OpinionOpinion L.A.
Opinion

City employee unions would gain clout in pensions ruling

UnionsPensionsLaws and LegislationPolitics and GovernmentPension and WelfareGovernmentPublic Employees
Proposed ruling would give city unions veto power over pension changes affecting only future workers
Pension ruling hinged on expansive definition of the 'employees' represented by city unions

Thanks to federal and state laws, public employee unions have enormous power over the pension benefits paid by local governments. This week, a hearing officer in Los Angeles has proposed giving city unions even more say, requiring their approval before the City Council changes pension benefits for future employees.

As my colleagues David Zahniser and Emily Alpert Reyes reported Tuesday, Luella Nelson, the hearing officer, found that the city had violated its agreements with a host of local unions when it created a new, less-generous pension tier in 2012 for workers hired after July 1, 2013. Under those agreements, Nelson wrote, the city had to "meet and confer" — that is, negotiate — with unions before making any changes to pension plans for union members, even those who aren't yet in the union because they haven't been hired.

Nelson's written opinion is merely advisory. The city's Employee Relations Board will make the final call next month, and City Atty. Mike Feuer will continue making the case (which Nelson found unpersuasive) that workers who haven't been hired aren't "employees" covered by existing collective bargaining agreements.

That definitional question is the key to the unions' claim. How far does the word "employee" stretch?

From the union's point of view, employees aren't people so much as they are positions, all of which they represent regardless of who is in them. From the city's point of view, the union has bargaining power only for its membership, and someone who hasn't been hired is, by definition, not a member.

Nelson relied on National Labor Relations Board rulings to declare "frivolous" the distinction the city was drawing between current and future employees. But the implications of her proposed ruling are huge. If it's adopted by the board, city unions will have veto power over any changes the city might want — or need — to make to worker pensions until the end of time.

Union leaders would argue, no doubt, that that's appropriate. What's the point of collective bargaining if the employer can unilaterally set new terms for successive generations of workers? But I'm receptive to the city's argument that unions represent their members; if the city sets terms for new employees that are unattractive, people don't have to take those jobs. It's very different from the position current workers are in and the protection they may need as they negotiate contracts.

One thing that remains true is that new pension plans for city workers can have lower benefits than the plans for current workers. By contrast, a city can't reduce any specific pension benefit for current workers, even if the union agrees, unless it provides a new benefit of equal value. A city that provides an overly generous pension can negotiate for larger worker contributions to the fund, but that's about the only relief available.

If Nelson's ruling holds, cities will convince unions that less-generous pensions for future employees are crucial to stopping the cost of workers' benefits from gobbling up an ever-larger portion of the budget, even though the savings take years to become meaningful. Otherwise, there will be less money not just for street repairs and fire trucks but also for wages, which means smaller raises and more layoffs.

That's exactly what's happening in the City of Angels. As Zahniser and Reyes put it: "Public employee pension costs have created huge stress on the city's budget in recent years. In departments supervised by the council, contributions for civilian employee retirement costs were expected to climb from $260 million in 2005 to $410 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1, according to City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana, the top budget official."

One of the great things about a pension plan is that once the benefits have been offered, they can't be taken away. Unfortunately, that also means that if a city adopts a badly designed pension plan, it's stuck with it for all of its current employees. With Nelson's proposed decision, there's a chance Los Angeles could be stuck with its pre-2013 pensions for future employees too — unless its unions recognize that they have a long-term interest in healthy city finances.

Follow Healey's intermittent Twitter feed: @jcahealey

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
UnionsPensionsLaws and LegislationPolitics and GovernmentPension and WelfareGovernmentPublic Employees
  • Union benefits without union dues
    Union benefits without union dues

    Just like their counterparts in the private sector, government workers have long been able to join unions, which then charge dues to cover expenses for services that include negotiating wages and advocating for political action. And just like their private sector counterparts, public...

  • Will Secure Communities work for immigration enforcement?
    Will Secure Communities work for immigration enforcement?

    The federal government's Secure Communities program has been as controversial as it has been counterproductive, so we're glad the Obama administration's new approach to immigration enforcement will mean the program's demise. Yet we also harbor some skepticism about its successor, the Priority...

  • Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra lost focus, and reelection
    Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra lost focus, and reelection

    With so much focus on who's raising the most money, who's got the big-name endorsements and who's got labor or business or whatever special interests' backing, it's easy to overlook the simple fact that elections are decided by individual voters. Money, political connections and even incumbency...

  • Why do people cross the border illegally? It's not what you think
    Why do people cross the border illegally? It's not what you think

    President Obama's executive order on immigration will affect the lives of millions of undocumented immigrants — perhaps as profoundly as their illegal crossing into the U.S. did in the first place. It's been a divisive action about people some Americans regard as criminals. Yet what...

  • GOP ponders its next move in wake of Obama's immigration action
    GOP ponders its next move in wake of Obama's immigration action

    When President Obama announced his decision to allow roughly 4 million undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation, Democrats and Republicans in Washington disagreed furiously about the move. No surprise there.

  • Retailers are waging a war on Thanksgiving
    Retailers are waging a war on Thanksgiving

    There has been a lot of talk over the years about whether there's a war on Christmas. That's debatable. But there is definitely a pernicious and obvious war on another holiday: Thanksgiving. Every year, retailers greedily eat up more of the holiday and come a little closer to turning...

  • The real-life Bill Cosby show: Follow the sanctimony
    The real-life Bill Cosby show: Follow the sanctimony

    The phrase "follow the money" was popularized in the Watergate docudrama "All the President's Men."

  • Kinkisharyo and IBEW win; CEQA loses?
    Kinkisharyo and IBEW win; CEQA loses?

    When Mayor Eric Garcetti announced the deal he had helped broker between Japanese light-rail manufacturer Kinkisharyo International and the electrical workers union, it was a win for the economy in Los Angeles County. But for environmentalists? Not so much.

Comments
Loading