Comment on this post

City Labor Deal UPDATED: 43 % Reject Deal

City Council President Eric Garcetti reported today that 5 of the 19 units of the Coalition of City Unions — 43 percent of the workers — rejected the deal requiring them to pay a portion of their health care for the first time.

The deal required them to pay 4 percent of their salaries instead of facing up to 36 furlough days next fiscal year. They would get the the $1,190 a month cap lifted on the taxpayer subsidy toward their health care.

The Council now faces a much tougher budget situation with significant disruptions to public services and confusion within city government.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to City Labor Deal UPDATED: 43 % Reject Deal

  1. Anonymous says:

    My understanding is that if the membership of the 14 units that approved the health care deal comprise more than 50% of all City employees enrolled in LACERS, then the deal will be approved for all employees in LACERS, regardless of how their individual units voted.
    This is similar to the ERIP (Early Employee Incentive program) deal that increased employees’ contributions to the LACERS pension plan from 6% to 7%. When the number of units approving the ERIP deal comprised more than 50% of all employees enrolled in LACERS, the Council declared that ERIP could be applied to all LACERS employees, even if their own individual units voted against ERIP. Engineers & Architects Association challenged the City’s action, but the Employee Relations Board held hearings that upheld the City’s interpretation and action.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Should have done lay-offs instead of ERIP. Our leaders are damn fools.

  3. Anonymous says:

    What percentage of LACERS comprise Coalition members? If 43% of Coalition members are rejecting the deal then there doesn’t seem to be any way to reach a 50% threshold of LACERS which also includes EAA, MOU 8 and 17, among others.
    Also, is it 50% of MOUs or 50% of Members? I always thought these types of votes are based on MOUs so the vote of a 10 member MOU is essentially equal to the vote of a 500 member MOU.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Who approved and who didn’t???

  5. Anonymous says:

    Watch the fireworks begin. The Mayor wastes millions on gangsters and himself but this is going to get ugly
    “”Antonio Villaraigosa said Wednesday that he had instructed his managers to impose 42 furlough days on city workers whose bargaining units rejected his latest labor agreement”"
    .

  6. Steward says:

    This proposal was misrepresented to Coalition members as an all or nothing deal. That is, that all unions of the Coalition must agree. That was one of the many lies that were told to the members. As the terms and text of the proposal were being revealed, disclosed, circulated and debated, it became apparent that many of the “selling points” were mischaracterizations of the actual language. The Coalition members started to realize that they were being sold a “bill of goods”. That’s when the Coalition principles decided to push back the vote tabulation date and allowed Garcetti and Santana to enter the fray with strong-arm tactics and threats. The tabulation date was eventually pushed all the way back to April 26 (from April 19), which allowed Garcetti to introduce his motion to initiate the caps on the pension subsidies, on April 20, which further sought to threaten, coerce and/or intimidate employees into voting “yes”. The Mayor simply pulled a “tea-party mistake” and overplayed his hand.
    He’s now compounding that mistake with a political “knee-jerk” reaction and ordering the “culprits” to take 42 furlough days, without any consideration as to what effect that will have on City services and/or public safety considerations. The public, apparently, now has taken a back seat to his political considerations. Of course…..a very bad move.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The mayor has already reneged on previous negotiations. Why should anyone believe him now?
    Start collecting those millions of dollars owed to the city and investigate the stealth bonuses.
    HOW DOES THE BEVERLY WILSHIRE RUN UP A 3.5 MILLION DOLLAR DEBT BEFORE SOMETHING IS DONE ABOUT IT?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>