Firefighters Hoping Voters Approve Arbitrator

After working without a contract for more than two years, Anaheim firefighters are asking for voters’ help.

Measure A on the ballot Tuesday asks voters whether to turn over labor disputes between firefighters and the city to a neutral party for resolution.

If the measure is successful, Anaheim would be the first city in the county required to use binding arbitration. A three-member panel would decide on contract issues, including wages, benefits and working conditions.

Firefighters believe the measure is the way to end their long-running battle for a new contract.

“It will give us the ability to settle this without being more aggressive as a union, i.e, job actions such as a sick-out or strike,” said Richard Chavez, president of the union, representing 210 firefighters. “We have elected to refrain from those things. It doesn’t do the public any good.”

Firefighters want a cost-of-living raise and have worked without a contract since July 1996. Their last salary increase was 3% in 1996. They received the same in 1994.

In May, firefighters submitted 22,400 signatures to qualify the ballot measure, which is strongly opposed by the City Council, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce board of directors and Anaheim Budget Advisory Commission.

Anaheim Firefighters’ Political Action Committee has raised about $54,000 to get its message to voters. No money has been raised to campaign against the measure.

The City Council this week unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the measure, calling it a no-win situation for both taxpayers and firefighters. Council members said firefighters and captains in 1997 earned average annual pay and benefits of $90,762, with base pay averaging $61,050.

Chavez said base wages for firefighters are much lower. Entry-level firefighters earn $10.60 an hour, which the union wants raised to about $12 an hour, Chavez said.

Councilman Tom Tait said the ballot measure would “take away the power of the people--the voters--through their elected representatives to set priorities in the city and determine how taxpayer money is spent. It’s the job of the City Council to determine how we spend the taxpayers’ dollars--not the job of an arbitrator.”

Council members also said that if the arbitrators chose the union’s last offer, it would require cuts in city programs or services.

Chavez countered that the arbitrators would base their decision on the city’s ability to pay, and passage of the measure would not result in eliminating or reducing services or programs.