On cue, five minutes before the start of last night’s City Council meeting, about two dozen members of City Hall’s largest labor union, all uniformly garbed in neon yellow tee-shirts, silently filed into fairly empty Council Chambers.
Led by President Desmond Burns, their mere presence was intended as a symbolic protest against how hard members of the 400-member Culver City Employees Assn. had been hit in a months’-long round of downsizing.
They could not have known that excellent news lay just ahead.
Dealing from a document he called an update, Interim City Manager Lamont Ewell revealed that the originally projected total of 16 layoffs among 60 positions being eliminated may be reduced to a microscopic two by late summer.
The numbers are not final, hinging on several unpredictable developments, including how many mature employees yet will accept the city’s golden handshake offer.
There was a noticeable absence of relief, much less jubilation, among the Culver City Employees’ Assn.
Their attorney, Wendell Phillips, may have established the tone of muted reaction when he said, stoutly, that “two layoffs is two too many.”
Of the 60 lost positions, two-thirds, 41, came from the general service employees’ union, the CCEA, 15 from the management group, three from the Police Dept., and one from the Fire Dept.
Depends on Your Perspective
In a power-point presentation, Serena Wright, Human Resources Director, displayed a chart showing that, proportionately, the management union was most heavily affected, losing 16 percent of its members compared to 9 percent for the CCEA, 3 percent for the Police Dept. and 1 percent for the Fire Dept. Of the 60 slots that needed to go to help cure the city’s structural budget deficit, 14 (so far) have accepted early retirement, 30 positions are being subtracted, and that leaves 16 slots TBD — To Be Determined.
Afterward, Mr. Burns of the Employees Assn. was asked if he had been mollified by the drastic adjustment in layoff numbers.
Although his tone was more stern when he addressed the City Council, by the end of the evening, the news seemed increasingly favorable to him.
“It is reassuring when you go down,” he said. “But still, two people losing their jobs is two too many.
“Reducing from 16 to two is progress, though, in the right direction.
“Yes, it was a surprise,” Mr. Burns said, “and it makes me feel good they are working to reduce job loss. They are doing everything in their power to save people from going out the door.”
Mr. Phillips, the CCEA’s attorney, prefaced his response to the same questions by pointing out that his first career was in law enforcement, as in safety first.
“Zero losses is the only standard,” he declared.
“I am obviously pleased. Two is better than 16. But I think if we can get down to two, we can get down to zero.”
How can the union help City Hall reach that objective?
“I think what the City Council wants to do, the message that was going on behind the scenes was, they are looking to our next negotiation that is coming up now.”
The union’s present contract expires in six months, December, and the two sides are carefully positioning themselves, according to the attorney.
“This is a good faith process,” said Mr. Phillips, “where, going into negotiations, it would obviously be better for our people if we don’t have a couple of missing shirts.”
