The Culver City Employees Assn., largest of City Hall’s six labor unions, yesterday became the second union in the new Giveback Era to approve a slimmed-down contract when members ratified the “difficult” agreement, 262 to 34.
“These were the most contentious negotiations I have been involved with in my 23 years here,” union President Desmond Burns said this morning as he sat in the Courtyard of City Hall, accompanied by vice president Yvonne Hunt.
The stark 2½-year contract for 380 members “is all takeaways,” said Mr. Burns, “no give-me’s.”
The Employees Assn. is comprised of the city’s lowest-paid workers. “Nobody in our union makes six figures,” Mr. Burns said.
In concessions and general configuration, the contract strongly resembles the one signed last month by the Culver City Management Group, which is expected to be a template for the four police and fire bargaining units in the second half of this year.
“Keeping in mind that our members can least afford it,” said Mr. Burns, “they are now going to be paying more for their Pers (California Public Employee Retirement System), and we are going to a cafeteria plan.
A Victory
But Mr. Burns and his team did walk away with one major plum, a prized “me-too” clause, regarded as a protective shield for employees.
“Our members do not have the luxury of bonuses or other incentives to compensate them,” he said. “To our members, they were taking a leap of faith with this contract, and that is why we insisted on a ‘me-too’ clause. The only way our members would buy into the Management contract is with this clause.”
In his first season of bargaining here, City Manager John Nachbar acknowledged that “me-too” clauses are a rarity. “They are usually used in bargaining where increases are involved,” he said. “What is different about this is that it is in relation to concessions.”
To the question of whether granting the “me-too” was a sticking point for his side of the table, the city manager said that “it was a critical factor for the CCEA. In the end, given the environment and the scenario we were looking at, we made a decision to agree.”
Will Others Want the Same?
Mr. Nachbar said he does not know whether the remaining unions will pursue “me-too” clauses.
For union members, said Mr. Brns, “the ‘me-too’ clause means that if the city’s philosophy of unsustainability — in Pers and retirement plans — if they say that all employees are going to be contributing, then that must mean all employees, from John Nachbar on down, will be contributing.
“There are two common denominators, if you are a custodial worker or the city manager:
“All employees would need medical care for the family and all employees work here for their retirement.
“If the city is taking the stance we are going to be contributing to our Pers, then that means all employees, all employee groups.”
Mr. Burns declined to say that other groups should emulate his union’s example. “While we are all members of one family, all groups have different needs, different issues,” he said. “In negotiations, we concentrated on our group and what was important for us. It would not be healthy to point fingers at other groups.
“The one common denominator for all of us, no matter what position you hold, is the importance of retirement and medical. Both are going to cost us more. As of July 1, we will be contributing 5 percent to our retirement, which is up 3 percent. For the medical, we are going to a cafeteria plan (choosing from among several options). There is a cap on the medical. The contract also changes the medical for future retirees — only the employee plus one will be covered.”
The “me-too” clauses (below) are the only distinctions from the Management Group contract, Mr. Burns said.
The clauses:
Retiree Medical:
“During the term, of this memorandum of understanding, should any recognized Culver City (city) bargaining unit reach a signed agreement that results in a higher retiree medical benefit than provided to members of the Culver City Employees Assn., the city agrees to adjust the retiree medical benefit provided to CCEA to an equivalent amount.”
Employee-Paid Member Contributions, EPMC
“During the term of this memorandum of understanding, should any recognized Culver City (city) bargaining unit reach a signed agreement that results, over the life of the contract, in an overall lower proportional percentage contribution towards the CalPers employee contribution rate than paid by the Culver City Employees Assn., the city agrees to adjust the amount paid by CCEA to an equal proportional percentage.”
(To be continued)
