A Labor Union Plays Chicken – and Loses

When Obama ran for president, various labor unions invested over $100 million in the Democratic Party candidate.  It has paid off so far.  The National Labor Relations Board continues to favor laws to force employees to join unions, even if a majority of the employees don’t want to join.  Vice President Biden announced a telephone hotline that would make it easier for employees to sue their employees for any conceivable, or inconceivable, reason.  And let’s not forget that the bailout of General Motors came with union strings attached – facilities that would be better off closed in order to insure the repayment of taxpayer funds remain open as a sop to the people to whom Obama is beholden.

So, it is understandable that the local International Association of Fire Fighters felt pretty optimistic when they challenged the city of Richmond, California, after it chose to lay off 18 union members in response to the economic crisis.  The union refused to renegotiate any of the terms of its existing contract and offered no concessions that might have allowed the city to maintain the current workforce totals.  The union said, “Our way or the highway”, or words to that effect.  With no other options, the city proceeded with the layoffs.

The union did what you would expect a group of people who are unconnected to the city and unconcerned about the financial stability of the community in which they “serve” to do – they filed a complaint with the state Public Employment Relations Board.  They argued that that Richmond could have and should have avoided layoffs by cutting costs in other areas less prestigious than the Fire Department.

When the Board ruled against them, the union appealed the decision to the State Supreme Court.

Then, on January 24, 2011 – union, meet reality; reality, meet union.  

The State Supreme Court ruled on Monday that cities and counties don’t have to consult with unions before deciding to lay off workers to save money.  The Court affirmed the Board’s earlier ruling that said that decisions to cut the workforce for financial reasons are not subject to collective bargaining. 

Imagine that – citizens can have their cities controlled by their elected officials, not labor unions.

Under California law, “a local public entity that is faced with a decline in revenues or other financial adversity may unilaterally decide to lay off some of its employees,”’ Justice Joyce Kennard said in the ruling.

However, she said, a government employer must negotiate over the implementation of the decision, including the number of employees to belaid off, the timing, and the effect on “the workload and safety of the remaining employees.’’

Jeffrey Sloan, one of the lawyers representing the City of Richmond, said the ruling should strengthen the position of public employers when faced with matters regarding personnel reductions.  “Unions will realize the employer can lay off personnel unilaterally, and that will help them focus on what concessions need to be made to avoid layoffs or at least minimize the number of layoffs,”’ he said.

The result is that unions will no longer hold a rarefied position compared to non-union employees and will have to share the pain of the current economic contraction.

I guess the benefits of campaign contributions only go so far.