Union Members Are The Key To Balancing Budget Deficit
By Hilbert Morales
El Observador                

During the past several decades organized labor (i.e., unions and professional associations) representing public employees (police, firefighters, social service workers, public health workers, teachers, etc.) have experienced the best of times as labor negotiations led to contracts which provided for generous hourly wages, health benefits, and retirement plans. These union contracts were negotiated during very favorable economies plus the synergistic alignment of both the public’s and unions’ quest for transparency and accountability in all governmental affairs.
This situation applies to both the County of Santa Clara and the City of San Jose. It also applies to many state and federal agencies. From this point on, the focus of these comments applies to the local county and city jurisdictions.  Both jurisdictions face serious deficits ($250 million and $120 million respectively).
These deficits, when analyzed categorically, reveal that 70% or more of the deficit is related to the cost of employee wage, retirement and health care benefits which were negotiated when the economy was healthy and robust.
Today that is definitely not the case, and has been so for several years. Management’s approach seems to fall into three actions: 1) Reduce the labor force and therefore the personnel costs incurred.  This results in service cuts. 2) Define more work that can be outsourced to the private sector using a competitive bid process. Presumably lower costs of services results. And 3) Ask the union leadership to voluntarily agree to a reduction of wages, benefits, and retirement programs.  Of course, union leadership has opposed these solutions.
It is essential that public employee unions find some way to maximize current employment levels without exceeding available funding levels. In the past union leadership has used their clout to have legislation passed which today impedes the informed involvement of the public.
Unions have favored keeping contract negotiation information away from public scrutiny and inquiry. However, that information has become public as a consequence of lawsuits by a nonprofit organization called the “First Amendment Coalition.” Their website is www.firstamendmentcoalition.org. Go there for information that provides a compelling perspective.
An article that provides another perspective is entitled “Stand with the People by Standing up to Unions” authored by San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed (San Jose Mercury News, Editorial page, June 13, 2010). Here we are reminded that in his 2007 State of the City address, Mayor Reed stated,” We cannot become a great city unless we eliminate our structural budget deficit. This is the greatest challenge. The budget deficit is public enemy number one, an enemy that will steal our hopes and kill our dreams of becoming a great city if we ignore it.”       Well, hardly any progress has been made in the past several years. Nothing will happen until the unions step forward with a method of maximizing the number of employees who ‘stay on the job’. It seems obvious that the union membership must convey to their leadership that sharing jobs is preferable to layoffs.
To avoid layoffs, the union membership might want to consider sharing the work that can be paid for by the monies available. It is not an option to demand full employment when tax revenues are not realized in the needed quantity because of a nonperforming economy. Those who pay taxes are experiencing total unemployment (12%+), underemployment, and reduced taxable revenues. The Mayor makes a good point: voters are aware of those elected officials who favor accountability and fiscal responsibility. Union-backed candidates did not fare well in the recent primary election.
If unions representing public employees are to retain their clout, their membership must support their negotiating leadership to fully participate in accepting reduced employment levels forced on all of us by an economy that is recovering from a ‘near collapse’. If your union leadership will not provide a formula for sharing the work, then the membership must push their leadership towards a viable option.
The outcome is that when all agree to accept a lower income level, more, if not all, union members may remain employed. Job-sharing is a better option than having a few become totally unemployed. Think about this option. The choice is yours. If you do not make that choice, then the City Council will vote to do what it must do to reach a balanced budget. Keep in mind that personnel expenses are 70% of the solution. Union members sharing their jobs are the key to lowering personnel expenses.∆