March, 2000
City Employees Look to Charter Amendment for Pension Improvements

The unions that represent San Francisco's non-uniformed employees are considering placing a charter amendment on the November ballot that would remove Tier II from the current retirement formula. Currently, most City employees are now in the Tier II retirement plan which has a maximum factor of 1% times the number of years of service at age 60. This is in sharp contrast to some City workers on Tier 1 who earn a 2% factor at the age of 60 and most other municipal workers around the State who earn a 2% factor at the age of 55 under CalPERS. The proposed amendment would vastly improve retirement benefits for employees at the Tier II level. The City Police and Fire unions were successful in winning charter amendments several years ago that eliminated Tier II from their retirement benefits package. In the coming months, we will be asking members to volunteer time and money to make the proposed charter amendment a reality. Please stay tuned.

Agreement Reached on Staffing of Laguna Honda Replacement Program

The bonds to replace Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) were passed by San Francisco voters with a resounding 73% of the vote in November. The current buildings on the 62-acre site are 70 to 90 years old and do not meet earthquake standards. So the bonds will fund the creation of a new hospital, an assisted-living facility, and an administrative and program center. The replacement program is expected to be complete by the end of 2006.

Our union endorsed Proposition A because we support the City's commitment to maintain a long-term rehabilitation and nursing home facility. But we confess to being excited about the LHH replacement program for other reasons, as well. Local 21 architects, engineers, and landscape architects would bring a wealth of experience to this civic capital improvement, especially with the recent successful delivery of the City Hall renovation, War Memorial Opera House, New Main Library, and currently the Moscone Convention Center Expansion Project.

But as soon as the LHH bonds were passed, things got complicated. The LHH replacement program is being overseen jointly by the Mayor's Office, the City Attorney's Office, the Department of Public Health, the Department of Public Works, and the City Architect's Office. A tug-of-war of sorts commenced among DPH, DPW and the City Architect's Office as to which would take the lead in project delivery. Our union sent a letter into the fray, stating the City's professional track record and support infrastructure for delivering such a large bond program resided in its Department of Public Works. We urged the City to utilize an open and competitive process for selecting the project management team. And, of course, we reminded them of the expertise that A/E civil servants have not only technically, but in San Francisco's public projects and processes - and how it was in their best interest to utilize CCSF employees to the fullest, and steer clear of contracting out. We offered to meet and discuss the issues face-to-face.

A couple of weeks passed. Then we saw a huge Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for every architectural and engineering function under the sun for the LHH program. The stakes were high. The time was short. The gloves came off. We filed a suit.

The response was fairly swift. Within a week, DPW was declared the primary project delivery department. Then our union and DPW held a rapid series of discussions to talk through the LHH replacement program's staffing issues. Members Jim Buker, Glenn Hunt, Howard Wong, staff Leslie Abbott and David Novogrodsky, union counsel Duane Reno, and San Francisco Labor Council secretary-treasurer

Walter Johnson met with City Engineer Harlan Kelly and Bureau of Architecture Manager Tara Lamont and deputy City Attorney Linda Ross over the course of two weeks. Our Architect's chapter took the issue up at their chapter meeting and weighed in with numerous ideas. Landscape architects and engineers quickly added their insight and input to the proceedings.

The meetings culminated in a joint letter from DPW and DPH that clarifies the roles and intent of the City on this program. The letter states, in part:

-- It is the policy of DPW and DPH to reserve work for City employees in compliance with the Charter's civil service mandates;

-- DPW and DPH are committed to providing a management team comprised principally of DPW personnel;

-- The RFQ for "Executive Architect" states that the City reserves the right to use qualified City staff to provide architectural and engineering services, and to direct the Executive Architect to integrate qualified City staff into the Program team;

-- In selecting an Executive Architect, the City will give consideration to firms which have satisfactory performance under contract with public agencies working in an integrated public-private team;

-- DPW has identified services for which the program shall utilize DPW staff. DPW will use qualified City staff to perform architectural, engineering, landscape architecture, interior design and construction administration services.

Once the letter was completed, we withdrew the lawsuit without prejudice - which means that the suit can be re-filed. The content of the letter is enforceable through our grievance arbitration procedure.

It was great to experience the level of productive dialogue that can happen when all parties are at the table in problem-solving mode. How we wish it could be that way more often!

STAFF DEVELOPMENT?

For years we negotiated, agitated, made proposals and worked hard, -- although not that successfully, -- to establish and improve training and staff development opportunities for our members. We recently received the following missive from a union member at the Municipal Railway about a recent "training".

Bout a month ago I got this letter

Sayin' my life was gonna be a whole lot better

Full o' fun and truth and meaning

An' all the nothingness out o' my being.

It'd only take 3 days

Best of all, Muni pays.

Now, I'll own to bein' a card carrying skeptic

But thought I'd go ahead an' accept it

Put aside my angst and doubt

Find out what it was all about.

Might not be too bad a thing

Maybe learn a new song to sing.

Well, me and the others all settled in

Waitin' for the big show to begin

Lookin' at the Weekly and Monthly Minders

Advertised for sale in our cool leather binders.

All kinds of nifty products for sale

Helpin' you network and send your mail.

But I decided not to buy

Some of the prices seemed kinda high

And I wondered who the hell did this

Puttin' the City in the Dry Goods business?

I did like the binders though

Bet they cost a ton o' dough.

Well, the guru's name was Steven Covey

Who said straight off that all the lovey-dovey

60's stuff we'd always heard

Was not one of this covey's bird.

He was called by the one name "Steven"

Just like all big stars: Cher, Madonna, Elvis even.

He laid down some Freud and a lot of Nietzsche

The last he musta thought was 'specially peachy

And even though he didn't mention him by name

His will had triumphed just the same.

Seemed a lot like EST to me

'Cept they let you go out and pee.

Well I began to get upset

listenin' to stuff I'd sooner forget

And even though I wanted the trains on time

I wasn't ready to swallow some fascist line.

When he said we needed a personal mission statement

that's when I chose early abatement

I tried to do what I was suppos' to

But my mind kep goin' back to Spinoza.

Well at some point I'd heard enough

Decided I was tired of this Nietzsche stuff

And if I wanted effective habits

I'd get them on my own, dagnabit!

There's two sessions left to go

But they're goin' on without me, though.

Supervisory Differential Pay Finally Restored

On March 28^th, the City entered into a stipulated arbitration award that will provide seven employees with supervisory differential pay (5%) that was unilaterally withheld beginning in July 1998. The premium, along with back pay to July 1998, is payable no later than June 20, 2000.

Takeway Imposed. During the last round of contract negotiations in the spring of 1998, the City proposed to bar the payment of supervisory differentials for classifications that are part of a series that included promotive, supervisory classes. Without any discussion, the arbitrator agreed to the takeaway and simultaneously imposed a new $5 per day premium titled "lead worker pay". Initially, several classifications were snared by the new regime. Super- visory pay was denied by DHR and the Lead Worker $5 was imposed.

After lengthy haranguing most affected employees had the differential restored, except for two groups: Construction Inspectors and Electronic Instrumentation Technicians. Both are stand-alone classes with no promotive lines. Despite this, DHR denied departmental requests for payment of the differential while simultaneously refusing to create promotive classes, leading to a two-year stalemate. Finally, nearly two years after the grievance was filed, the City decided it really didn't have grounds to oppose payment, and the individuals will now be made whole. A testament to fractured labor relations, in which fights are picked for no apparent reason then forgotten, with no accountability.

Lead Worker Pay. It appears that DHR would rather provide Lead Worker Pay to employees who are supervising but have not been afforded the opportunity to promote to a higher class within the series. However, the bargaining history points in another direction. Lead Worker Pay has been provided for many years, pre-dating the City's present form of interest arbitration as a substitute for collective bargaining. It was originally called Lead Mechanic Pay and was based on specific assignments, similar to the original conception of project management. Eventually the premium was provided to other craft classes. Its application to our union is limited, at best. Engineers, architects and related employees receive project management premiums for lead assignments.

Promotions. Despite years of hassles over these minor issues, the City has failed to provide a permanent solution -- namely, promotions for employees who supervise others in the same or related classification.

Congratulations are in order for Electronic Technician supervisors Karen Stern, Lanny Beach, Gerry Ries, Steve Ardrey, and Construction Inspector supervisors Tom Anderson, Andrew Noll and Joe Timonere. In addition, Kate Read will continue to receive the differential, despite the City's most recent efforts to take it away (again). Inexcusable that these dedicated employees were victims of DHR monkey-business. Also unconscionable is the City's raid on the union treasury for staff time, lawyer's fees and arbitration costs, only to walk away from the whole thing two years later.

HEALTH PLAN UPDATE

Crisis at Hetch Hetchy

Approximately 200 City employees work in the small Sierra town of Moccasin in Tuolumne County. Health Net, the only HMO serving Tuolumne County, is pulling out in July. This leaves City employees in Moccasin with only one choice for health coverage - City Health Plan One. This situation could cause great financial hardship to plan participants with dependents because of the dramatically increased premium and utilization costs of City Health Plan One compared to those of an HMO. The AFL-CIO San Francisco Labor Council's Public Employees Committee (comprised of representatives from the twenty plus unions that represent City employees), has asked for an emergency meeting with Mayor Brown to come up with both a long and short term solution to the problems at Moccasin and with Health Plan One. Among the options being considered is transference of coverage to the California Public Employees' Retirement System Health Program (CalPERS). CalPERS, the second largest purchaser of health care coverage in the nation, could provide the stability that City Health Plan One has been unable to maintain.

In a related issue, the retiree group "Protect our Benefits" plans to place a charter amendment on the November ballot that would revamp the Health Services Board and change the method in which premiums are calculated for both active and retired employees. Local 21 and the San Francisco Labor Council have endorsed the proposed amendment.

Boeing Engineers End 40 Day Strike; STRIKE AIMS REACHED

The union representing the Boeing Company's engineers and technicians centered in the Puget Sound area are back at work. Wage increases for the professional unit totaled 8%, 4.5% and 4.5% over three years; the technical unit numbers were 5.5%, 4.5% and 4.5%. The vote to accept the Company's last offer was better than 70%.

SPEEA/IFPTE Local 2001 achieved (and these are only the "headline" items):

-- a halt to benefit takeaways

-- guaranteed wage increases (wages previously had been 100% "merit based")

-- a $2,500 bonus over 12 months

-- a vote on a fair-share agency fee arrangement

-- a partnership agreement

-- protected weekends (shifts with a Saturday or Sunday will be voluntary)

-- COBRA premiums for the length of the strike will be reimbursed

-- seniority for time on strike is preserved

SPEEA, the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, joined the IFPTE (Local 21's national federation) in October. At the time, their membership was around 40% of the 20,000 employees in the bargaining unit. After joining IFPTE and the strike action, the membership has grown to 65% and some thousands of employees struck who haven't joined the union.

The national press has hailed the strike as signaling a new era for unionization in this country's technical community. Over 17,000 engineers and technicians were on picket lines and significant assistance came from other unions, as well as the national AFL-CIO which contributed an initial $50,000 to the strike fund and $25,000 per week thereafter. Similar contributions from a number of big unions (Communications Workers, Electrical Workers, State-County & Municipal Workers), as well as from fellow IFPTE local unions. AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka played a significant role in negotiating the settlement, which is seen as a major breakthrough in high-tech and aerospace industries.

Election Special

The bright side is that our union generated a good deal of activity and information around election measures and candidates, particularly in the East Bay, in the March Primary election. The downside was an appalling goof by our mail-house in dispatching election recommendations to members so that many received our mailing after the fact. Profuse apologies.