By Khalida Sarwari
Since 4 a.m. today, members of three labor unions have been in an RV parked across from San Jose City Hall to coax city officials to come and negotiate pension reform.
The members are part of the Association of Engineers and Architects, the Association of Maintenance Supervisory Personnel and the City Association of Management Personnel.
A row of them stood before the RV at a demonstration this afternoon holding a large sign that read, “Tell the truth, negotiate now.”
“The best way to reform the pension system is to negotiate, not dictate,” Ben Fields, from the South Bay Labor Council, said.
Fields was there to support the unions, who were demonstrating because they say the city administration is ignoring the City Council’s direction to meet and discuss cost-saving pension reform proposals and retiree health care benefits for current and future employees, according to Tom Saggau, a spokesman for the firefighters union.
He said that, publicly, the city has been clamoring for pension reform, but instead of sitting down to discuss the issue with the unions, city officials want to discuss ballot language for Mayor Chuck Reed’s proposed pension reform measure. The proposal would have to be approved by
voters because many of the recommendations require changes to the city charter.
Reed has said retirement costs are “skyrocketing” and contributing to the city’s $115 million budget deficit, which will likely force the city to lay off hundreds of workers, including 195 sworn police positions and 64 firefighter positions as well as reduce library service to three days a week.
Retirement costs are projected to rise to $400 million by 2016, and could be closer to $650 million after actuarial adjustments.
Reed has said his proposal, which calls for setting limits on retirement benefits for new employees, current employees and retirees, would help the city avoid further cuts to services and the loss of hundreds of jobs, but that it is not the only solution to the fiscal problem.
On May 24, the city council voted to move forward with an analysis of Reed’s proposal, which also directs city staff to meet and confer with unions by June 21, the date that the council is expected to adopt the final budget.
But when the unions met with city officials for the first time last week, there was no discussion of pension reform, Saggau said.
Following today’s demonstration, Gina Donnelly, deputy director of employee relations, released a statement in response to the three unions, offering three dates to discuss pension reform separately from ballot language — June 8, 9 and 13.
In response to Donnelly’s letter, Nancy Ostrowski, a chief negotiator for all three unions, also released a statement in which she questioned the city’s approach in addressing pension reform and potential ballot measures.
“We do not understand how anyone could ‘come to consensus’ on pension reforms that would go to the ballot without discussing ‘pension reform for current and future employees'” Ostrowski said. “How could we come to agreement on ballot measures or charter amendments that affect our benefits if we have not negotiated over what those benefits would be?”
Ostrowski said the unions are willing to meet on the proposed dates and suggested that future negotiations on pension reform and ballot language be held in public “so that all stakeholders can educate themselves on the complex issues that both sides must address, the potential legal pitfalls to certain strategies and the willingness of both sides to reach a fair, equitable and legally defensible agreement.”