An arbitration panel ruled [by a vote of 2-1] Friday evening that Boston police patrolmen deserve a 25.4 percent raise over six years, an amount more than double the increase of other city unions, according to Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s administration.
The award calls for 13.5 percent in raises and includes additional money for longevity benefits, bonuses for officers with college degrees, and other perks that bring the total increase to more than 25 percent. The package will cost taxpayers $80 million over six years.
In an interview, Menino warned that the contract would set an unsustainable precedent and doom future contract talks.
“The award is too expensive,” Menino said. “It continues a pattern of awards that are too expensive. Public safety unions have no reason to negotiate with us in good faith and settle contracts voluntarily because arbitrators have proven that they will always give them more.”…
The city initially offered a 12 percent raise over six years. It was the same pay increase accepted by 30 of Boston’s employee unions, including the Boston Teachers Union, the city’s largest bargaining group with 7,700 members.
According to the city, it increased its offer to 15.2 percent to make up for some of the money officers lost when the state cut the Quinn Bill. It was rejected. The city said its offer went as high as 19.8 percent.
“They were looking for 30 to 33 percent increases,” Menino’s spokeswoman, Dot Joyce, said. “We were very far apart. Never was there a time that the city could have settled this contract for less than 30 percent.”
The City Council must vote to accept or reject the award, so John Connolly will have to take a position on it. Practically speaking, Walsh will have to do so as well – his initial response that “he would endeavor as mayor never to resort to arbitration” is obviously not a complete or satisfactory answer.
So, John and Marty, what’ll it be? Outsized raises for cops, locked in over six years that will cost $80 million and make it nearly impossible for the city to invest in anything else? Or … a different path?
If the decision went against the police and in favor of the City of Boston, what would people say if the police union reacted like Menino?
This grand coalition of public unions are appreciated when they campaign for Democrats across the state, and make cash donations to these politicians campaign coffers. I know, I saw the fire fighters trying to crash a Brown rally in Watertown, they were holding these ugly yellow signs. Well, now it’s time to fill the police unions coffers, just raise the property taxes, it’s what mayors do best. Live with the results, I have since 2012.
Funny thing about some conservatives. Of course, correct me if I’m wrong.
Isn’t arbitration agreed to with the understanding that both parties will abide by the result? If not then arbitration was agreed to in bad faith. (This is all assuming that the arbitrator didn’t act in bad faith.)
You have to abide by the result. That’s the whole point of arbitration: it can’t be appealed. That’s what happened with the Boston Fire Department. This doesn’t seem like an uncommon occurrence. Didn’t the same thing happen in 2004 prior to the Democratic Convention?
In can’t be appealed, but its not binding on the appropriating authority of the city or town. The negotiating body, the executive, cannot argue against it, but the appropriating authority can reject it and send both sides back to the bargaining table.
But I like teachers as well, along with DPW workers. I even like fire fighters, even though most cities and towns could do without them, just merge police and fire into one Public Safety Dept like they do in other parts of the country.
If this decision was in favor of the teachers union, I would say the same thing, pay up, they won and you lost. It doesn’t matter if I feel 25% over 6 years is too much or too little, both sides went to arbitration, that’s the risk.
I do have a soft spot for the Boston Patrolmen’s Union, I think they embarrassed Dukakis in 88′ by endorsing George HW Bush.
I agree with everything you just said.
If Connolly and Walsh oppose this (and I predict Connolly will), they are both hypocrites.
Bad news kids! Progressive politics is expensive.
to DFW
it is what it is rather than something one takes a position on other than it sucks?
David, what are the options for a new mayor and the council? Eventually the City has to cough up the dough, right?
I think David is saying the candidates will have to take a position to send a signal for future negotiations, and in the case of Connolly a real vote. I’d be interested to hear what Striker has to say.
The way I see it, in Chicago the teachers has to go on strike just to defend small cost of living raises they had already been promised. In our neighbor to the north (Wisconsin) and to the East (Indiana) we have seen public sector unions get decimated and their benefits slashed. Seems to me Mennino’s proposal was more than generous considering the times and the investments we need to make elsewhere. Boston teachers can’t strike so the fact that they can still get raises, school children get free lunch, and we need to make crucial transit investments makes the police look like they are asking for more than they deserve.
I disagree with JimC, progressives favor good government and smart government that serves its constituents. If we have to cut from
schools, differ needed infrastructure investments, and possibly cut other values public employees we have to ask ourselves if this is needed? On this issue, flaggers, overtime, toll workers salaries and pensions, and double dipping I think progressives may have to challenge unions to ensure we get a government that is generous but fair-we should allocate by need rather than by clout.
What, they finally had to contribute something to their pensions? Now they have to pay a small percentage toward health care costs?
But, you know, it’s cool. The Editors like him.
I’m going to start making s–t up to see if they like me as much as dan. Did you know that the Mass. GOP hired private security who beat up a pregnant firefighter holding a sign outside a Gomez event last week?
Maybe all caps would help?
Let me know-
he wants to look at you with his lantern.
I loved the Daniel in the liberal lions den. Believe it or not, I was named Daniel after that Biblical story.
I think I speak for all of us when I say no one is interested in your going into “detail”.
Why? BECAUSE ANYTHING YOU WRITE HAS TO BE FACT CHECKED.
Too much dishonesty.
Too much laziness.
Too much not understanding your own sources.
= Waste of time.
… taken up by debates like this.
Please note my source is from WSJ opinion writer, could be an exaggeration but I doubt it. Even Obama wouldn’t make an appearance during the recall effort and steered clear when all this went down in 2011. The police were exempt from the new collective bargaining rules, and kept law and order as the protestors raided Madison. Being called a liar, I feel I have a right to respond, I hope this is okay with the editors, I don’t mean to be off topic.
State pensions- due to collective bargaining since 1996, teachers paid zilch, nothing toward their pensions, all covered by the taxpayers.
Since 1982, a supplemental pension was paid for by the taxpayers of 4.2% of the teachers salary. Again, zilch contributed by the teacher.
For health care, the taxpayers paid 100% of the premiums for all current employees, including vision. For retirees in their 50’s, premiums were covered at 100% at retirement, the only responsibility of the retiree is the cost of growth in the premiums thereafter.
Basically for every $1 in salary, taxpayers were paying 74 cents in bennies. That’s why Gov Walker went after collective bargaining for benefits. The only people getting the shaft were the taxpayers, but perhaps jconway was thinking about something else.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956?mg=reno64-wsj
Not now. Not ever.
It’s a terrifying tale of greedy public school teachers with their exorbitant average starting salaries of $33K who managed to negotiate good benefits.
Thankfully Gov. Koch, um, Walker was there to make sure that the only people in Wisconsin with good compensation packages are Ryan Braun, Aaron Rogers, CEOs and hedge-fund guys. I think we all feel better now.
“The latest figures available are for 2009-2010, according to a state Department of Public Instruction spokesman. Public school teachers in Wisconsin earned an average of $49,816 in salary plus $25,325 in benefits for a total of $75,141.”
Nice to know Fenway49 was against Guv. Walker Texas Ranger’s Repair Bill which did put Wisconsin on better financial footing AND with his brave leadership, was copied right here in good-ole Massachusetts when Deval and DeLeo passed legislation requiring cities and towns to either join the GIC or show similar savings.
I never thought someone would defend the benefits Pre-Scott Walker.
goes up from $33K to a huge $49K, and this is people with a degree or two after how many years on the job? And they get decent benefits, which they bargained for. Big f’in deal.
Since we’ve declined to do much of anything about ever-rising healthcare costs, the cost of benefits has gone up in EVERY job. Most private (and public) employers have managed to make workers assume some of the cost themselves, out of their meager salaries. If someone managed to avoid that bullshit, I say hat’s off to them.
Walker was full of crap anyway, grossly exaggerating Wisconsin’s problems. Their budget situation was never anything like what he said. They were about 10th in the nation in fiscal health on the day he took office, and any budget issues they actually had were created, a la George W. Bush, by cutting taxes in 2009-10.
And I was against the bill here too.
Where Paulie went into business with the restaurant owner. “Business bad, FU pay me. Place got hit by lightening, FU pay me”.
So that’s your response, keep outrageous unsustainable benefits b/c the unions “negotiated” with Democrats elected to high office to obtain these obscene bennies. That’s what they did in Detroit, don’t you know?
There are plenty of people who make less than teachers and pay a lot more than zilch for health care premiums and contribute to their retirement. Nobody is forcing these people to stay in their chosen profession. If they feel oppressed b/c now they need to pay for some h/c and contribute to their own retirement, well they should take Lee Iacocca’s advise, if they can find a better job, then take it.
You say hats off to them for having these benefits, I say shame on them and to then protest about it, and force a recall election? Talk about greed, no?
Thank you, fenway49, for risking your intelligence for me.
if we assume the arbitrator acted in good faith and ruled wisely in favor of the union, the capital D Democratic default should be “OK then, we will not oppose this.”
Yes we favor good, smart government. But we privilege labor. Why? Because the other party favors management, and we have to balance that out. I know, binary, and it sux … but usually it works to our benefit. Time to pay up!
The City doesn’t have to pay up if it will be bad for other aspects of City government. The City Council can send the Mayor and the union back to the bargaining table.
I mean us. Democrats. The people who get the support of labor. We’re supposed to be with them at times like this.
That’s the final vote. The council can vote it down.
Now this is where it gets bad for Walsh, he sponsored a bill H2467 An Act providing for binding arbitration for firefighters and police officers (linked to below) which makes his statement that it should have never gone to arbitration ridiculous.
To add insult to injury, that bill would also remove the council’s vote and have the arbiter’s decision the final call, actually removing leverage from the city. That’s Walsh’s bill Ernie.
Seems right, even wise, to believe that a successful negotiation should avoid arbitration, but that if it goes there it should be final. Otherwise you get the circus we’re looking at now.
if he believed that it is irresponsible?
Believing that negotiations should avoid arbitration is totally consistent with believing that arbitration, once sought, should be binding.
The circus stems from the fact that we have an arbitration ruling that can still be treated as a political football.
Binding arbitration is the final step in public sector bargaining. Going to binding arbitration means that both sides failed to come to a compromise at the table and then go present their respective economic and language cases to a neutral third party. That neutral third party – the Arbitrator – considers both sets of proposals and factors such as ability to pay.
Public sector workers are prohibited by law from withholding their services (they can’t strike) so binding arbitration functions as the end game for public sector collective bargaining.
What stands out to me now and after the Boston Fire Fighters arbitration award a few years ago, is that the city does a piss poor job presenting it case to the arbitrator. And then Mayor Menino stomps his feet and huffs and puffs about how bad the decision is. Gee, how about actually getting a profession legal and economic presentation together for the arbitrator instead.
Blaming the Union for making a better case to the arbitrator is simply a cover for management failure.
Concerned that an Arbitrator might find for the Union – – then settle a contract at the bargaining table instead of letting the situation go to binding arbitration.
And Marty Walsh’s position is correct. As Mayor he will settle contract at the table instead of rolling the dice with the taxpayers money in binding arbitration.
And DFW is correct on tow key points -binding should mean binding. Management agreed to the process and wants to change it after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20. Second – imagine if the Police Union got no increases and demanded that the city renegotiate or they would go to court – DFW is right, you would hear the screaming out to the Berkshires.
So now the Mayor wants the City Council to do what he was unable to do.
Before they go to arbitration. Spend a few extra bucks on lawyers and experts in order to save tens of millions of dollars..
Any chance this is all part of the game, the city purposely presents a lousy case or subpar lawyers, they get rolled in arbitration by the union reps, the the politicians can then blame some faceless judges, the police get what they want, and the politicians get what they want-happy union folks and families holding signs for their campaigns and flooding the polling places on election day. This record keeps skipping and repeating all the time.
But let’s say they didn’t spend as much as they could have on fancy lawyers and experts. Are you suggesting that spending extra money on lawyers and experts (more emphasis on laywers than experts) would not result in a huge amount of grousing over $$$? I can see the Herald front page right now. “City of Boston Blows $$$ on High Priced Law Firm.” There isn’t ever any money saved in this scenerio because you never get to compare it to an alternative scenerio because that was the path not taken.
I’m no expert but I would look at what the FD received, 19% pay raise, perhaps look at comparable cities, see what the police got, and set a target of (10% over 4 years). If the city wins, continue the practice, if not, then go back to the old model of getting crushed in arbitration.
On what do you base that the City does a poor job presenting it’s case rather than that the firefighters and police simply had a better case (much much better if judging by the result)?
been in mediation and had to contemplate the possibility of going to arbitration. Our cause was just, but the cost of arbitration would have produced a Pyrrhic victory. The price of expert witnesses and the arbitration made it not worth the risk of winning.
I don’t know enough, but tend to agree with Marty Walsh. I don’t envy John Connolly voting on the decision.
Binding arbitration is not the final step in most public employee bargaining in Massachusetts. Only public safety workers (police, fire, etc.) have access to binding arbitration over contract negotiations. Teachers and other state and municipal employees can not bring a contract dispute to binding arbitration. In those cases, the dispute goes to mediation, then a fact finder, and after 30 more days of negotiations, ultimately the employer can implement their last best offer.
hasmanager has the final say on contracts, regardless of the findings of the mediator? I’m not familiar so pardon the questions.
I think that it would be either the School Committee (in the case of school department employees) or the Mayor or Town Manager in the case of municipal employees, and I’m not sure in the case of state or county employees. Although I’m a teacher, not a labor lawyer, and I could be a bit wrong on some of the nitty gritty details. And a mediator does not issue findings, I believe that would be a different neutral party, called a fact finder. I believe that the way it works, and I have never been a part of this, is after the fact finder issues a finding to the parties, the parties have 30 days to try to reach an agreement in private. After that, the findings are made public in an effort to use community leverage to force an agreement.
Sounds like a big song and dance the teachers union goes through and can be all for not, in the end. Thanks for the insight.
explaining theory and practice of binding arbitration. Thanks.
So Connolly says he’s going to talk to the City CFO and the union tomorrow. Fair enough. He also showed reporters a bill, https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H2467, Marty filed this year, that would have imposed binding arbitration for firefighters and police, whether it was in their CBA or not. It would also have preventing bodies like the City Council from voiding the awards.
So Marty doesn’t like the award and he doesn’t like arbitration. Why then, the bill making binding arbitration the law of the land?
I don’t envy either of these guys having to deal with this. But a little consistency would be nice. At least Connolly’s taking the time to go over the details with the parties. Marty, who doesn’t even have a role in the process, jumped in to show he could be tough on the unions, and in the process he tripped over his own bill.
People seem to be missing the point on purpose.
He’s not “against binding arbitration.” He believes that should be the last step in the process, IF ALL ELSE FAILS. He’s against failing to get a deal done before that last step becomes necessary.
The same thing happens all the time in Major League Baseball. After three years of service time (two in some cases), players become eligible for arbitration if they haven’t reached a deal with their team by a certain date. The arbitrators tend to give the players big raises, and most MLB teams do whatever they can to reach a deal before getting to that stage. To these teams actually arbitrating a case is seen as a failure, and the vast majority of negotiations never get there.
Don’t forget that the city’s two major papers both are always looking to take public employees down a peg, and will report everything in the scariest terms possible. If $80m over six years (in a $2.6b annual budget) is faint-inducing, what would the $50m or so that the city was offering have looked like? It’s a big city and we offer annual raises to a big public-safety labor force. The numbers will be big.
I don’t want to minimize the few extra million annually this decision would mean, it could definitely do a lot of good in areas that need it. But if this is more than is wise for the city to pay, I see it as an issue of the administration’s competence in labor matters, not a test of who can denounce the arbitrator’s decision. The issue for the election is who would best manage the city’s relationship with its employees.
Boston Mag political writer David Bernstein sums up the situation pretty well…Marty Walsh has picked the wrong battle on this one and Connolly’s ability to point to Rep. Walsh’s own legislation as reason to doubt Candidate Walsh’s statements on the arbitration issue today. May be a political misstep.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/09/28/marty-may-stepped/
completely destroying his his response that his bill:
Bernstein has tweeted and retweeted on this since yesterday. Either he thinks it’s a huge deal or for some other reason is really down on Walsh.
In either case, I just don’t get his silence on the question of whether or not Connolly was ever really a teacher — as opposed to volunteer– and what Connolly has actually been doing as a lawyer since 2001.
To me, the question of a candidate’s basic honesty about who he is and what’s he’s done are bigger than almost anything I can think of.
Seriously, if anyone has insight into the lack of reporting on this question I’d love to hear it. Thanks.
in this case the award does not meet the criteria – in his opinion – and is calling on the BPPA to come back to the table and negotiate something that does. They can do that regardless of the arbitrator’s view of ability to pay, etc.
Boston Mag in the bag for empty suit (and pseudo-teacher) Connolly. Pretty predictable.
I don’t think so. He has enough of a track record to make that very difficult if not impossible to believe.
but c’mon. His prior post was all about the diversity at Connolly’s and lack thereof at Walsh’s. Striker was at Walsh’s bash and says otherwise, I saw both rooms on TV and they looked about the same to me. He then says Connolly has more appeal to “young professionals” because he’ll move the city in a “more progressive direction,” apparently by standing up against those bad unions.
I thought it was the other way around. Pro-charter and anti-labor is less progressive in my book. I’m with jconway on this. Connolly is Rahm and Bloomberg with a baby face, and supporting him is not very “progressive” at all.
Bernstein got it and explained it well. The Globe did your standard “candidates spar over issue X” story, although they did mention the legislation. The Herald completely misses the boat, not very surprisingly. Reading complex legislation on a Saturday is apparently above their pay grade.
The bottom line is, Marty wanted to expand arbitration and make it iron-clad, by law, and now he’s saying he wouldn’t use it as mayor? And his subsequent response is very contorted as johnk points out. I understand he needs to expand his base beyond union voters and think he needs to take a tough stand, but I think what he’s done here doesn’t accomplish that and just raises more questions than it answers.
Marty Walsh all along has said that the practice of failing to achieve contracts in collective bargaining negotiations, thereby letting arbitrators decide, is terrible and should be avoided. His bill puts the burden on mayors to get a deal done across the table, rather than running out the clock until a dispute goes to an arbitrator and counting on the City Council to defund the arbitration award.
In short, the bill says to all sides: you better be prepared to live with the consequences of arbitration because the City Council is not going to be able to give back door relief anymore. Perfectly consistent with the arguments Marty has made all along.
This legislation raises the stakes on all sides to get a deal done at the table.
H. 1935 in ’03
H. 167 in ’05
H. 2791 in ’07
H. 2656 in ’09
H. 1666 in ’11
H. 2467 in ’13