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.
By Scott St. Clair
February 09, 2009.
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.