Oct 16, 1998

James J. Walsh, 1921 - 1998

We sadly note the passing of Jim Walsh, who died on Friday, October 2.

Jim not only served with distinction as a civil engineer, retiring from the San Francisco Airports Commission as a Senior Engineer, but also served his colleagues and City in many union and civic roles, including that of our local union president. In his retirement years Jim persued his longstanding civic and community interests making his mark as president of the Retired City Employees Association. Jim was generous with his time and interest and will be sorely missed by his many friends.

Election Season at Local 21

Union by-laws provide for elections for Local Union officers in November of even numbered years. When we revised our by-laws two years ago we decided to schedule chapter elections concomitantly with union-wide elections - thus creating an Election Season. The Election Committee consists of John Gregson, Florence Inserto and Fran Sperisen, but they will need help counting ballots. Chapter presidents should also appoint committees or individuals to carry out this important function at the chapter level. (Counting of all ballots will take place in the Local 21 office on a date to be determined by the Election Committee.) Many of our chapters will have their ballots mailed (and color coded to distinguish from union-wide ballots) along with the ballots for Local Union officers on November 13^th. Completed ballots are due in the Local 21 office no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 4^th. Remember to vote.

Superior Court Professionals to Vote for Local 21

On November 5, a bargaining unit of 38 professional employees in the San Francisco Superior Court will have a chance to vote in a secret ballot election supervised by the State Mediation and Conciliation Service for collective bargaining representation through Local 21.

The bargaining unit designated Superior Court Professionals, SC-3 includes Probate Examiners, Court Investigators, Criminal and Civil Attorneys, Family Court Counselors, Law Clerks (Research Assistants), and Management Information Specialists. The Local 21 Organizing Committee includes Manuel Valenzuela, John Norton, Susan Hayman, Michel Roublev, B.J. Herran, Tim Slack, Jeanine Lim, John Cushner, and Michael Goudlock.

The employment status of court employees, and their rights under collective bargaining law has shifted considerably over the past several years. Originally, court employees were considered County workers for purposes of collective bargaining and unionization because their paychecks came through the Counties. That seemed to be logical. Then some courts decided they did not want their employees under union contracts and so contended that they were state employees because the number of courts and their employees are set by state legislation. That seemed to be logical. But even then court employees would be subject to state collective bargaining law. Finally, legislation has clarified that court employees are again covered under public collective bargaining law.

Recognition of our union for this unit of professional court employees will mean negotiation of a union contract with rights and conditions of employment guaranteed by language enforceable through binding arbitration. Employees will be free to perform their professional tasks sheltered from the changing makeup of court appointments and the political process. No longer will salaries be set unilaterally. They will be negotiated between the parties with a professional negotiator advocating for the employees. They will reflect the marketplace and the resolve of the members.

Civil Service Adopts Engineering Lists:

UNION FILES SUIT

At its September 21, 1998 meeting, the Civil Service Commission adopted eligible lists for Classes 5206 Associate Civil Engineer, 5208 Civil Engineer, and 5210 Senior Civil Engineer over our objections.

The complaints involved possible leakage of exam questions, relevancy of exam questions, and racial bias in an oral interview.

Some applicants were barred from taking the exam. We became aware of this situation when engineers who had relevant City experience were denied entrance to the exams based on the City's determination that either they did not have the prerequisite job experience or they did not have proper verification of out-of-classification experience at the time of their application filings.

According to Civil Service Rule 9, Article II, sec. 9.9.2, "'Temporary out-of-class assignment' means the assignment of an employee without change in class to perform the normal day-to-day duties and responsibilities of another class. Records of such temporary out-of-class assignment shall be placed in the employee's personnel file."

Appearing before the Commission on this matter union lawyer Duane Reno argued that the City changed its out-of-classification enforcement of this Rule without giving the required advance notice or the opportunity to meet and confer over the change. The unilateral change was a violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act which requires the employer to negotiate prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action related to wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment.

In comparison to the last round of engineering exams in the mid-1990s, Reno further argued that many were qualified for the earlier exams upon submission of written verification by the applicants' supervisors or managers of such experience, even if records of such temporary out-of-classification appointments had not been placed in their personnel files.

We thought the Commission and the City would do the right thing. Since they didn't, we have sued the City over the out-of-classification matter. To learn more information about this and other engineering examinations, please attend the next chapter meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, November 10 at 12:00 noon.

Retirement Board Votes to Change Deferred Comp Administrators

Without notifying our union, the San Francisco Retirement Board has voted to change administrators of the Deferred Compensation Program. We have moved to block the implementation of the change at least until the meet and confer process has been completed.

In a flyer posted throughout City departments, the Retirement Board gives notice that Aetna Retirement Services has been selected to replace Hartford to administer the deferred comp program. The bulletin promises significantly lower fees, increased participant services, Internet access, longer hours, more account representatives, and increased investment flexibility.

While this may be a worthwhile change, much remains to be explained. None of the current investment vehicles offered by Hartford will be available through Aetna. Funds currently invested through Hartford must be moved out and placed in investment vehicles offered by Aetna. The Retirement System Office has explained to us that prior to the change a mapping of Aetna funds similar to current vehicles offered through Hartford will take place.

A low risk guaranteed interest fund will be offered through Aetna as was under Hartford, it just won't be the same fund. The Retirement Office claims that Aetna will offer a greater number and variety of funds, with greater flexibility and self-direction offered each participant. In addition, Aetna will show individualized rates of return clearer than Hartford.

What's not clear is what the transition will cost. Will Hartford charge a fee to transfer funds? Will the fee be assessed against each participant's investment? Will Aetna's supposedly lower rates immediately cover the cost of each participant's transition? Will there be a cost to the Retirement System? Will participants who are close to retirement now be stuck with increased costs without a chance to recover them through lower rates over time?

Before that change becomes final the Board will be negotiating with both Hartford and Aetna over the transition. During that period we hope to begin the meet and confer process and receive answers to our many questions.

Health Services Purchasing Authority

Some months ago a Mayor's "Blue Ribbon" Committee on Health came in with a report proposing a plan to cover San Francisco's uninsured residents. The Plan involved using current and retired City employees as the core of the system, providing a large number of people who could exert the leverage of numbers to obtain an economically feasible plan through creating a "Health Services Purchasing Authority", somewhat reminiscent of the ill fated Clinton proposals of 1993. These changes would have required a charter amendment. Since the entire matter is negotiable insofar as City employee unions are concerned, we sent a letter asking to negotiate prior to placing anything on the ballot. We never did meet because the plan was withdrawn. Recently, another proposition (an advisory policy statement, Prop. J) was placed on the November ballot asserting the will of the electorate to establish a system of universal coverage for San Francisco.

On September 10, the chair of the Blue Ribbon Committee, Dr. Sandra Hernandez, hosted a meeting to discuss City employee concerns. Hernandez stated that there "was no intent to lower or increase costs . . . the amount detailed in the report is not the ceiling, it is at a minimum, the floor. The upcoming ballot measure (Prop. J) was an opinion that everyone should be insured. This is not a Charter amendment. We wanted to allow small businesses to use the leverage of the City. The Purchasing Authority was not meant to replace the Health Service System."

Hernandez admitted to major omissions in the Blue Ribbon Committee on Health by failing to include members of the San Francisco Health Service System Board of Directors or staff and retirees of the City and County. Further, the Committee failed to look at the effects of the Purchasing Authority on the quality of existing care.

Dr. Foster, a Health Service System Director, who identified himself as someone who is in favor of universal access to health care, stated several concerns he and other City and County employee groups had regarding the Purchasing Authority. Dr. Foster believed the cost of oversight was understated; the Authority could not carry those not on public subsidy; that the screening process may lead to adverse selection. He was also concerned that the offered package of benefits was less than what now exists in the Health Service System.

Another HSS Director, Claire Zvanski, asked several questions - what happens with the self insured plan? Who determines benefit levels? Would the Health Service System no longer purchase health care for active and retired employees? What happens with its fiduciary responsibility?

Hernandez stated that the Purchasing Authority would not take over any policy decisions of the Health Service System.

Union Concerns

Linda Jofuku of Local 21 stated that, "It should be made clear that the Unions promote health care for everyone. However, we also echo the concerns of Dr. Foster. It is not clear how adding 130,000 uninsured individuals to the existing 110,000 that are insured improves benefit levels. This proposal is subject to negotiations with all public employee unions. However, we have not received complete information from the City on this matter. It appears, on the face of it, that there may be adverse impact on those who pay for health services now - both active and retired employees - with this proposal. It is also not clear what kind of oversight would be provided for the proposed Purchasing Authority, and exactly how much it would cost and where the money comes from."

Stay tuned.

Local 21 Committee Hosts Union Official From Germany

Our International Outreach Committee is hosting a talk and discussion with Annette Rehbock, an official with the Education & Training department of the Deutsche Gewerkschafts Bund (DGB) - the German counterpart to our AFL-CIO. Ms. Rehbock will address the role of education and training in German trade unions, as well as the state of trade unions in a rapidly changing Germany and the efforts by German unions to establish ties with workers in developing countries.

When: Tuesday, October 20, 5:00 - 7:00 p.m.

Where: Local 21 office, 1182 Market Street, Suite 425

Please join us for an international perspective on the challenges faced by workers in today's global society.

Light refreshments will be provided.