Municipal Union, Carson to Call In State Mediator

After six months of unsuccessful contract negotiations, Carson and its largest employees’ union agreed this week to call in a state mediator to help resolve what many believe is the city’s lengthiest labor dispute.

The agreement to seek help from the state Mediation/Conciliation Service, reached during a brief meeting Monday, comes more than 3 1/2 months after a two-year contract expired for 220 of Carson’s estimated 300 permanent employees. In the interim, the city has twice extended the employees’ old contract.

“Perhaps the mediator is the answer,” said Mayor Kay Calas. “I hope so. These are the longest negotiations I’ve ever seen in Carson.”

But although Calas and other elected leaders say they hope that mediation can help resolve the dispute over salary and benefits--which has been nearly deadlocked since late August--both sides of the negotiating team say there are indications that a settlement may not be imminent.

‘Preparing for Worst’

“We’re hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst,” said Pete Schnaufer, a representative for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 809, which has already unanimously voted to stage a sickout if a contract is not signed by Nov. 8, the day after the planned meeting with the state mediator.

Schnaufer continued: “The signals that the city management team is throwing out are that they plan to go through with this on a perfunctory basis to add legitimacy to the proposals they’ve offered.”

But the city’s chief negotiator, Assistant City Atty. Lee Paterson, countered that the vote for a sickout “obviously indicates they do not expect to reach a settlement by Nov. 7. It shows they’ve hardened their position and don’t expect to make concessions.”

Indeed, agreement on seeking help from a mediator is one of the few accords reached during the divisive contract negotiations. Each side says the other is making unreasonable demands; each blames the other for excessive delays; each says the other has engaged in deliberate miscommunication.

“I think the city is at fault for the delay, but I don’t think the City Council has gotten the word about what’s been going on,” said Nancy Severtson, union president, adding that council members have not seen the union’s written offers and have been misinformed about what employees are asking for. (The city’s negotiating team is composed of Paterson, the personnel director and the finance director.)

Unaware of Position

“We have the balance sheet,” insisted Councilwoman Vera Robles DeWitt. “I’m not sure all the employees are aware of the city’s position.”

DeWitt said that officials this week agreed in closed session to distribute a fact sheet to city workers explaining Carson’s most recent offer, which a majority of the City Council previously voted to support as its “final” offer.

The union has not formally voted on that offer, presented in late August, but members have consistently expressed their dissatisfaction with it, Severtson said. “We explained it to the membership and they said, ‘No way.’ ”

In fact, employees have many times expressed those sentiments in public. Workers have picketed outside City Hall on many occasions during the last several months. This week employees made perhaps their greatest public showing at Monday’s City Council meeting, where more than 100 city workers jammed council chambers to voice their discontent with the contract impasse and to complain to officials about eroding employee morale.

‘We Have Bills’

“We have families, we have houses, we have bills to pay,” said worker Jeff Halbea. “We just want a fair, decent contract.”

“Morale has been very low,” said Mary Louise Mavian, a finance counselor for four years and treasurer of the city union. “Employees are feeling as if they have been punished, not rewarded, for being good. Employees would like to see some measure of fairness in the negotiations.”

Many officials agree that the delay has affected morale in City Hall. While most say that the impasse has not hurt city services because the employees are proud of their city and about 67% of them live in Carson, some suggest that subtle changes may be starting to take place.

“Any time you have an unhappy situation with the employees, it affects the city,” said Councilman Walter J. Egan. “Normally good employees with outstanding work records suddenly take unexpected days off without notice; complaints come in about certain services that have had delays in coming.”

Egan and other council members declined to comment on who is to blame for the contract impasse, saying they do not want to jeopardize negotiations. Many employees, however, blame Paterson, the city’s chief negotiator, for the stalemate, saying that he uses “hardball” tactics at the negotiating table and is interested only in furthering his labor-law career by negotiating a “take-away” contract.

‘No Vested Interest’

But Paterson contended, “I have no vested interest in blocking a settlement. It would be easier for me if there was a settlement. . . . I think that when they’re coming to the table asking for five times what other cities are getting, they’re being unreasonable. I think the delay is an issue of bad advice. They don’t seem to be aware of what other cities are settling for.”

Some of unsettled issues of the contract are:

- Salary. Employees are asking for an 8% pay increase in a one-year contract. The city is offering 3% for a one-year contract and 4% a year if employees will sign a three-year contract. Carson says an 8% hike is unreasonable and out of line with what other cities are getting. The union says it is still willing to negotiate the issue, but said that Carson employees’ salaries in general lag behind those of workers in other cities of its size. An entry-level office clerk receives $1,083 a month, at the low end of the scale. An associate civil engineer receives $2,543 a month, at the high end.

- Health insurance. The city is proposing to pay health insurance premium costs only up to $255 a month for a one-year contract--it now pays up to $286 a month--and up to $286 a month for a three-year contract. Employees are asking that the city continue to pay the full cost of health insurance. Both sides agree that under the city’s one-year offer some of Carson’s employees would have to pay as much as $31 a month to cover the premium and, if health insurance costs increase, could also be forced to pay some differential under the three-year contract.

- Grievance procedures. Employees are asking that binding arbitration be used to decide grievances filed against them, but they would permit the City Council to settle grievances. Carson says such grievances should be decided by the city administrator, as happens now.

- Long-term disability. The city is asking that workers use up all sick leave, compensatory time and vacation time before they collect long-term disability, which is now paid 30 days after an employee goes on disability leave. Employees are asking that they be allowed to decide whether they want to use up sick leave or vacation time for the first 30 days of long-term disability leave, as is now city practice.

- Holidays. The city is asking that Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday be counted as a vacation day or floating holiday if employees take it off, and that employees’ two personal leave days be used only for bereavement. Employees are asking that King’s birthday be counted as an additional holiday and that their two personal leave days be used at their discretion, as is currently done.

- Retirees’ benefits. Employees are asking for dental benefits for retirees, which they currently do not have. The city say it will not provide those benefits.