Local 261 and PEC Unions Unite to Stop Elimination of Citywide Seniority.

Union members packed the last Civil Service Commission meeting of the year to express our outrage over DHR’s underhanded attempt at sneaking a proposal to eliminate interdepartmental bumping for all permanent workers. With no notice to the unions and the Commission itself, DHR added this controversial item to the agenda just days before the Christmas Holiday, a time they expected no one would be paying attention. But they were wrong as hundreds of union members showed up to the Commission meeting and stood united in opposition to their proposal.

Jennifer Johnston, DHR Director for Public Policy, claimed the reform measure has been under discussion since 2005. Factually false, Local 21 Executive Director, Bob Muscat told the Commission that not only was this proposal an inexcusable sign of ill will on the City’s part, it was also a surprise to all parties. Further, it was timed to minimize opposition from City employees and their unions. Even the Commission’s vice president, Don Casper took issue with Ms. Johnston’s false claim. He traced in painstaking detail the full history of the civil service reform process. He substantiated that yesterday was indeed the very first time any mention of this proposal was made.

David De La Torre, Theresa Foglio, Dan Feerick & dozens of members from our Union, along with the other unions in the PEC, testified on the devastating effects that eliminating interdepartmental bumping would have on their careers and livelihood. One after another, angry and impassioned members stood at the podium and spoke of how City employees have always worked with the City in times of need (including our recent 4.62% pay cut) and how the proposal to eliminate Citywide bumping was a stab in the back of every one of the thousands of city workers that help keep San Francisco running. Members made note of how this proposal will push out older employees as well as employees with specialized skills that the city relies on. “We are City employees, not department employees,” one member told the Commission.

The only voices in support of the proposal came from various HR officials, including Vitus Leung from General Services Agency, Stephanie Cain from the SF School District, Robert Thomas from Human Services Agency and, of course, Ms. Johnston.

As the meeting ended, the Commission agendized the item once again, slated for their February meeting. All of the unions vowed to be back. Local 261’s position is simply that we are opposed to any consideration of eliminating Citywide seniority as they did for managers a few years back. We will talk about specific problems and ways to improve the system i.e. additional notice on layoff, etc, but we are not interested in any proposals that decrease employment security. In these times of high unemployment and other pressures on city employees, there is no need to even have this discussion.

After the holidays, we will be notifying all members about the February Civil Service Commission meeting.
(special thanks to IFPTE Local 21 for their press release.)

Urgent! 
 
SF Civil Service Commission Could End
Citywide Bumping, Weaken Seniority on Monday. 
 
ACTION NEEDED NOW – DON’T LET CITYEMPLOYEES GET SCROOGED
 
In a sneaky move by the City, the Civil Service Commission will vote on whether to end citywide bumping and weaken seniority just 5 days before Christmas.  The City’s Department of Human Resources is moving this proposal now, in the hope that the holiday spirit has all of us looking another way.   ‘Its professionally insulting’, Local 21 Executive Director Bob Muscat told the SF Council yesterday.
 
In the middle of the economic downturn, city employees have made substantial economic sacrifices and worked with the city to keep its’ financial house in order and save jobs and services. 
 
An attack on job security through the elimination of departmental bumping is simply the last thing we need or deserve.  San Francisco is the only city in the Bay Area considering such a draconian measure. 
 
Here is how it will work:
During layoffs, you would bump into a similar position in your department.  If no position was available in your department, YOU’D BE LAID OFF!  You WOULD NOT bump into another city department.  Not only will this increase layoffs, but staff with more seniority who work in smaller departments could be laid off before individuals with less seniority in a larger departments.
 
Here is how you can stop this undemocratic and unfair proposal:
1.     Attend the Civil Service commission meeting onMonday, December 20, 2pm @ City Hall Rm 400.  A big crowd will send a message to DHR and the Commission that we can be both in the holiday spirit and diligent about protecting our rights and security. 
2.   Send the Commission a message TODAY! 
Key Points to make: This proposal has just been sprung on us and should be delayed until everyone can study it.  This proposal will result in more unemployed San Franciscans.  This is blatantly unfair to hard working, loyal city staff.  It undermines the city’s system of merit service.
 
You may contact Commission members by email or fax.  Commission staff will forward emails and faxes addressed toindividual commissioners to them right away.  Commissioners should be addressed as President Normandy or Commissioner Gorrono, etc.  You MUST include your full name and preferably your address.  Do not use city email or faxes to send these messages.
 
Please send your individual messages TODAY so that they get to the Commissioners before the weekend.
 
Civil Service Commission
E. Dennis Normandy, President
Donald A. Casper, Vice President
Morgan R. Gorrono,Commissioner
Mary Y. Jung, Commissioner
Fax - 415-252-3260
Email: civilservice@sfgov.org
 
Please send a copy toAnita.sanchez@sfgov.org of the Commission for the records.
 

Congratulations to Mayor Newsom for appointing Ed Lee as City... on Twitpic

Congratulations to Mayor Newsom for appointing Ed Lee as City... on Twitpic

Union Members' concerns about safety and criminal activity in the Parks is not "Corruption," It's Common Sense!

SFBG article

Unsafe? Better Use? Union Members ponder the HANC Recycling in Golden Gate Park and the visitors it brings.

Union members to discuss HANC and the recycling program in Golden Gate Park. Many members have voiced concerns about the safety of the Parks that has declined in recent years as a result of folks who are lured by these recycling facilities. At the Marina Safeway for example, the residents have been successful at gaining a variance to prohibit these facilities because they create blight and lead to criminal activity. At the Safeway in the Western Addition, the Community for years has petitioned for a similar variance as a result of the frequent, automobile breakins and criminal activity. Now, the SFRPD is looking to create a safer and alternate use for the location that has hosted the recycling center in Golden Gate Park. Union members should decide for themselves what is best for the Park and the Park users moving forward.

LiUNA!, Local 261 at SFDPW take care of business!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfdpw/sets/72157625312344876/with/5146519948/

WE Fight, WE Win! 3pm SHARP October 1st at Laborers' Local 261. BBQ @ 6:30!

No on B!

The Adachi Initiative, a ballot proposition that will require city workers to contribute more to their own pension and health insurance costs is on the November 2, 2010 ballot for voters in San Francisco as an initiated city charter amendment.[1]
The Adachi Initiative would require police, firefighters and other city employees covered by CalPERS to contribute 10% of their pension contribution.[2] These employees currently contribute either 7.5% or 9%, depending on when they were hired. The maximum amount that could come out of an individual worker's paycheck toward his or her pension contribution would be 2.5%.[3]

Other city employees, who currently contribute 7.5%, would contribute 9%. Muni workers, who currently contribute nothing, would have to start paying into the system as other city workers do, under the Adachi proposal.[4] The initiative would also require city employees to pay for 50%, rather than 25%, of their family's health care coverage.[5]

Proposition B will effect about 11,000 workers, if it is approved.[6]

Jeff Adachi, San Francisco's elected public defender, is the leading force behind the ballot initiative. He says that the measure, if enacted by voters, will save the city $167 million per year.[2] Adachi says he is motivated to support the measure because "There's a fiscal train wreck just around the corner, as these pension costs are flying through the roof."[4] Adachi also says that the way the current pension system is designed, ""It's like going to Vegas with your brother-in-law's paycheck."[3]

On August 10, several public employee unions filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court to try to remove Proposition B from the November ballot.[7] This lawsuit failed.[8]

Pension costs as motivation

When the economy was booming, San Francisco's pension liability was largely covered by investment returns. That is no longer the case. In 2010, the city is expected to have to contribute (according to different estimates) between $300 and $575 million to pension costs directly from its general operating budget. The amount of the required direct contribution from city coffers is expected to go as high as $600 million by 2015 if nothing changes. This pressure on the city's general operating budget from contributions to pensions means that there is less money available for all the other services provided by the city.

The overall cost of the pension system to San Francisco taxpayers tops $1.2 billion a year.[9]

John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle, commenting in July on the Adachi pension reform measure, wrote:

"But the crisis over escalating pension and health care costs that has been brewing for years - and ignored by all but a few lonely fiscal conservatives - has reached the breaking point...'This is like the dot-com bubble bursting,' said Susan Kennedy, chief of staff to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger."[3]
Adachi says of his initiative, "This isn't an attack on labor. It's a math problem."[10]

Meaning of a "yes" vote

According to election officials, voters who vote "yes" on Proposition B want to:

Increase employee contributions to the Retirement System for retirement benefits,
Decrease employer contributions to the Health Service System for health benefits for
employees, retirees and their dependents,

Change rules for arbitration proceedings about City collective bargaining agreements, and
Prohibit any increase in employee compensation for affected City employees for five years if a court invalidates any part of this measure.
Meaning of a "no" vote

According to election officials, voters who vote "no" on Proposition B want to leave the city's charter as is, and make none of the proposed changes to the city's pension system.

Supporters


Adachi describes the pension reform initiative
"SF Smart Reform" is the official campaign committee backing the initiative, while Jeff Adachi initiated the effort and serves as Proposition B's chief spokesperson.
Michael Moritz of Sequoia Capital and his wife, novelist Harriet Heyman, gave $245,000 to the campaign to enable it to collect the approximately 76,000 signatures that were submitted to qualify the measure for the ballot. Moritz, described as an "iconic Silicon Valley figure", was an early investor in Google, Yahoo and YouTube.[11]

Investor Ronald Conway and David Crane, an advisor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have each given $10,000 to the ballot measure campaign.

In explaining his support for Proposition B, Adachi said:

"As Public Defender, my job is to provide legal representation for those who cannot afford an attorney. Our agency provides legal representation to about 25,000 people each year. We represent minorities and the very, very poor. In recent years, I have experienced firsthand the devastating impact of budget cuts on basic services and I began questioning why we were spending nearly a billion dollars on city employee pensions and health care costs when other basic services were being slashed or eliminated."
"City worker pensions are very generous. A police or firefighter can retire at 55 years of age and get a check for 90% of his or her last year’s salary. Last year, one police officer earned $516,000 in a single year. He also retired that same year and will receive a $230,000 a year pension paid by taxpayers. That amounts to an $8 million dollar payout over his lifetime."[12]
Opposition

Opponents of Proposition B include:

Mayor Gavin Newsom, who says pension reform is needed but doesn't like the way Adachi went about things, saying: "If you want to change things, you work with people, you don't do things to people."[4]
Organized labor in San Francisco is up in arms about the Adachi measure. Tom O'Connor, president of San Francisco's firefighters union, says, "He's looking to kick city workers when they're down. City workers already have been giving back. The central problem with Adachi's measure is that he's not working with city employees to solve a problem, but demonizing them when the real problem is Wall Street."[4]
The Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club.[5]
The San Francisco Democratic Party[5]
The San Francisco Tenants Union[5]
San Francisco Police Chief Gascon[5]
San Francisco Fire Chief Hayes-White[5]
Democratic strategist Chris Lehane has been brought in to head up strategy for the effort to defeat the Adachi Initiative.[3]
Chris Daly, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, is reported (by the San Francisco Chronicle) to have threatened to introduce a motion to cut $1.2 million from the budget of the Office of the San Francisco Public Defender, possibly in retaliation for Adachi's initiative.[10]
"Litmus test"

According to Randy Shaw, editor of BeyondChron, "This initiative will dominate San Francisco’s November ballot, and be framed by the national media as a litmus test for plans to cut local and state employee pensions across the country."[13]

Path to the ballot

As an initiated amendment to the San Francisco charter, 44,799 valid signatures were required to qualify the measure for the ballot.[2]

Approximately 76,000 signatures were collected in a 10-week blitz of signature collection.[11][14]

Lawsuit

See also: Petition blocking and 2010 ballot measure litigation
On August 10, Kathern Alba-Swanson, Elvira James, Blue Walcer, Ron Dicks, Maria Guillen, San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers Local 21, SEIU Local 1021, San Francisco Municipal Executives' Association and the San Francisco Police Officers Association filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court to try to remove Proposition B from the November ballot.[7] San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn ruled against the plaintiffs, and said that Proposition B can stay on the ballot, on August 30. However, the judge did agree with the motion of plaintiffs to remove one specific part, Section 1, from Proposition B.[8]

The lawsuit was filed against San Francisco election chief John Arntz in his official capacity and also against Jeff Adachi and Craig Weber as "real parties in interest". Craig Weber is an accountant who served on the San Francisco Grand Jury on pension reform for two years. He is also the treasurer of the Adachi Initiative "Yes on B" campaign.[15]

Claims in lawsuit

The 60-page complaint filed to open the lawsuit made a variety of claims. It said:

Proposition B, if enacted, will violate the employees' contractual rights to their benefits.[16]
The petitions used to gather signatures for the measure were misleading and violated state election law.[16]
The petition form that was circulated did not include a "notice of intention document".[17]
The petition that was circulated did not mention Craig Weber. [17]
The petition that was circulated did not include the entire text of the proposed legislation.
Circulators who sought signatures on the petition misrepresented the nature of the proposed legislation to voters, using phrases such as "save the schools," "help the poor," “patch pot holes,” and “help poor people." Potential petition signers who asked for a copy of the text of the measure were not given a copy of the text of the measure and were instead presented with a political flyer.
Proposition B violates the single-subject rule.
According to a press release issued by one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, "California’s constitution protects vested retirement security rights as it recognizes the contractual rights of employees once they have reached retirement and are receiving benefits. The Adachi/Weber measure takes awy those rights without providing anything in return. In essence, in circulating their unlawful petition, Adachi and Weber are interfering with the constitutional rights of employees who worked their whole lives for the City of San Francisco under certain expectations relating to their retirement security."
The same press release additionally says, "...the Adachi/Weber measure unlawfully violates City employees’ constitutionally protected right to due process. Hidden within this poorly drafted measure lurks a 'poison pill' which states that if a City employee succeeds in a legal challenge against the measure after enactment, rather than celebrating a legal victory, City employees instead would face a five year cap on compensation. This provision is both poor public policy and radically unconstitutional, as all citizens of California have a constitutionally protected right to seek court redress for unlawful legislation."
Response of Prop B supporters

The "Yes on B" campaign disputed every assertion in the lawsuit. A spokesperson said, "Every step to get this measure on the ballot in November was followed and sanctified by The City Attorney, the Department of Elections and the over 77,000 people of San Francisco who signed the petition. Measure B is about pension reform and enabling the city to develop an independent funding stream so that we are not reliant upon one-time, quick fixes in order to fill escalating budget deficits, preserve vital city services and protect jobs."[7]

Following Judge Kahn's ruling that Proposition B should stay on the ballot, Jeff Adachi said, "“This is an important victory for the people of this city. Now, the voters of San Francisco, not special interests, will finally have a choice on how their tax dollars are spent on pensions for city workers."[18]

Section 1 removed

Judge Kahn's August 30 decision removed one part, Section 1, of Proposition B.

Section 1 would have frozen workers' wage and benefit levels for five years if these two conditions had been in effect:

If Proposition B passed
If any part of Proposition B was successfully challenged in court.
Judge Kahn's ruling said that this section of Proposition B was "draconian." He wrote:

"By eliminating five years of bargained compensation increases if any portion of Proposition B is invalidated, the poison pill may discourage potentially meritorious challenges to Proposition B ...[posing an] impermissible burden on the constitutional rights of City employees to seek redress from the courts."[8]
and:

"[T]he poison pill imposes an unwarranted and wholly disproportional burden on the right to seek redress from the courts. Fidelity to the important right to petition demands that the poison pill be eliminated now, before its ‘chill’ takes effect."[19]
Election security

A question arose about whether the San Francisco Sheriff's Department should be allowed to provide ballot security for this election. Traditionally, the Sheriff's Department is in charge of ballot security for San Francisco elections. Deputy sheriffs pick up ballots and voter memory cards from polling stations, transporting the ballots to the warehouse on Pier 48 and the memory cards to City Hall. About 100 deputy sheriffs are involved in the ballot protection operation.

Since the personal income of the deputies who would provide the ballot security is impacted by the outcome of the vote on Proposition B, the San Francisco Ethics Commission felt that it would be expedient and prudent to decide whether deputies should be allowed their traditional security role. When the Ethics Commission met, they decided to go forward with the traditional system, rather than outsourcing ballot security to a private contractor.[20]

Since

See also

Pension reform measures on local California ballots
External links

SF Smart Reform
Full text of the Adachi Initiative
Meeting archives for approval of ballot language on Proposition B
Text of Proposition B
List of local San Francisco ballot measures on the November 2, 2010 ballot

These Guys are trying to Stick it to US! WE must mobilize and FIGHT! October 1 & October 30, 2010, WE WILL!

Why Politics Matter!

Everything we negotiate at the bargaining table is vulnerable to changes in federal, state and local law as well as the political clout of big business. Working together, union members provide the “people power” that makes the difference in government, and thereby in our lives. When union members get involved and own the political process, we can create powerful coalitions in our communities that deliver results.

Ramon Hernandez joins SFLC & SFBCTC at Hosting SF Supevisor Carmen Chu Fundraiser Lunch this Wednesday at Cesar's on the Wharf!

PLEASE JOIN

Ramon Hernandez

LiUNA! Local 261
Tim Paulson

San Francisco Labor Council
Mike Theriault

San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council

For a luncheon supporting
Supervisor Carmen Chu
For her re-election campaign

Wednesday, June 16, 2010
12:00pm – 1:30pm
Caesar’s Italian Restaurant
2299 Powell Street, San Francisco

Suggested Contribution
$500.00

Please RSVP to Nichelle Lyons at 415-775-0698
or via email tonichelle@speakeasy.net

Support friends Dan & Tom!

Please Support Dan & Tom on
June 8th... OUR FRIENDS!

Dan Dunnigan & Tom Hsieh
Democratic County Central Committee
Please join us for an ice cream social, to support Dan Dunnigan & Tom Hsieh, candidates for DCCC in the 12th Assembly District. Bring your friends and family to talk with Dan and Tom about the issues on the West Side.  
 
Saturday, June 5th
4:00 – 6:00 pm
Java Beach (by the zoo)
Sloat Boulevard @ 45th Avenue
 
REMEMBER TO VOTE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8th. R.S.V.P.  Twohsieh@gmail.com

LiUNA! Local 261 Membership supports Rafael Mandelman for Supervisor in SF District 8!

After receiving the Endorsement of the San Francisco Labor Council Earlier this month, Local 261 Business Manager and the the Executive Board of LiUNA!, Local 261 took the same position after several meetings with Rafael on matters which were most important to the Local 261 membership. Tonite, the E-Board action was adopted by the full membership. Congratulations Rafael and best of luck.

Vote Aaron Peskin for DCCC on June 8, 2010 - San Francisco Democratic Party

Tell A Friend - Aaron Peskin for DCCC on June 8, 2010 - San Francisco Democratic Party

Vote Early in the Health Service System Board election. Vote Brother Lim!!!

Today, the HSS Board ballots will be mailed to our members. The ballots will arrive at your homes. This is one of the most important elections of their City careers. Our employer continues to attack our benefits, especially, our health benefits. Willie Lim is committed to keeping costs affordable and to help us fight the employer’s continuing efforts to raid our system and eliminate member “control” over the Board that determines our benefits. Willie is also committed to keeping retiree health benefits affordable…and many of our colleagues are retiring this year.

Willie Lim has been endorsed by many labor organizations. He is “the LABOR candidate” in every manner possible. He has the endorsement of the SF Labor Council.

Please tell everybody to VOTE FOR WILLIE LIM and to bring their ballots to work and put them in INTEROFFICE MAIL.

That is the most efficient way of getting those ballots to the Dept of Elections.

Thanking you in SOLIDARITY,

Brother Vince

Press Release – Improving Cleanliness of San Francisco Streets, Sidewalks « Office of the Mayor

Press Release – Improving Cleanliness of San Francisco Streets, Sidewalks « Office of the Mayor

Jerry Brown with LiUNA!

Public Opinion IS Important on Our Issues. Let's make some Good News!

Brothers & Sisters:

In between the volume of telephone calls, I am sure you have all had the chance to take a look at the articles being printed related to the article that was published in the Chronicle yesterday. I heard the SF Weekly published a letter to the letter from a member of another Union today as well.

Part-timers proposal shocks city workers (Examiner) 02/10/10
SF City workers outraged over mayor's job proposal (KTVU) 02/10/10
Mayor would cut S.F. workers' week to save cash (Chronicle) 02/09/10
Shorter workweek pitched to help close deficit (Examiner) 02/09/10
Mayor Newsom proposes shorter work week (KCBS) 02/09/10
(All courtesy SF Usual Suspects)

What we have seen is an incredible level of participation from the public in terms of "commenting" on the issue. Unfortunately, an overwhelming amount is negative relative to our position. I have asked our Committee Members to comment positively and professionally to balance out the message. In the past, I have been lead to believe that these "electronic strings" actually mean something in terms of polling the issue at City Hall.

Fraternally,
Brother Vince Courtney
City Representative/Political Captain
LiUNA!, Local 261
3271 18th Street
San Francisco, CA 94115
Telephone: 415-826-4550
Facsimile: 415-826-1948
vince@liuna261.org
http://twitter.com/vincecourtney

San Francisco Board of Supervisors new Committee Assignments

Budget & Finance
John Avalos, Chair
Ross Mirkarimi, Vice Chair
Sean Elsbernd, Member
Sophie Maxwell, Temporary Member
David Campos, Temporary Member

City Operations & Neighborhood Services
Carmen Chu, Chair
John Avalos, Vice Chair
Sean Elsbernd, Member

Government Audits & Oversight
Ross Mirkarimi, Chair
Eric Mar, Vice Chair
Sophie Maxwell, Member

Land Use & Economic Development
Sophie Maxwell, Chair
Eric Mar, Vice Chair
David Chiu, Member

Public Safety
David Chiu, Chair
Ross Mirkarimi, Vice Chair
Bevan Dufty, Member

Rules Committee
David Campos, Chair
Michela Alioto-Pier, Vice Chair
Eric Mar, Member
 
City & School District
Bevan Dufty, Chair
Michela Alioto-Pier, Vice Chair
Chris Daly, Member

Pension costs swell amid deficit | San Francisco Examiner

Pension costs swell amid deficit | San Francisco Examiner

Posted using ShareThis