Ferry workers' wage freeze: mostly smoke and mirrors
The workers scored a photo-op for helping the state in a fiscal crisis. But the reality is they just postponed receipt (with interest) of increases.
Much has been made over the public-spirited unions who represent employees of Washington State Ferries and how they “agreed” to forgo “negotiated” wage increases in light of the state’s fiscal crisis. Nice story, if it were true. The reality is more that the “agreement” falls in the same category as an agreement not to rob banks, and the “negotiated” wage increases weren’t negotiated at all. By and large, they were imposed upon the state and WSF by arbitrators, with some increases going as high as 21.4 percent over two years.
Meanwhile, union members, the ones whose wages are most affected by what happened, are hopping mad because they were neither consulted nor given an opportunity to vote on the matter.
According to a member of one of the unions, the rank-and-file were notified of the so-called agreement in a letter, a copy of which was furnished by the source, from officials of the Inlandboatmen’s Union; Masters, Mates and Pilots; Puget Sound Metal Trades Council; Marine Engineers Benevolent Association; and Office and Professional Employees International Union. These unions represent about 1,500 workers at WSF headquarters, the Eagle Harbor (Bainbridge Island) maintenance facility, the fleet, and various on-shore facilities such as terminals. The agreement came as a surprise to affected employees. That they feel betrayed is an understatement, per the member interviewed, who works in the WSF fleet.
The letter described how “diligently” the unions worked to negotiate new contracts, how they all (save one) bargained to impasse then prevailed in arbitration hearings, and how, “in this difficult economic environment [the unions] must make difficult decisions.” The letter continues: “All of the Unions representing employees at WSF have agreed to sign our 2009-2011 contracts without any economic improvements.”
This for a group of already well-paid state workers, 189 of whom earned in excess of $100,000 per year in 2007, with the top-paid union member grossing some $207,000.
It’s not as if they had a choice in the matter since state law effectively blocked implementation of the arbitration-award pay increases irrespective of the wishes of either the unions or their members. Though similar to rules governing collective bargaining for other state employees, those governing negotiations between WSF and maritime unions are unique to them.
Under the marine employees bargaining law, unless the governor’s office submits a request for funds necessary to implement bargaining agreements (or arbitration awards), the Legislature may not fund them, nor may it unilaterally include them in a state budget. Additionally, any such request by the governor’s office must first be certified by the director of the Office of Financial Management as being feasible financially for the state. Since neither happened, neither could the increases happen.
But there’s more. According to the agreement, “We [the unions] will work with the Governor to restore the economic provisions when they become financially feasible.” In other words, the unions aren’t forgoing anything — they’re merely postponing receipt of wage increases until sometime in the future. The agreement is silent on whether any increases would commence then or be retroactive from now. that's a question of considerable significance, since another provision of the law mandates the state to pay interest on retroactive compensation increases at the same monthly rate that was earned on the amounts while held in the state treasury.
Perhaps the photo-opportunity altruism of the WSF unions isn’t all that it appears to be? At the end of the day, will this become an interest-bearing savings account for WSF employees rather than their effort to help the state withstand a severe financial crisis? Is some sort of shell game underway on this issue that looks great on TV while the absolute devil remains in the details? There’s no way of either knowing or finding out. Any talks leading to the agreement qualify as collective bargaining negotiations, and, as such, details about them are currently exempt from disclosure under state public disclosure laws. Requests for comment from several of the union officials who signed the agreement were not responded to.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Mon, Feb 9, 8:29 a.m. inappropriate
Why does Crosscut even print this drivel? St. Clair by his own admission is a paid propagandist for an organization whose sole purpose is to destroy public employee unions in this state. Calling him an "investigative journalist" is like calling Hannibal Lecter a gourmet.
Posted Mon, Feb 9, 9:46 a.m. inappropriate
Ivan, I totally agree with your comment. I suppose more to the point is why do we read StClair's drivel...........
Posted Mon, Feb 9, 9:59 a.m. inappropriate
Just to see what anti-union propaganda he can come up with next, I guess. St. Clair is bought and paid for by economic royalists who think working people are not fit to kiss the hems of their betters -- among whom St. Clair numbers himself, of course -- much less organize for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Posted Mon, Feb 9, 10:18 a.m. inappropriate
Hey Ivan!
FYI...From 1975 to 1978, I was a business agent/organizer for Service Employees International Union, Local #38 in Tacoma (since absorbed into SEIU, Local #6). I organized health care facilities and rest homes, janitorial contractors, building maintenance workers of all types, and others, then bargained on their behalf for better wages, hours and conditions. One of the largest bargaining units I orgainized then negotiated a contract for were the service workers at Tacoma's St. Joseph Hospital.
And I did a damn fine job on their behalf.
I come from working people, I am a working man, my children are working people, and I advocate on behalf of working people. I want them to have all possible choices and get all the information, not just selected tid-bits.
In the meantime, keep reading and thanks for writing. As for me? I'm in the hunt for some fava beans and a nice Chianti...
The Piper
PS: Next time, you might try addressing some of the issues I raise or disputing the information I cite.
Posted Mon, Feb 9, 11:07 a.m. inappropriate
But that's not the way most liberals "debate" is it?
Posted Mon, Feb 9, 3:20 p.m. inappropriate
That was then, Scott. This is now. Benedict Arnold started out fighting for the good guys, too. Then, like you, he got bought off.
Posted Tue, Feb 10, 4:52 a.m. inappropriate
The fact that you would compare Scott St.Clair to Benedict Arnold is almost as laughable as your pitiful name-calling and disregard for the reported issues.
I've personally known the man for 24 years. I'll tell ya, Ivan, he's more tickled that you direct attention to his article then offended by your comments.
Posted Tue, Feb 10, 5:10 a.m. inappropriate
No, pal, the Evergreen "Freedom" Foundation, and St. Clair's presence on its payroll, *is* the issue. It taints anything he writes about public sector employees, and renders it mere propaganda, ill-disguised as reporting.
Who gives a rip if you have known him for 24 years? Just what does that say about *you?* The EFF is a pack of liars for hire, whose goal is to smash the bargaining power of public employees. If you want to laugh at that, be my guest.
Posted Tue, Feb 10, 10:58 a.m. inappropriate
Wow that was some funny name calling and analogy's!
But I'm curious, what is it about his reporting is wrong?
What facts did he misstate? Lies that he told?
I'm not beholding to any of the special interests named here, just want to dig though to the truth!
Any of that around?
Remember after the funny monologue even Jay Leno gets down to some facts.
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 10:24 a.m. inappropriate
Scott St. Clair is another whack job that drinks the Kool-Aid at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, (EFF See below). He loves Right-to-Work rules and all things that give everything to any and all employers, companies, corporations, etc. Anything that rids the world of any agency, group, concern that might watch over the general public health/welfare, any labor/work rules, on and on. They dream of a world without any OSHA, FDA, NTSB, SEC, anything that protects the regualr person, that might make a company, concern, person of influence think twice about screwing others over for their own, or their groups betterment. Bottom line: the Evergreen Foundation is a group composed of nasty, mean spirited right wing Republicans. They are disgusting in my book, and I think the same of Scott and any of the rest of their ilk that tie in with EFF.
That being said, this particular article was fact as far as what he reported. He could have/should have done a much better job of explaining just how twisted the rules are in this state when it comes to how the State and any certain group of employees are allowed to bargain for pay, working conditions, etc. It is NOT so cut and dry as it is for other employers and workers groups (unions). And that is a shame in itself.
*****************************************
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation is a private, non-profit public policy think tank, based in Olympia, Washington, founded by Bob Williams, a former Republican state legislator and gubernatorial candidate.
EFF's mission is to advance "individual liberty," free enterprise, and responsible government. ("Individual" liberty" means your boss pays you only what he wants to, you can be a slave for all he cares, and you have no rights. "Responsible government" is a government not tied to having to explain anything to the citizens if they do not agree with those in power. Think the George Bush Admin to the power of 100; the Evergreen Freedom Foundation is a conservative think tank that espouses "limited, accountable government," again the ((Republican)) run state or federal government may do, get away with what ever it wants...nobody, no court to restrain them).
Its efforts center around public policy research and alternatives in these core areas: anti-union, pro-corporate, state budget and regressive tax policy, welfare reform, health-care reform, privatized education, citizenship and governance issues.
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation neither solicits nor accepts funds from public sources. All programs and activities are funded by private donations and grants. Its funding comes from individuals, corporations and numerous private foundations.
SEE: http://mediamatters.org/items/200509070003