employees who forgo merit protections as part of a broader proposal to change the state's personnel system. Brewer previously has limited union efforts at the state-employee level.
On Wednesday, the bills drew the ire of union representatives and Democrats, who characterized it as a full-on assault to bust unions and their political power.
Mike Colletto, a lobbyist for the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, warned the bills are "going to create a firestorm" with members and suggested the group will target lawmakers who support the legislation come election time.
Arizona, a right-to-work state, does not collectively bargain with its employees, but other sectors of the government -- such as schools and local governments -- allow labor groups to negotiate pay and other benefits.
According to data provided by the state Department of Administration, about 15percent of the state's non-university state employees have union dues deducted out of their paychecks. The vast majority of deductions are for members of law-enforcement unions.
Supporters of the legislation said taxpayers are unfairly burdened by public workers' contracts negotiated by unions. Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Peoria, who introduced the collective-bargaining bill, Senate Bill 1485, said the state budget is "unsustainable."
Murphy said it's inappropriate when employees "take on the mantle of a public servant, then group up together and use leverage on the people they claim to serve."
"There needs to be a better balance," he added.
Other Republican senators echoed Murphy's comments. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, said the measures were not an attack on unions, but a "way of giving them more freedom so there can be flexibility."
The bills would ban withholdings of any portion of workers' wages to pay labor dues, ban third-party deductions from worker paychecks without annual authorization, and ban public employers from paying workers or third parties for union activities.
Representatives of the Goldwater Institute, who testified on behalf of the legislation, said the measures would make government more responsive to citizens by banning an unfair advantage that unions have. The Goldwater Institute estimated that over time, the state could save up to $550million per year based on an analysis of federal employment data from Virginia.
"This is about power and control of the public purse," Goldwater's Nick Dranias said.
But one union representative also suggested it has more to do with political power.
"I am a public servant -- not a public slave," said Frank Piccioli, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960. "You want to get rid of collective bargaining because it's competition to your political agenda."
Sen. Steve Gallardo pointed out that local governments and school districts are not lobbying on behalf of the bill.
Gallardo said, "I think the question that every member of the Legislature needs to ask themselves going into the 2012 election is, 'Do you want to take on this fight?'"
- Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
Republic reporter Alia Beard Rau contributed to this article.
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
The four bills also would allow taxpayers to bring a special action against a state agency or political subdivision if collective bargaining occurs, make it tougher for unions to deduct dues though members' public paychecks and ban compensation of public employees for union work while on the job.
The Senate Government Reform Committee passed the bills 4-2 along party lines on Wednesday. The bills next go to vote before the full Senate.
Arizona's proposals come as Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is pushing a $53.7million plan to give raises to certain state employees who forgo merit protections as part of a broader proposal to change the state's personnel system. Brewer previously has limited union efforts at the state-employee level.
On Wednesday, the bills drew the ire of union representatives and Democrats, who characterized it as a full-on assault to bust unions and their political power.
Mike Colletto, a lobbyist for the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, warned the bills are "going to create a firestorm" with members and suggested the group will target lawmakers who support the legislation come election time.
Arizona, a right-to-work state, does not collectively bargain with its employees, but other sectors of the government -- such as schools and local governments -- allow labor groups to negotiate pay and other benefits.
According to data provided by the state Department of Administration, about 15percent of the state's non-university state employees have union dues deducted out of their paychecks. The vast majority of deductions are for members of law-enforcement unions.
Supporters of the legislation said taxpayers are unfairly burdened by public workers' contracts negotiated by unions. Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Peoria, who introduced the collective-bargaining bill, Senate Bill 1485, said the state budget is "unsustainable."
Murphy said it's inappropriate when employees "take on the mantle of a public servant, then group up together and use leverage on the people they claim to serve."
"There needs to be a better balance," he added.
Other Republican senators echoed Murphy's comments. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, said the measures were not an attack on unions, but a "way of giving them more freedom so there can be flexibility."
The bills would ban withholdings of any portion of workers' wages to pay labor dues, ban third-party deductions from worker paychecks without annual authorization, and ban public employers from paying workers or third parties for union activities.
Representatives of the Goldwater Institute, who testified on behalf of the legislation, said the measures would make government more responsive to citizens by banning an unfair advantage that unions have. The Goldwater Institute estimated that over time, the state could save up to $550million per year based on an analysis of federal employment data from Virginia.
"This is about power and control of the public purse," Goldwater's Nick Dranias said.
But one union representative also suggested it has more to do with political power.
"I am a public servant -- not a public slave," said Frank Piccioli, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960. "You want to get rid of collective bargaining because it's competition to your political agenda."
Sen. Steve Gallardo pointed out that local governments and school districts are not lobbying on behalf of the bill.
Gallardo said, "I think the question that every member of the Legislature needs to ask themselves going into the 2012 election is, 'Do you want to take on this fight?'"
- Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
Republic reporter Alia Beard Rau contributed to this article.
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
2/2/12- Ariz. lawmakers eye ban on public union bargaining- azfamily.com
PHOENIX -- An Arizona Senate committee on Wednesday voted along party lines for a Republican bill to ban collective bargaining with public employee unions and to impose other restrictions on labor groups for government employees.
Arizona's state government does not engage in collective bargaining with its employees, so the impact of the proposed ban would fall on political subdivisions such as school districts and municipalities that use the negotiating methods. They include both formal contracts and informal advisory negotiations.
The legislation was proposed in the wake of similar efforts by Republican lawmakers and governors in states including Wisconsin, where political tumult arising from a near-elimination of collective bargaining for public employees prompted a recall drive against Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
The collective bargaining ban proposed for Arizona was among four union-related bills approved by the Government Reform Committee.
Other bills approved by the committee would bar withholding money from a public employee's pay for union dues, prohibit a public employer from paying an employee for union activities and prohibit deductions from public employees' paychecks for outside groups without annual authorizations.
During the committee hearing, Republican legislators and representatives of the Goldwater Institute, a conservative advocacy group, said the bills would save taxpayer dollars while protecting the rights of individual public workers.
"This is about power and control of the public purse," Goldwater Institute attorney Nick Dranias said of the collective bargaining ban. "This is not about attacking workers. This is not even about attacking unions."
But Democratic legislators and union representatives said the bills were politically motivated attacks on public employee unions.
"At the end of the day," said Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, "this bill is about union-busting."
The opponents also said the bills would stifle the collective voice of firefighters, teachers and other workers.
"You and I know this is a political agenda. This is politics. You're not trying to save taxpayer money," said Frank Piccioli, head of a union representing 911 operators and other Phoenix city employees. "You don't like who unions support."
The sponsor of the proposed collective bargaining ban, Sen. Rick Murphy, said taxpayers' costs from public employee contracts negotiated by unions for pay and benefits are a burden on taxpayers.
Government workers who band together to extract more money from the public aren't entitled to have the public support that process through payroll deductions, Murphy said. "You have the right to freedom of speech. You do not have a right to free speech."
The panel's approval of the bills on 4-2 votes sends them to the full Senate for consideration next week under a normal timetable, but Murphy said he was willing to first speak with opponents to hear more of their concerns. The legislation would move to the House if passed by the Senate.
Goldwater Institute economists say that 2010 statistics indicate that about 93,400 state or local government workers in Arizona, or about one of every four such workers, were represented in collective bargaining.
Rebecca Friend, Arizona AFL-CIO president, said at least 30,000 public employees belong to unions. She said that number may be low.
The legislation is being proposed in what appears to be a favorable political climate for Republicans, with Democrats who traditionally support unions lacking the votes to stop GOP-backed measures. Republicans hold two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in the past shut down a fledgling meet-and-confer process authorized by her predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano.
Separately, Brewer wants lawmakers to loosen the state government's civil service system to make it easier to fire workers. She has proposed a 5 percent pay raise but said current workers should generally get it if they're not covered by civil-service protections or if they voluntarily surrender that status.
The Wisconsin law that aimed a national spotlight on union powers does not allow negotiating with public employees' unions over anything except pay increases no greater than the rate of inflation.
Arizona is among at least a dozen states with pending 2012 legislation to ban or restrict collective bargaining by public employees, according to a legislative database of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In New Hampshire lawmakers are considering similar anti-union measures, including a ban on collective bargaining and on deducting dues from public employees' paychecks.
In Ohio, voters last November overturned a law backed by Republican Gov. John Kasich to strip most public employee unions of collective bargaining rights.
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
2/3/12- Wisconsin on Steroids? Arizona GOP Wants to Make State Most Anti-Union in Nation- http://inthesetimes.com
“Wisconsin on steroids” –a sweeping set of anti-union laws even more severe than those passed in Madison last March over massive public outcry—is now on the legislative agenda in Arizona. Arizona Republicans seek to ban local unions of teachers, firefighters, police, and other public servants from collective bargaining, and would even prohibit local officials from conferring with unions. These and other proposals set a new low in proposed restrictions on union rights.
The draconian package of bills includes:
Privatization has long been a central goal of both the American Legislative Exchange Council (see here and here), a national group funded heavily by the billionaire Koch brothers that drafts and promotes state legislation, and the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, an ALEC affiliate.
“This is a Goldwater Institute attack,” Friend explained. “They’re a think-tank very prominent in anti-union activities, and their main goal is privatizing public services.
We stand in the way of what they want because union members know what is needed for good public services,” she said. “Our members are a barricade to what ALEC and the Goldwater Institute want in terms of privatization. ... This legislation is for the corporate donors, not the taxpayers."
While victories for Gov. Walker and others have come at a huge political cost, the Republicans have arch-conservative Jan Brewer as governor and super-majorities in both houses of the legislature. Walker now faces a recall election demanded by 1.1 million citizens, almost as many as voted for him in 2010. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich was humiliated when the voters in November repealed his law effectively stripping public workers of their rights.
But that has not halted their zealous comrades in Indiana and Arizona from escalating the battle against worker rights. Much of the nation is comprised of states lacking the same strong union traditions of Wisconsin and Ohio that have persisted despite a decline in union membership.
Corporations and the Right are currently focusing on states with lower levels of union organization and the absence of other mass-based advocacy groups. Thus, last week anti-union Republican legislators in Indiana rammed through “right-to-work” legislation that will outlaw the union shop and drive more workers into poverty, a condition already shared by one of three Hoosiers. Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the law this week.
Arizona has long been a “right-to-work,” and state employees lack any rights to collectively bargain. Nonetheless, right-wing legislators have began a drive to totally silence the state’s small but vigorous labor movement in their drive for privatization.
AFSCME Local 2960 President Frank Piccioli tore into the legislation during a televised debate with a Republican legislator. Piccioli declared, “ The senator is trying to destroy representation for the middle class.”
After quoting Ronald Reagan—who at one time was elected president of the Screen Actors Guild union—asserting that freedom cannot exist where unions are banned, Piccioli laid out a strong appeal to Arizona's broader public:
The Republicans are also overtly standing with the richest 1% at a time when unemployment remains relatively high, Arizona is troubled by one of the nation's worst foreclosure rates, and the state is marked by vivid contrasts between the lives of the elite and the vast majority.
Within the next two weeks, Friend will be summoning AFL-CIO members and allies to the state capitol to try to stop the current anti-union wave sweeping across the country from dealing another blow.
The draconian package of bills includes:
- A ban on local officials from bargaining with unions. It would even ban state and local units of government from conferring with unions.
- Public employees could no longer have their dues deducted from their paychecks.
- Enforcement of a “paycheck protection” plan making it harder for unions to get contributions for pro-labor candidates.
- Prohibit local governments from granting release time for union activities, so that union leaders would have to use personal time to resolve issues with management.
Privatization has long been a central goal of both the American Legislative Exchange Council (see here and here), a national group funded heavily by the billionaire Koch brothers that drafts and promotes state legislation, and the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, an ALEC affiliate.
“This is a Goldwater Institute attack,” Friend explained. “They’re a think-tank very prominent in anti-union activities, and their main goal is privatizing public services.
We stand in the way of what they want because union members know what is needed for good public services,” she said. “Our members are a barricade to what ALEC and the Goldwater Institute want in terms of privatization. ... This legislation is for the corporate donors, not the taxpayers."
While victories for Gov. Walker and others have come at a huge political cost, the Republicans have arch-conservative Jan Brewer as governor and super-majorities in both houses of the legislature. Walker now faces a recall election demanded by 1.1 million citizens, almost as many as voted for him in 2010. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich was humiliated when the voters in November repealed his law effectively stripping public workers of their rights.
But that has not halted their zealous comrades in Indiana and Arizona from escalating the battle against worker rights. Much of the nation is comprised of states lacking the same strong union traditions of Wisconsin and Ohio that have persisted despite a decline in union membership.
Corporations and the Right are currently focusing on states with lower levels of union organization and the absence of other mass-based advocacy groups. Thus, last week anti-union Republican legislators in Indiana rammed through “right-to-work” legislation that will outlaw the union shop and drive more workers into poverty, a condition already shared by one of three Hoosiers. Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the law this week.
Arizona has long been a “right-to-work,” and state employees lack any rights to collectively bargain. Nonetheless, right-wing legislators have began a drive to totally silence the state’s small but vigorous labor movement in their drive for privatization.
AFSCME Local 2960 President Frank Piccioli tore into the legislation during a televised debate with a Republican legislator. Piccioli declared, “ The senator is trying to destroy representation for the middle class.”
After quoting Ronald Reagan—who at one time was elected president of the Screen Actors Guild union—asserting that freedom cannot exist where unions are banned, Piccioli laid out a strong appeal to Arizona's broader public:
They’re trying to destroy representation for firefighters, police, for 911 responders and teachers. Instead of going after the CEOs and banks that caused our problems, they’re trying to shift the blame to public employees.
The Goldwater Institute’s Nick Granias was remarkably frank in explaining how the legislation would cripple public unions so members would then seem them as useless. As Talking Points memo stated:
Granias said the measures were inspired by Wisconsin but were more modeled after legislation passed in Virginia about 30 years ago. He said the goal of the measures wasn’t to ban public unions from Arizona but to make them seem obsolete.But Friend, Piccioli and the labor movement of Arizona believe that the Republican legislators are targeting a highly popular segment of the population: police officers, firefighters, teachers and first responders, among others.
“Gradually this would cause people to leave the unions as they recognized that unions no longer have an unfair bargaining advantage given to them by collective bargaining laws,” Dranias said. “They’ll realize that unions don’t do much for them.”
The Republicans are also overtly standing with the richest 1% at a time when unemployment remains relatively high, Arizona is troubled by one of the nation's worst foreclosure rates, and the state is marked by vivid contrasts between the lives of the elite and the vast majority.
Within the next two weeks, Friend will be summoning AFL-CIO members and allies to the state capitol to try to stop the current anti-union wave sweeping across the country from dealing another blow.
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
2/1/12- Arizona Senate committee votes to ban collective bargaining with unions for public employees- The Republic, Columbus, IN
PHOENIX — An Arizona Senate committee on Wednesday voted along party lines for a Republican bill to ban collective bargaining with public employee unions and to impose other restrictions on labor groups for government employees.
Arizona's state government does not engage in collective bargaining with its employees, so the impact of the proposed ban would fall on political subdivisions such as school districts and municipalities that use the negotiating methods. They include both formal contracts and informal advisory negotiations.
The legislation was proposed in the wake of similar efforts by Republican lawmakers and governors in states including Wisconsin, where political tumult arising from a near-elimination of collective bargaining for public employees prompted a recall drive against Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
The collective bargaining ban proposed for Arizona was among four union-related bills approved by the Government Reform Committee.
Other bills approved by the committee would bar withholding money from a public employee's pay for union dues, prohibit a public employer from paying an employee for union activities and prohibit deductions from public employees' paychecks for outside groups without annual authorizations.
During the committee hearing, Republican legislators and representatives of the Goldwater Institute, a conservative advocacy group, said the bills would save taxpayer dollars while protecting the rights of individual public workers.
"This is about power and control of the public purse," Goldwater Institute attorney Nick Dranias said of the collective bargaining ban. "This is not about attacking workers. This is not even about attacking unions."
But Democratic legislators and union representatives said the bills were politically motivated attacks on public employee unions.
"At the end of the day," said Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, "this bill is about union-busting."
The opponents also said the bills would stifle the collective voice of firefighters, teachers and other workers.
"You and I know this is a political agenda. This is politics. You're not trying to save taxpayer money," said Frank Piccioli, head of a union representing 911 operators and other Phoenix city employees. "You don't like who unions support."
The sponsor of the proposed collective bargaining ban, Sen. Rick Murphy, said taxpayers' costs from public employee contracts negotiated by unions for pay and benefits are a burden on taxpayers.
Government workers who band together to extract more money from the public aren't entitled to have the public support that process through payroll deductions, Murphy said. "You have the right to freedom of speech. You do not have a right to free speech."
The panel's approval of the bills on 4-2 votes sends them to the full Senate for consideration next week under a normal timetable, but Murphy said he was willing to first speak with opponents to hear more of their concerns. The legislation would move to the House if passed by the Senate.
Goldwater Institute economists say that 2010 statistics indicate that about 93,400 state or local government workers in Arizona, or about one of every four such workers, were represented in collective bargaining.
Rebecca Friend, Arizona AFL-CIO president, said at least 30,000 public employees belong to unions. She said that number may be low.
The legislation is being proposed in what appears to be a favorable political climate for Republicans, with Democrats who traditionally support unions lacking the votes to stop GOP-backed measures. Republicans hold two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in the past shut down a fledgling meet-and-confer process authorized by her predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano.
Separately, Brewer wants lawmakers to loosen the state government's civil service system to make it easier to fire workers. She has proposed a 5 percent pay raise but said current workers should generally get it if they're not covered by civil-service protections or if they voluntarily surrender that status.
The Wisconsin law that aimed a national spotlight on union powers does not allow negotiating with public employees' unions over anything except pay increases no greater than the rate of inflation.
Arizona is among at least a dozen states with pending 2012 legislation to ban or restrict collective bargaining by public employees, according to a legislative database of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In New Hampshire lawmakers are considering similar anti-union measures, including a ban on collective bargaining and on deducting dues from public employees' paychecks.
In Ohio, voters last November overturned a law backed by Republican Gov. John Kasich to strip most public employee unions of collective bargaining rights.
- PAUL DAVENPORT
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
Arizona's state government does not engage in collective bargaining with its employees, so the impact of the proposed ban would fall on political subdivisions such as school districts and municipalities that use the negotiating methods. They include both formal contracts and informal advisory negotiations.
The legislation was proposed in the wake of similar efforts by Republican lawmakers and governors in states including Wisconsin, where political tumult arising from a near-elimination of collective bargaining for public employees prompted a recall drive against Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
The collective bargaining ban proposed for Arizona was among four union-related bills approved by the Government Reform Committee.
Other bills approved by the committee would bar withholding money from a public employee's pay for union dues, prohibit a public employer from paying an employee for union activities and prohibit deductions from public employees' paychecks for outside groups without annual authorizations.
During the committee hearing, Republican legislators and representatives of the Goldwater Institute, a conservative advocacy group, said the bills would save taxpayer dollars while protecting the rights of individual public workers.
"This is about power and control of the public purse," Goldwater Institute attorney Nick Dranias said of the collective bargaining ban. "This is not about attacking workers. This is not even about attacking unions."
But Democratic legislators and union representatives said the bills were politically motivated attacks on public employee unions.
"At the end of the day," said Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, "this bill is about union-busting."
The opponents also said the bills would stifle the collective voice of firefighters, teachers and other workers.
"You and I know this is a political agenda. This is politics. You're not trying to save taxpayer money," said Frank Piccioli, head of a union representing 911 operators and other Phoenix city employees. "You don't like who unions support."
The sponsor of the proposed collective bargaining ban, Sen. Rick Murphy, said taxpayers' costs from public employee contracts negotiated by unions for pay and benefits are a burden on taxpayers.
Government workers who band together to extract more money from the public aren't entitled to have the public support that process through payroll deductions, Murphy said. "You have the right to freedom of speech. You do not have a right to free speech."
The panel's approval of the bills on 4-2 votes sends them to the full Senate for consideration next week under a normal timetable, but Murphy said he was willing to first speak with opponents to hear more of their concerns. The legislation would move to the House if passed by the Senate.
Goldwater Institute economists say that 2010 statistics indicate that about 93,400 state or local government workers in Arizona, or about one of every four such workers, were represented in collective bargaining.
Rebecca Friend, Arizona AFL-CIO president, said at least 30,000 public employees belong to unions. She said that number may be low.
The legislation is being proposed in what appears to be a favorable political climate for Republicans, with Democrats who traditionally support unions lacking the votes to stop GOP-backed measures. Republicans hold two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in the past shut down a fledgling meet-and-confer process authorized by her predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano.
Separately, Brewer wants lawmakers to loosen the state government's civil service system to make it easier to fire workers. She has proposed a 5 percent pay raise but said current workers should generally get it if they're not covered by civil-service protections or if they voluntarily surrender that status.
The Wisconsin law that aimed a national spotlight on union powers does not allow negotiating with public employees' unions over anything except pay increases no greater than the rate of inflation.
Arizona is among at least a dozen states with pending 2012 legislation to ban or restrict collective bargaining by public employees, according to a legislative database of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In New Hampshire lawmakers are considering similar anti-union measures, including a ban on collective bargaining and on deducting dues from public employees' paychecks.
In Ohio, voters last November overturned a law backed by Republican Gov. John Kasich to strip most public employee unions of collective bargaining rights.
- PAUL DAVENPORT
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
2/1/12- Arizona union bill tougher than Wisconsin's- Arizona Nightly News
Debate with State Senator Rick Murphy
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
Monday, February 13, 2012
1/23/12- Study compares pay, benefits of workers in Phoenix sectors- The Arizona Republic
A study Phoenix commissioned to settle disputes over public-employee compensation shows city workers earn slightly more in total pay and benefits than a combined average of competitive peers in both the public and private sectors.
But when benefits are stripped from the equation, Phoenix workers make far less in base pay compared with private sector entities and about the same as local public-sector peers.
The findings are contained in a study from the Segal Group that the Phoenix City Council will review today. Phoenix paid $430,000 for the 300-plus page report, and there is already disagreement about what the report says.
Developing consensus over the study's data will be important, as the city plans to use the information to drive labor negotiations currently under way with five employee unions.
Employee costs make up about 60 percent of the city's $2.45 billion operating budget for the current fiscal year.
"We want to be known as an employer of choice, so it is important to be competitive when it comes to our pay," Phoenix Human Resources Director Janet Smith said. "But the city also recognizes that we have to be a responsible steward of public funds."
Locally, most major cities in Maricopa County were included along with data on state employees. Private-sector information came from published databases and a survey of seven local companies or utilities.
The study shows Phoenix is roughly competitive with the public sector and 19 percentage points below market compared with the private sector when it comes to base salary. The report based its findings on the city's current labor contracts, which included a 1 percent wage cut that has been in place for two consecutive fiscal years.
"The citizens of Phoenix should realize that they're getting a lot of bang for their buck because we're getting 19 percent below the private sector," said Frank Piccioli, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960. "I hope that shuts up people who have misrepresented the facts."
Total compensation -- factoring in health care, dental and retirement benefits -- "is the primary consideration for determining the city's overall market competitiveness," according to the study.
But Councilman Sal DiCiccio, who has frequently complained about the cost of city employees' pay and benefits, said the report focuses too much on base pay. The private sector was underrepresented in the study, he said.
The total compensation for general employees hits about 1 percentage point above what is considered the top of competitive range for average market pay and 6 percent above the middle of the scale. Total pay and benefits for sworn public-safety workers lands about 5 percentage points above the top of the range and 10 percent above the middle.
Compared with the private sector alone, total compensation for Phoenix employees is barely at market.
The city's "generous retirement benefits" drive up employee compensation, according to the Segal Group.
Based on the study, if Phoenix goes through with its current plan to reform the pension system, it likely will put the city in equal footing with its peers. Phoenix created a pension-reform task force to review retirement benefits to public employees after a study by The Arizona Republic showed the cost to fund city pensions increased 277 percent, to $88.1 million a year in the past decade.
The study also found that:
Phoenix's tuition-reimbursement program offers about $9,200 per employee, while other organizations tend to have a maximum of $5,000.
The city's dental and health-care benefits are more generous than other cities in most cases.
Most Phoenix employees, except for firefighters, have slightly more combined time off from vacation, sick leave, holiday time and personal leave than other private- and public-sector entities.
Smith said the city intentionally increased the number of sick days employees are eligible for because Phoenix doesn't offer short-term disability. But the city's sick-leave policies have come under fire as employees are allowed to bank unused days and cash them out upon retirement.
The cost of accrued sick leave can be used in final calculations to determine lifetime pension payouts, creating a liability for the city with taxpayers footing the bill.
Out of 139 job classifications in the city, excluding public safety, Phoenix pays a little more than 60 above market in total compensation.
Jim Tierney, president of the American Federation of State, County and Muncipal Employees Local 2384, said officials should use the study to strike a balance between attracting and maintaining quality employees while saving money for Phoenix. Tierney's union represents electricians, mechanics and other "skilled trade" employees, and added his union is willing to work with the city to adjust pay scales on both ends.
Compensation for rank-and-file police officers and firefighters falls right in line with competitor cities. But Will Buividas, chief negotiator for the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, said that isn't necessarily a good thing. PLEA has asked for raises in the current round of labor talks.
"My guys deserve to be paid above market because we're the sixth largest city in the United States," Buividas said. "It's a dangerous city."
The study also found that middle managers and executives were generally paid below the market. But Ron Ramirez, president of the Administration, Supervisory, Professional and Technical Employees Association representing managers, said that doesn't necessarily mean the group will ask for a raise.
"We're not looking to be greedy," Ramirez said. "We're looking to work with the city in harmony and partnership."
But when benefits are stripped from the equation, Phoenix workers make far less in base pay compared with private sector entities and about the same as local public-sector peers.
The findings are contained in a study from the Segal Group that the Phoenix City Council will review today. Phoenix paid $430,000 for the 300-plus page report, and there is already disagreement about what the report says.
Developing consensus over the study's data will be important, as the city plans to use the information to drive labor negotiations currently under way with five employee unions.
Employee costs make up about 60 percent of the city's $2.45 billion operating budget for the current fiscal year.
"We want to be known as an employer of choice, so it is important to be competitive when it comes to our pay," Phoenix Human Resources Director Janet Smith said. "But the city also recognizes that we have to be a responsible steward of public funds."
Benefits drive up cost
The study, released recently, based its findings on data averaging information from both the private and public sector. Cities used in the study for comparison included San Diego, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Houston.Locally, most major cities in Maricopa County were included along with data on state employees. Private-sector information came from published databases and a survey of seven local companies or utilities.
The study shows Phoenix is roughly competitive with the public sector and 19 percentage points below market compared with the private sector when it comes to base salary. The report based its findings on the city's current labor contracts, which included a 1 percent wage cut that has been in place for two consecutive fiscal years.
"The citizens of Phoenix should realize that they're getting a lot of bang for their buck because we're getting 19 percent below the private sector," said Frank Piccioli, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960. "I hope that shuts up people who have misrepresented the facts."
Total compensation -- factoring in health care, dental and retirement benefits -- "is the primary consideration for determining the city's overall market competitiveness," according to the study.
But Councilman Sal DiCiccio, who has frequently complained about the cost of city employees' pay and benefits, said the report focuses too much on base pay. The private sector was underrepresented in the study, he said.
The total compensation for general employees hits about 1 percentage point above what is considered the top of competitive range for average market pay and 6 percent above the middle of the scale. Total pay and benefits for sworn public-safety workers lands about 5 percentage points above the top of the range and 10 percent above the middle.
Compared with the private sector alone, total compensation for Phoenix employees is barely at market.
The city's "generous retirement benefits" drive up employee compensation, according to the Segal Group.
Based on the study, if Phoenix goes through with its current plan to reform the pension system, it likely will put the city in equal footing with its peers. Phoenix created a pension-reform task force to review retirement benefits to public employees after a study by The Arizona Republic showed the cost to fund city pensions increased 277 percent, to $88.1 million a year in the past decade.
The study also found that:
Phoenix's tuition-reimbursement program offers about $9,200 per employee, while other organizations tend to have a maximum of $5,000.
The city's dental and health-care benefits are more generous than other cities in most cases.
Most Phoenix employees, except for firefighters, have slightly more combined time off from vacation, sick leave, holiday time and personal leave than other private- and public-sector entities.
Smith said the city intentionally increased the number of sick days employees are eligible for because Phoenix doesn't offer short-term disability. But the city's sick-leave policies have come under fire as employees are allowed to bank unused days and cash them out upon retirement.
The cost of accrued sick leave can be used in final calculations to determine lifetime pension payouts, creating a liability for the city with taxpayers footing the bill.
Next steps
"Clearly our benefits are rich and we're above market," Councilman Bill Gates said about retirement and health-care benefits. "That's something we need to look at."Out of 139 job classifications in the city, excluding public safety, Phoenix pays a little more than 60 above market in total compensation.
Jim Tierney, president of the American Federation of State, County and Muncipal Employees Local 2384, said officials should use the study to strike a balance between attracting and maintaining quality employees while saving money for Phoenix. Tierney's union represents electricians, mechanics and other "skilled trade" employees, and added his union is willing to work with the city to adjust pay scales on both ends.
Compensation for rank-and-file police officers and firefighters falls right in line with competitor cities. But Will Buividas, chief negotiator for the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, said that isn't necessarily a good thing. PLEA has asked for raises in the current round of labor talks.
"My guys deserve to be paid above market because we're the sixth largest city in the United States," Buividas said. "It's a dangerous city."
The study also found that middle managers and executives were generally paid below the market. But Ron Ramirez, president of the Administration, Supervisory, Professional and Technical Employees Association representing managers, said that doesn't necessarily mean the group will ask for a raise.
"We're not looking to be greedy," Ramirez said. "We're looking to work with the city in harmony and partnership."
- Lynn Bui
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
12/30/11- Phoenix employee unions request more benefits- THe Arizona Republic
More pay and benefits
Employee protections
Balancing act
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
12/14/11- Phoenix, unions at odds over labor talks- The Arizona Republic
Labor negotiations between Phoenix employee unions and city management are heading for a rocky start even before contract talks officially begin on Jan. 9.
Union officials said they were blindsided by the city's proposal to hire an outside law firm to negotiate with them on behalf of city management and worry the move could alienate them as contract talks commence.
For at least 30 years, Phoenix's Human Resources Department has directly negotiated with labor groups, along with the city manager. But some elected officials pushed for an independent firm to help with talks this time as public scrutiny of employee pay and benefits continues to grow amid a sour economy.
Phoenix is preparing to enter negotiations with five unions and associations representing city employees over contracts that would cover wage and benefit terms for 2012 to 2014. At least two groups, one representing police officers and the other representing landscapers and other field workers, have asked for raises in the first round of proposals.
Luis Schmidt, vice president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2384, is upset that the city didn't inform union officials of its plan to hire an independent firm to handle labor negotiations until Tuesday morning, the same day elected officials were set to vote on the matter. The issue wasn't posted on the agenda for public notice until just before the 24-hour deadline set to comply with Arizona's Open Meeting Law.
"How transparent is that?" Schmidt said.
Some elected officials were also confused by the timing, with some indicating that hiring an outside group was something they've been talking about since November.
On Wednesday, the City Council was set to vote on whether to pay law firm Ballard Spahr up to $400,000 to handle the city's contract negotiations. But elected officials delayed the decision on hiring an outside negotiator until Jan. 4 after demanding more options and asking staff to come back with an expanded list of law firms and agencies that could do the work.
Councilman Michael Johnson said that although he supports the unions and city employees, he agrees that the city should look for outside help to handle labor negotiations.
"We're going to have some tough and difficult negotiations this round because of the rough economy," Johnson said. "And there's movement afoot to scrutinize more what's going on with employee compensation."
National attention on public-employee pay, pensions and raises paired with a more fiscally conservative City Council will make this year's round of labor talks particularly high profile.
Councilman Sal DiCiccio said he wants an outside firm to handle the contract negotiations because it is a conflict of interest to have city employees negotiate with city employees.
Phoenix Human Resources Director Janet Smith said that personnel typically involved in labor talks aren't represented by any of the unions they negotiate with.
"We're management, and we represent the interests of the organization," Smith said.
Frank Piccioli, president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960, said hiring outside help would be a waste of money.
"It's the politics of a few City Council members who want to make themselves look like they're doing something for the public, but it's really at the expense of taxpayers," Piccioli said.
Piccioli said it would make sense to have an outside agency handle negotiations if the last round of labor talks were contentious or adversarial.
But he said that the unions all agreed to 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts two years ago and cooperated with the city as it faced a $277 million general-fund budget shortfall. The wage and benefit cuts saved the city more than $104 million over two years. This summer, however, some elected officials were upset that employees were still given performance pay raises and bonuses totaling nearly $30 million despite the pay cuts.
"If you can say that last time we fought them tooth and nail, then that makes sense," Piccioli said. "But the argument bears nothing when we've worked well with management and gave everything back."
Union officials said they were blindsided by the city's proposal to hire an outside law firm to negotiate with them on behalf of city management and worry the move could alienate them as contract talks commence.
For at least 30 years, Phoenix's Human Resources Department has directly negotiated with labor groups, along with the city manager. But some elected officials pushed for an independent firm to help with talks this time as public scrutiny of employee pay and benefits continues to grow amid a sour economy.
Phoenix is preparing to enter negotiations with five unions and associations representing city employees over contracts that would cover wage and benefit terms for 2012 to 2014. At least two groups, one representing police officers and the other representing landscapers and other field workers, have asked for raises in the first round of proposals.
Luis Schmidt, vice president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2384, is upset that the city didn't inform union officials of its plan to hire an independent firm to handle labor negotiations until Tuesday morning, the same day elected officials were set to vote on the matter. The issue wasn't posted on the agenda for public notice until just before the 24-hour deadline set to comply with Arizona's Open Meeting Law.
"How transparent is that?" Schmidt said.
Some elected officials were also confused by the timing, with some indicating that hiring an outside group was something they've been talking about since November.
On Wednesday, the City Council was set to vote on whether to pay law firm Ballard Spahr up to $400,000 to handle the city's contract negotiations. But elected officials delayed the decision on hiring an outside negotiator until Jan. 4 after demanding more options and asking staff to come back with an expanded list of law firms and agencies that could do the work.
Councilman Michael Johnson said that although he supports the unions and city employees, he agrees that the city should look for outside help to handle labor negotiations.
"We're going to have some tough and difficult negotiations this round because of the rough economy," Johnson said. "And there's movement afoot to scrutinize more what's going on with employee compensation."
National attention on public-employee pay, pensions and raises paired with a more fiscally conservative City Council will make this year's round of labor talks particularly high profile.
Councilman Sal DiCiccio said he wants an outside firm to handle the contract negotiations because it is a conflict of interest to have city employees negotiate with city employees.
Phoenix Human Resources Director Janet Smith said that personnel typically involved in labor talks aren't represented by any of the unions they negotiate with.
"We're management, and we represent the interests of the organization," Smith said.
Frank Piccioli, president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960, said hiring outside help would be a waste of money.
"It's the politics of a few City Council members who want to make themselves look like they're doing something for the public, but it's really at the expense of taxpayers," Piccioli said.
Piccioli said it would make sense to have an outside agency handle negotiations if the last round of labor talks were contentious or adversarial.
But he said that the unions all agreed to 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts two years ago and cooperated with the city as it faced a $277 million general-fund budget shortfall. The wage and benefit cuts saved the city more than $104 million over two years. This summer, however, some elected officials were upset that employees were still given performance pay raises and bonuses totaling nearly $30 million despite the pay cuts.
"If you can say that last time we fought them tooth and nail, then that makes sense," Piccioli said. "But the argument bears nothing when we've worked well with management and gave everything back."
-Lynn Bui
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
12/11/11- Phoenix unions ask for pay raises- The Arizona Republic
At least two of the five labor groups representing Phoenix employees have asked for raises or cost-of-living adjustments as they enter into contract negotiations with the city.
Employee groups also are looking to insert contract language that would further protect public employees when the city considers outsourcing programs and services.
On Dec. 1, public-employee unions and associations representing police, fire and other rank-and-file employees submitted their first contract proposals to the city to cover wage and benefit agreements for 2012-14.
The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, representing police officers in non-supervisory positions, indicated it would be asking for raises, though it didn't specify how much.
The Laborers' International Union of North America Local 777, representing landscapers, street-maintenance workers and other public-works employees, has proposed annual cost-of-living adjustments between 2 and 4 percent for its employees.
LIUNA organizing and field-services coordinator Jennifer Wozniak said the group does not consider such an adjustment a raise.
"This is literally to keep them up with inflation after two years of concessions (pay cuts)," Wozniak said.
PLEA Treasurer and Chief Contract Negotiator Will Buividas said rising pension costs and increased and cost of living prompted the labor association to ask for pay increases.
"We're seeking a raise because we've taken a 3.2 percent pay cut last year and continued this year," Buividas said. "At the same time the (Consumer Price Index) keeps going up. The cops have to pay for goods and services increasing even though their pay as decreased."
The proposed increases are the first requests employee labor groups and the city have to work through as they continue labor talks for the next few months.
The contract talks between the city and unions will be the first since employees agreed to concessions for the first time in city history two years ago.
In 2010, Phoenix was facing a $277 million general-fund deficit. All public employee labor groups agreed to 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts for the next two years, saving the city more than $104 million.
Whether those cuts will carry over will be determined through the negotiating process, said Lori Steward, Phoenix's labor relations administrator.
The 3.2 percent concessions will automatically be restored for the 2012-14 labor talks as outlined in the current contract the unions and associations have with the city. But it doesn't automatically mean that city employees will return to the pay they were getting two years ago before the cuts.
"They're only automatically restored for purposes of bargaining," Steward said. "The burden is back on the city if we want to keep those concessions in place."
The City Council isn't directly involved in negotiations but will have to approve the final contracts city management and the labor groups agree to. Phoenix will hold a public hearing on the proposed labor contracts on Dec. 14, before the city and unions get into the thick of negotiations.
April 14 is the deadline for management and the unions to come to an agreement before they go to the City Council for approval.
The council will likely instruct management to discuss employee raises and bonuses, along with pension reform, with city employee labor groups during contract negotiations since those two items have been controversial in Phoenix for the past year.
Luis Schmidt, vice president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2384, said his group isn't asking for raises, and the group's proposal allows for restoration of the 3.2 percent concessions.
AFSCME Local 2384 represents electricians, mechanics and water-treatment employees.
"We've given up a lot," Schmidt said. "We're not asking for raises, but we're going in with an open mind. We're not taking a hard-line stance."
That means, Schmidt said, that the group will also consider continued pay cuts.
AFSCME also proposed new contract language that would bar the city from displacing a public employee if it chooses to outsource or contract a service or department. LIUNA also had a similar proposal.
Schmidt and Wozniak said they know the proposal is extreme, but it was aimed at opening the discussions on what process would take place between unions and the city when Phoenix considers increased outsourcing and how to protect employees.
"You throw something strong out there knowing that you're goal is to encourage more conversation," Schmidt said. "We're saying, 'Talk to us.' "
AFCSME Local 2960, which represents 9-1-1 operators, dispatchers and building inspectors, didn't ask for raises either but does want to roll back to what employees were being paid before wage and benefit cuts implemented in 2010.
The Local 2960 contract proposal, however, does state that if "any other bargaining unit receives a pay raise, the same amount and percentage will be given to all Unit 3 employees."
"We understand what everyone is going through; we don't want to look greedy," said AFSCME board member Frank Piccioli. "But at the same time, we just want to make sure we're treated fairly."
The United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association also likely will ask for raises for members, though it didn't specifically say so in its contract proposal.
Association President Pete Gorraiz said he can't talk about the specifics of what the group will ask for. He added that the last election proved that voters support city employees.
Mayor-elect Greg Stanton and District 5 Councilman-elect Daniel Valenzuela, a Glendale firefighter, will be seated on the council next month.
Employee pay, pension reform and union influence were some of the biggest campaign issues candidates fought over in the recent mayor and City Council elections in August and November.
"The candidates that tried to demonize the employees lost," Gorraiz said. "The message is let's continue to be teammates with the city and work together."
Employee groups also are looking to insert contract language that would further protect public employees when the city considers outsourcing programs and services.
On Dec. 1, public-employee unions and associations representing police, fire and other rank-and-file employees submitted their first contract proposals to the city to cover wage and benefit agreements for 2012-14.
The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, representing police officers in non-supervisory positions, indicated it would be asking for raises, though it didn't specify how much.
The Laborers' International Union of North America Local 777, representing landscapers, street-maintenance workers and other public-works employees, has proposed annual cost-of-living adjustments between 2 and 4 percent for its employees.
LIUNA organizing and field-services coordinator Jennifer Wozniak said the group does not consider such an adjustment a raise.
"This is literally to keep them up with inflation after two years of concessions (pay cuts)," Wozniak said.
PLEA Treasurer and Chief Contract Negotiator Will Buividas said rising pension costs and increased and cost of living prompted the labor association to ask for pay increases.
"We're seeking a raise because we've taken a 3.2 percent pay cut last year and continued this year," Buividas said. "At the same time the (Consumer Price Index) keeps going up. The cops have to pay for goods and services increasing even though their pay as decreased."
The proposed increases are the first requests employee labor groups and the city have to work through as they continue labor talks for the next few months.
The contract talks between the city and unions will be the first since employees agreed to concessions for the first time in city history two years ago.
In 2010, Phoenix was facing a $277 million general-fund deficit. All public employee labor groups agreed to 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts for the next two years, saving the city more than $104 million.
Whether those cuts will carry over will be determined through the negotiating process, said Lori Steward, Phoenix's labor relations administrator.
The 3.2 percent concessions will automatically be restored for the 2012-14 labor talks as outlined in the current contract the unions and associations have with the city. But it doesn't automatically mean that city employees will return to the pay they were getting two years ago before the cuts.
"They're only automatically restored for purposes of bargaining," Steward said. "The burden is back on the city if we want to keep those concessions in place."
The City Council isn't directly involved in negotiations but will have to approve the final contracts city management and the labor groups agree to. Phoenix will hold a public hearing on the proposed labor contracts on Dec. 14, before the city and unions get into the thick of negotiations.
April 14 is the deadline for management and the unions to come to an agreement before they go to the City Council for approval.
The council will likely instruct management to discuss employee raises and bonuses, along with pension reform, with city employee labor groups during contract negotiations since those two items have been controversial in Phoenix for the past year.
Luis Schmidt, vice president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2384, said his group isn't asking for raises, and the group's proposal allows for restoration of the 3.2 percent concessions.
AFSCME Local 2384 represents electricians, mechanics and water-treatment employees.
"We've given up a lot," Schmidt said. "We're not asking for raises, but we're going in with an open mind. We're not taking a hard-line stance."
That means, Schmidt said, that the group will also consider continued pay cuts.
AFSCME also proposed new contract language that would bar the city from displacing a public employee if it chooses to outsource or contract a service or department. LIUNA also had a similar proposal.
Schmidt and Wozniak said they know the proposal is extreme, but it was aimed at opening the discussions on what process would take place between unions and the city when Phoenix considers increased outsourcing and how to protect employees.
"You throw something strong out there knowing that you're goal is to encourage more conversation," Schmidt said. "We're saying, 'Talk to us.' "
AFCSME Local 2960, which represents 9-1-1 operators, dispatchers and building inspectors, didn't ask for raises either but does want to roll back to what employees were being paid before wage and benefit cuts implemented in 2010.
The Local 2960 contract proposal, however, does state that if "any other bargaining unit receives a pay raise, the same amount and percentage will be given to all Unit 3 employees."
"We understand what everyone is going through; we don't want to look greedy," said AFSCME board member Frank Piccioli. "But at the same time, we just want to make sure we're treated fairly."
The United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association also likely will ask for raises for members, though it didn't specifically say so in its contract proposal.
Association President Pete Gorraiz said he can't talk about the specifics of what the group will ask for. He added that the last election proved that voters support city employees.
Mayor-elect Greg Stanton and District 5 Councilman-elect Daniel Valenzuela, a Glendale firefighter, will be seated on the council next month.
Employee pay, pension reform and union influence were some of the biggest campaign issues candidates fought over in the recent mayor and City Council elections in August and November.
"The candidates that tried to demonize the employees lost," Gorraiz said. "The message is let's continue to be teammates with the city and work together."
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
Sunday, February 12, 2012
10/5/11- New Phoenix leaders key in labor talks
When the new mayor and two City Council members are sworn in to office in January, they'll become part of a politically charged group of elected officials that has been at odds over whether employees or taxpayers have been running City Hall.
Debates over whether Phoenix spends too much on its workforce or whether employee unions wield too much influence will cast the spotlight on the city's labor negotiations with its seven employee unions and associations that begin in January.
Proposals from the candidates to reform pensions, repeal the food tax and cut the city budget could directly or indirectly impact the city's more than 14,600 employees, whose personnel costs comprised roughly 60 percent of Phoenix's $2.41 billion operating budget in the 2010-11 fiscal year.
Earlier this year, City Council members disagreed over whether it was appropriate for city employees to get $30 million in raises and bonuses in this year's budget even though employees agreed to a 3.2 percent cut to wages and benefits in 2010, which saved the city $52 million. The $30 million in merit raises and longevity bonuses were part of previously negotiated labor contracts in place for more than 30 years.
The latest shot at unions came from the Goldwater Institute. A report from the conservative group revealed last week that Phoenix spends $3.7 million in taxpayer money annually to fund union activity and pay for union officer salaries - a practice both mayoral candidates Wes Gullett and Greg Stanton have said should stop.
While negotiations take place between city management and union officials, the new mayor and council will set the policy for how the talks should be handled.
City Manager David Cavazos acknowledges some changes are needed but says Phoenix has been successful during labor negotiations because it traditionally gets buy-in from employees.
"We have a situation where we need to look at how we do things differently moving forward," Cavazos said, adding that the situation is not one of "taxpayers versus unions."
"It's not a matter of if the management is for the public or for the employees. We're for both. It's not a question of one or the other."
The amount the city spends on employees in total is down, largely because of the 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts negotiated two years ago, but the average cost of keeping a full-time employee on the payroll has increased every year for the past six years. The city's cost estimates factor in not only base wages but also overtime and benefits such as pension payouts, workers'-compensation insurance, health care and uniform allowances.
In 2005-06, the average cost of a single employee, including all factors, was $80,347. For 2010-11, it is estimated at $98,322. Much of that increase has been driven by rising costs of sworn police and fire personnel, whose average salary went up 10 percent from 2008-09 to 2009-10.
In 2005-06, the average base wage for an employee was $50,400 for 15,600 employees. That average wage is now at $60,650 for 14,600 employees for 2010-11.
Gullett said Phoenix management needs to be tougher on the unions and ask for more from the labor contracts because "the economy is in the tank and we can't afford these kinds of things anymore."
Gullett said in the next round of negotiations, he would tell Cavazos to focus on ensuring that pay raises aren't automatically given to employees, eliminating the city's contribution to employee retirement-savings plans that costs Phoenix $30 million to $40 million annually and require that union officers' salaries are paid through membership dues and not taxpayer money.
Stanton has said the city needs to overhaul the public-pension system through negotiations. He agrees that taxpayer money should not be used to fund union activity and union officers' salaries.
"Negotiations going forward will be tough, and many things that people are used to will have to change," Stanton said.
Cavazos believes the city has been tough.
He said he was able to negotiate concessions for the first time in city history last year. City employee groups agreed to the 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts for two years to save the city $104 million - concessions he said no other major city in the country could achieve at the time.
Critics, however, say those savings are diminished because employees were still allowed merit and longevity bonuses costing the city more than $60 million over two years.
Human-resources director Janet Smith said whether the city asks for more pay cuts will depend on the economy, budget forecasts and policy direction from elected officials. The city is also waiting on the results of a salary and benefits study to see how Phoenix compares with the private sector and other cities when it comes to employee compensation. That study, due in mid-December, will also drive bargaining talks.
Today, Phoenix has seven labor unions and associations representing professionals such as police officers, electricians, secretaries and mechanics. Employees aren't required to join or pay dues, but the contracts they negotiate impact employees regardless of whether they're members.
Frank Piccioli, an officer with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960, said people have misunderstood the role of labor unions in Phoenix. The unions are there to protect employees, he said.
For example, when a city employee died on the job, the union worked to secure benefits for the widow left to raise five children alone. The union helped her with the mortgage payment, gas money and electricity bills until her husband's benefits kicked in.
The labor groups also coordinate safety sessions and on-the-job training to prevent the city from facing lawsuits and liability.
He said he takes offense when terms like "union boss" and "union thug" get thrown around because the labor groups representing rank-and-file employees have always worked cooperatively with the city.
Two years ago, when the city asked for 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts, the unions didn't balk.
"We did everything they wanted," Piccioli said. "Never in the history of Phoenix have the unions given back money, and now it's frustrating to be demonized."
He said the political influence that public-employee unions wield creates a conflict of interest for members of the Phoenix City Council. During election cycles, labor groups offer endorsements and support to candidates that help officials get elected. The threat of losing that political support could cloud their decisions on city business that impacts employees and the public.
City unions and employees are forbidden from endorsing candidates or donating money to political campaigns, but the larger statewide associations representing city unions can. And it is mostly the public-safety associations, not rank-and-file unions like AFSCME, that are more politically active.
The United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, for example, can't get involved in the Phoenix mayoral election. But the Professional Firefighters of Arizona and Arizona Police Association have endorsed Stanton for mayor. The Professional Firefighters of Arizona have also created an independent expenditure organization to spend unlimited funds to influence the election.
Pete Gorraiz, head of the United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association, doesn't see a problem with statewide public-safety associations endorsing candidates.
"I don't know why anyone would begrudge us the same opportunity to participate in city politics as the lobbyists, the vendors and the developers do," he said.
Debates over whether Phoenix spends too much on its workforce or whether employee unions wield too much influence will cast the spotlight on the city's labor negotiations with its seven employee unions and associations that begin in January.
Proposals from the candidates to reform pensions, repeal the food tax and cut the city budget could directly or indirectly impact the city's more than 14,600 employees, whose personnel costs comprised roughly 60 percent of Phoenix's $2.41 billion operating budget in the 2010-11 fiscal year.
Earlier this year, City Council members disagreed over whether it was appropriate for city employees to get $30 million in raises and bonuses in this year's budget even though employees agreed to a 3.2 percent cut to wages and benefits in 2010, which saved the city $52 million. The $30 million in merit raises and longevity bonuses were part of previously negotiated labor contracts in place for more than 30 years.
The latest shot at unions came from the Goldwater Institute. A report from the conservative group revealed last week that Phoenix spends $3.7 million in taxpayer money annually to fund union activity and pay for union officer salaries - a practice both mayoral candidates Wes Gullett and Greg Stanton have said should stop.
While negotiations take place between city management and union officials, the new mayor and council will set the policy for how the talks should be handled.
City Manager David Cavazos acknowledges some changes are needed but says Phoenix has been successful during labor negotiations because it traditionally gets buy-in from employees.
"We have a situation where we need to look at how we do things differently moving forward," Cavazos said, adding that the situation is not one of "taxpayers versus unions."
"It's not a matter of if the management is for the public or for the employees. We're for both. It's not a question of one or the other."
Employee costs
In 2005-06, Phoenix spent $1.26 billion on employee costs. That number peaked at $1.54 billion at the height of the recession in 2008-09 and dropped to $1.44 billion in 2010-11.The amount the city spends on employees in total is down, largely because of the 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts negotiated two years ago, but the average cost of keeping a full-time employee on the payroll has increased every year for the past six years. The city's cost estimates factor in not only base wages but also overtime and benefits such as pension payouts, workers'-compensation insurance, health care and uniform allowances.
In 2005-06, the average cost of a single employee, including all factors, was $80,347. For 2010-11, it is estimated at $98,322. Much of that increase has been driven by rising costs of sworn police and fire personnel, whose average salary went up 10 percent from 2008-09 to 2009-10.
In 2005-06, the average base wage for an employee was $50,400 for 15,600 employees. That average wage is now at $60,650 for 14,600 employees for 2010-11.
Gullett said Phoenix management needs to be tougher on the unions and ask for more from the labor contracts because "the economy is in the tank and we can't afford these kinds of things anymore."
Gullett said in the next round of negotiations, he would tell Cavazos to focus on ensuring that pay raises aren't automatically given to employees, eliminating the city's contribution to employee retirement-savings plans that costs Phoenix $30 million to $40 million annually and require that union officers' salaries are paid through membership dues and not taxpayer money.
Stanton has said the city needs to overhaul the public-pension system through negotiations. He agrees that taxpayer money should not be used to fund union activity and union officers' salaries.
"Negotiations going forward will be tough, and many things that people are used to will have to change," Stanton said.
Cavazos believes the city has been tough.
He said he was able to negotiate concessions for the first time in city history last year. City employee groups agreed to the 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts for two years to save the city $104 million - concessions he said no other major city in the country could achieve at the time.
Critics, however, say those savings are diminished because employees were still allowed merit and longevity bonuses costing the city more than $60 million over two years.
Human-resources director Janet Smith said whether the city asks for more pay cuts will depend on the economy, budget forecasts and policy direction from elected officials. The city is also waiting on the results of a salary and benefits study to see how Phoenix compares with the private sector and other cities when it comes to employee compensation. That study, due in mid-December, will also drive bargaining talks.
The role of unions
City employee unions and associations have existed in Phoenix since 1975. That is when the city struck a deal with employees to allow the labor groups to form labor negotiations as a trade-off for a no-strike provision to prevent work stoppages or slowdowns.Today, Phoenix has seven labor unions and associations representing professionals such as police officers, electricians, secretaries and mechanics. Employees aren't required to join or pay dues, but the contracts they negotiate impact employees regardless of whether they're members.
Frank Piccioli, an officer with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960, said people have misunderstood the role of labor unions in Phoenix. The unions are there to protect employees, he said.
For example, when a city employee died on the job, the union worked to secure benefits for the widow left to raise five children alone. The union helped her with the mortgage payment, gas money and electricity bills until her husband's benefits kicked in.
The labor groups also coordinate safety sessions and on-the-job training to prevent the city from facing lawsuits and liability.
He said he takes offense when terms like "union boss" and "union thug" get thrown around because the labor groups representing rank-and-file employees have always worked cooperatively with the city.
Two years ago, when the city asked for 3.2 percent wage and benefit cuts, the unions didn't balk.
"We did everything they wanted," Piccioli said. "Never in the history of Phoenix have the unions given back money, and now it's frustrating to be demonized."
Politics and unions
Nick Dranias, an attorney and director of constitutional policy at the Goldwater Institute, said he has concerns about the role of elected officials in the next round of labor negotiations.He said the political influence that public-employee unions wield creates a conflict of interest for members of the Phoenix City Council. During election cycles, labor groups offer endorsements and support to candidates that help officials get elected. The threat of losing that political support could cloud their decisions on city business that impacts employees and the public.
City unions and employees are forbidden from endorsing candidates or donating money to political campaigns, but the larger statewide associations representing city unions can. And it is mostly the public-safety associations, not rank-and-file unions like AFSCME, that are more politically active.
The United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, for example, can't get involved in the Phoenix mayoral election. But the Professional Firefighters of Arizona and Arizona Police Association have endorsed Stanton for mayor. The Professional Firefighters of Arizona have also created an independent expenditure organization to spend unlimited funds to influence the election.
Pete Gorraiz, head of the United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association, doesn't see a problem with statewide public-safety associations endorsing candidates.
"I don't know why anyone would begrudge us the same opportunity to participate in city politics as the lobbyists, the vendors and the developers do," he said.
-Lynn Bui
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
7/19/11- OPINION: Demonizing unions is shameful- The Arizona Republic
I'm tired, tired of the sludge of anti-union rhetoric coming out of our politicians.
It's amazing how they can make the unions and their members the bad guys. Not the bank CEOs who made bad debts nor the corporations that sold them. No, the firefighter, 911 operator, teacher, inspector, cop, sanitation worker, they are the bad guys.
Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCiccio, state Rep. Frank Antenori, Phoenix mayoral candidate Peggy Neely, and former Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza have jumped on this bandwagon, and it's shameful.
It's amazing how they can make the unions and their members the bad guys. Not the bank CEOs who made bad debts nor the corporations that sold them. No, the firefighter, 911 operator, teacher, inspector, cop, sanitation worker, they are the bad guys.
Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCiccio, state Rep. Frank Antenori, Phoenix mayoral candidate Peggy Neely, and former Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza have jumped on this bandwagon, and it's shameful.
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
11/11/10- Phoenix City Councilman's anti-recall war chest questioned - The Arizona Republic
Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio has raised at least $8,000 to fight a recall that does not yet exist and may never exist.
DiCiccio said he needs the money to "scare off" and "build a defense" against local union leaders who have discussed launching a recall against him.
But labor leaders say that there are no plans to recall DiCiccio and that the councilman is using the guise of a recall threat to pad his war chest between elections for a future campaign.
![]()
Since mid-October, DiCiccio has been sending out e-mails asking supporters to donate to the campaign committee he used to run for City Council last year.
"I made a promise to you and the voters to work for change in how city government is run," the e-mail says. "There is a slow and steady drumbeat started by individuals and groups that do not want me to succeed and they are discussing possibly launching a recall effort against me."
The e-mail continues by asking for donations to "demonstrate that I have a well-funded campaign war chest."
DiCiccio has not been popular among many Phoenix employees and the unions that represent them for his philosophies on limited government and vocal push to privatize more city services. At meetings earlier this year when the City Council discussed expanding its use of outsourcing, union employees packed City Hall to air their concerns, with many of them booing DiCiccio or calling him names.
Although the unions disagree with DiCiccio on how government should be run, there are no plans to recall the councilman, said Ron Ramirez, chairman of the Coalition of Phoenix City Employees, which is made up of leaders from all eight of the city's bargaining units. The unions represent everyone from secretaries, 911 operators, police officers and landscapers to street-maintenance crews.
"He's misleading the public to believe something that isn't real," said Ramirez, who is also president of the Administration, Supervisory, Professional and Technical Employees Association. "He's going to pocket the money."
DiCiccio said the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960 filed a public-records request in April to "dig up dirt" that could be used against him in a recall.
The public-records request asked for copies of his calendars, meetings he's attended and information on his pension.
Frank Piccioli, a board member of AFSCME, said the records request was to "make sure he was doing his job" and to see whether DiCiccio had taken the same wage cuts employees did during the city's budget crisis - not for a recall.
"We definitely object to some of the things that he says, but there is no battle plan to recall him," Piccioli said.
City Clerk Mario Paniagua said that earlier this year, someone inquired about the city's recall procedures related to DiCiccio through the City Clerk Department but never followed up.
To date, no one has filed paperwork or registered a political committee to recall DiCiccio. The department also hasn't received any complaints about his latest fundraising efforts.
Pete Gorraiz, president of the United Phoenix Firefighters Association, said that while there was some "off the cuff" comment from one union leader about a recall months ago, union officials aren't talking about it anymore.
"The only one talking about a recall is Sal," Gorraiz said. "He is simply using that as a ploy to raise money."
Paniagua said DiCiccio's fundraising fell into a "gray area" of the state law but did not appear to violate any rules.
People must file separate political committees to oppose or support a recall, Paniagua said, but candidate committees, such as the one DiCiccio is using to raise money, are for the purpose of an election. So, if there is a recall election, the money from DiCiccio's campaign committee could still be used.
Paul Eckstein, a campaign-finance attorney in Phoenix, said the contributions were allowed as long as the campaign committee was properly registered and the donations were made public.
But the practice does raise some questions and "the clean thing to do would be to set up a new committee and a new account" dedicated to the recall, Eckstein said.
Money donated to a specific recall committee can be used only for a recall election. But if money is collected for a candidate's general-campaign committee, Eckstein said, it could be used for other elections.
Which raises even more issues, Eckstein said.
If there isn't a recall and DiCiccio wants to use the money for another purpose, Eckstein said, it would be best, but not required, to get permission from donors before doing so because they contributed thinking they were donating to fight a recall.
DiCiccio said if there wasn't a recall, he plans to use the money for another election.
This isn't the first time DiCiccio's fundraising efforts have raised eyebrows. In 2000, critics say he took advantage of a loophole in the state's "resign to run" law, allowing DiCiccio to keep his seat on the City Council while launching a bid for Arizona's 1st Congressional District.
Some have suggested DiCiccio was using the recall rumors to raise money for a mayoral bid without having to give up his seat on the City Council.
DiCiccio said he would set up an exploratory committee if he were to run for mayor but is not considering a run now and is focused on making "change."
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
DiCiccio said he needs the money to "scare off" and "build a defense" against local union leaders who have discussed launching a recall against him.
But labor leaders say that there are no plans to recall DiCiccio and that the councilman is using the guise of a recall threat to pad his war chest between elections for a future campaign.
"I made a promise to you and the voters to work for change in how city government is run," the e-mail says. "There is a slow and steady drumbeat started by individuals and groups that do not want me to succeed and they are discussing possibly launching a recall effort against me."
The e-mail continues by asking for donations to "demonstrate that I have a well-funded campaign war chest."
DiCiccio has not been popular among many Phoenix employees and the unions that represent them for his philosophies on limited government and vocal push to privatize more city services. At meetings earlier this year when the City Council discussed expanding its use of outsourcing, union employees packed City Hall to air their concerns, with many of them booing DiCiccio or calling him names.
Although the unions disagree with DiCiccio on how government should be run, there are no plans to recall the councilman, said Ron Ramirez, chairman of the Coalition of Phoenix City Employees, which is made up of leaders from all eight of the city's bargaining units. The unions represent everyone from secretaries, 911 operators, police officers and landscapers to street-maintenance crews.
"He's misleading the public to believe something that isn't real," said Ramirez, who is also president of the Administration, Supervisory, Professional and Technical Employees Association. "He's going to pocket the money."
DiCiccio said the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2960 filed a public-records request in April to "dig up dirt" that could be used against him in a recall.
The public-records request asked for copies of his calendars, meetings he's attended and information on his pension.
Frank Piccioli, a board member of AFSCME, said the records request was to "make sure he was doing his job" and to see whether DiCiccio had taken the same wage cuts employees did during the city's budget crisis - not for a recall.
"We definitely object to some of the things that he says, but there is no battle plan to recall him," Piccioli said.
City Clerk Mario Paniagua said that earlier this year, someone inquired about the city's recall procedures related to DiCiccio through the City Clerk Department but never followed up.
To date, no one has filed paperwork or registered a political committee to recall DiCiccio. The department also hasn't received any complaints about his latest fundraising efforts.
Pete Gorraiz, president of the United Phoenix Firefighters Association, said that while there was some "off the cuff" comment from one union leader about a recall months ago, union officials aren't talking about it anymore.
"The only one talking about a recall is Sal," Gorraiz said. "He is simply using that as a ploy to raise money."
Paniagua said DiCiccio's fundraising fell into a "gray area" of the state law but did not appear to violate any rules.
People must file separate political committees to oppose or support a recall, Paniagua said, but candidate committees, such as the one DiCiccio is using to raise money, are for the purpose of an election. So, if there is a recall election, the money from DiCiccio's campaign committee could still be used.
Paul Eckstein, a campaign-finance attorney in Phoenix, said the contributions were allowed as long as the campaign committee was properly registered and the donations were made public.
But the practice does raise some questions and "the clean thing to do would be to set up a new committee and a new account" dedicated to the recall, Eckstein said.
Money donated to a specific recall committee can be used only for a recall election. But if money is collected for a candidate's general-campaign committee, Eckstein said, it could be used for other elections.
Which raises even more issues, Eckstein said.
If there isn't a recall and DiCiccio wants to use the money for another purpose, Eckstein said, it would be best, but not required, to get permission from donors before doing so because they contributed thinking they were donating to fight a recall.
DiCiccio said if there wasn't a recall, he plans to use the money for another election.
This isn't the first time DiCiccio's fundraising efforts have raised eyebrows. In 2000, critics say he took advantage of a loophole in the state's "resign to run" law, allowing DiCiccio to keep his seat on the City Council while launching a bid for Arizona's 1st Congressional District.
Some have suggested DiCiccio was using the recall rumors to raise money for a mayoral bid without having to give up his seat on the City Council.
DiCiccio said he would set up an exploratory committee if he were to run for mayor but is not considering a run now and is focused on making "change."
2/23/10- Phoenix labor-relations board to hear crime-lab claims- the Arizona Republic
A Phoenix labor-relations board is scheduled to hear testimony Wednesday from police crime-lab employees after the union representing crime-scene specialists raised questions about mismanaged evidence and supervisor misconduct.
The five unfair-labor-practice charges stemmed from a woman who claimed supervisors wrongfully blamed her for filing inaccurate reports on 18 investigations since 2007, including homicide cases.
Since her reassignment earlier this winter, Ana Lucero - a crime-scene specialist who worked for more than eight years processing evidence for Phoenix homicide detectives - claimed the lab was so disorganized that it could put criminal cases at risk. Lab leaders denied the claims.
The Phoenix Employment Relations Board scheduled four days of hearings to collect facts from Lucero and lab supervisors. But her union, Local 2960 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, could agree with the city to withdraw the charges and cancel the hearings.
Meanwhile, Phoenix police detectives continued with an internal investigation into crime-lab employees as the department probes allegations of misconduct, rather than the functions of the crime lab itself.
No room for error
Phoenix Cmdr. Harry Markley, who took command of the crime lab in June, said he didn't know of any employee errors that could jeopardize criminal cases.
He added that lab supervisors closely monitor the work of 38 non-sworn crime-scene specialists to maintain a high level of accreditation and to ensure prosecutors receive accurate evidence to move forward with cases.
"In some fields there might be an acceptable error rate," Markley said. "There's none in this field. We discover our errors because we do the reviews."
The crime lab completed 40,357 requests for scientific analysis in 2009, including those for DNA, fingerprints and toxicology. The number marked a 35 percent work increase from the previous year, when the lab completed 29,884 requests.
Markley added that the total number of backlogged cases is going down, though the lab continues to operate with the same number of employees.
In 2007, the crime lab reported a backlog of 15,895 cases, Phoenix records show. By 2009, the number dropped to 10,982.
Lab complaints
Lucero and her AFSCME Local 2960 representatives claimed crime-lab staff members have enough time on their hands to make popcorn and watch movies on city time, to take long breaks at Starbucks at City Hall and to take two-hour lunches.
Such complaints came out months after Lucero was first disciplined, according to crime-lab leaders. They said the complaints reflected the stance of a handful of disgruntled employees rather than a pervasive problem among the lab's 147 employees.
According to disciplinary records, Lucero's supervisors warned her multiple times last year to reduce her report backlog. She admitted she had more than 100 unfinished reports dating back to 2006.
One supervisor characterized Lucero's lack of detail on her reports as a "lack of willingness to take the initiative to verify the accuracy of statements," including missing or mischaracterized evidence collected at crime scenes.
Frank Piccioli, a Local 2960 representative, said Lucero's discipline and reassignment to a police department records office incorrectly portrayed her as lazy and incompetent.
In January, the union filed a civil lawsuit notice of claim with Phoenix, alleging Lucero has been "severely, continuously and repeatedly harassed and retaliated against" since she became a Local 2960 steward more than a year ago.
Members leaving union
A group of crime-scene specialists filed a petition with Phoenix to leave Local 2960.
The petition, filed in July, would reclassify the city's crime-scene specialists under a new professional ranking that some feel is long overdue, based on the highly technical forensics work. The new ranking would enable crime-scene specialists to become part of a new union.
Local 2960 responded by filing its first unfair-labor complaint with the Phoenix Employment Relations Board in August. Four other unfair-labor charges followed.
John Charland, the attorney representing the petitioners, said the process - which goes to hearing in March - has been marked by accusations and attacks.
"It seemed so straightforward that these people were not properly categorized, and that it should be adjusted," Charland said. "I did not anticipate I was going to get into this type of dogfight. But now that I'm in it, I'm going to fight it out."
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)