Hello readers, this post written by Bill King is an excellent recap of the Prop B issues.
Re-posted from the Bill King Blog
The Fire Fighter Pay Debacle: How did the City get into this Mess?
Last
Friday, Sylvester Turner issued a rambling, three-page letter in which he
blamed Houston voters and Houston fire fighters for the Proposition B debacle
in which the City now finds itself.

It is
increasingly clear that Turner never had any intention of implementing
Proposition B. Instead, he has single-mindedly pursued a litigation strategy to
overturn the results of the election. We know this because in January, Turner
held a meeting with a "small group of executives" to discuss "navigating implementation
of the proposition while at the same time mounting a legal challenge." [see
attached] Note this was after the district court had ruled against
the City in December and was saying publicly he was working on implementing
Proposition B.
There
were certainly legitimate reasons to be against Proposition B. I have many
thoughtful friends who voted against it. And while I voted for it, I expressed
my reservations about the approach. [read
here] But the merits of Proposition B are now moot. The people have spoken,
and it is Turner's job to implement it on the most reasonable terms he can
negotiate, not continue to try to overturn the will of Houston voters in court.
How Did We Get Here?
This
story begins in the 2015 mayoral election. As many of you will recall, for the
first time in a mayoral campaign, I raised the issue of the City's pensions,
pointing out that the City had accumulated billions in debt to the pensions and
that the expense was skyrocketing. Eventually, all of the candidates for mayor
in 2015 conceded that the pensions were a problem and that something would have
to be done.
However,
most of the leading candidates, including Turner and me, pledged that earned
benefits were off limits. That is, if an employee had already earned a
particular benefit through their service to the City, it could not be changed
retroactively. But when Turner proposed his pension "reform" in 2017,
he broke that promise by including retroactive changes to earned benefits.
The
police and municipal plans at the time were about 60% and 50% funded,
respectively. They agreed to their benefit reductions in exchange for an
infusion of cash into their plans from the $1 billion in bonds the City would eventually
issue.[i]
The
fire fighters, who had historically insisted that their plan be funded, did not
need any infusion of cash. Their plan was about 85% funded. So, Turner had
nothing to offer them. Nonetheless, the fire fighters offered to make some adjustments
to their plan that would have resulted in about $800 million in savings. But
Turner rejected that offer and instead persuaded his former colleagues in the
Legislature to cut the fire fighters' earned benefits by roughly $150,000 per
fire fighter. The fire fighters did not receive anything in exchange for the
cuts (like the cash infusion received by the police and municipal plans).
Not
surprisingly the fire fighters were upset. In their view, the City had shorted
them raises over the last 20 years because they had insisted on greater funding
for their pension plan. By 2018, the fire fighters' pay was running about 20%
below what Houston police and about 15% below fire departments in other major
Texas cities.
In the
contract negotiations after the pension bill was passed, the fire fighters
demanded that some of this ground be made up. But the City offered just 4% more
over two years. The fire fighters rightfully saw this offer as a slap in the
face. The talks quickly broke down and an impasse was declared.
The
Turner administration has repeatedly claimed that it offered 9% over three
years. However, that offer was never formally made during the collective
bargaining session, but instead was made informally after the impasse -
primarily as a public relations stunt.
The
State's collective bargaining statute provides a procedure for resolving labor
disputes once an impasse is declared. The first alternative is binding
arbitration, but both sides must agree. The union requested arbitration [see
attached], but the City refused [see
attached]. Had Turner agreed to arbitration, this matter would have been
settled back in 2017 and there would never have been a Proposition B election.
While it is impossible to know what the result of arbitration would have been,
the union would have never received anything close to what the City is now on
the hook for.
Under
the statute, if arbitration is refused, the union may file an action in
district court to resolve the dispute because it is illegal for public sector
workers to strike. This provision was designed by the Legislature to protect
the public from any interruption in public safety protections.[ii]
Almost
all lawsuits filed under this law are routinely referred to arbitration and
routinely resolved. But again, the City refused and embarked on a dilatory
litigation strategy to delay a resolution for as long as possible. It became
clear to the union that it might be years before its issues were resolved. As a
result, the union decided to go over Turner's head to his bosses, the Houston
voters. In just ten days, the fire fighters collected over 60,000 signatures on
their pay parity petition.
Turner
attempted to dodge putting the proposition on the November ballot by not
counting the petitions as the City has frequently done in the past. But a court
ordered the election and the rest is, as they say, history.
It was
Turner's betrayal of his promise to fire fighters regarding their pensions that
started this debacle. But he had multiple off ramps: arbitration on two
occasions, a good-faith litigation of the collective bargaining lawsuit, and,
of course, actually sitting down and talking with the union leadership at any
time. The fact that he was unable to take any of these was, and continues to
be, a complete failure of leadership. Ego and misplaced pride are jeopardizing
the welfare of our fire fighters and the safety of the residents of our great
city. We deserve better.
No comments:
Post a Comment