Friday, April 28, 2006
Who Runs This Town?
The union representing firefighters wants to initiate a petition drive to cut the number of Pittsburgh’s City Council members from nine to seven, or possibly five, and impose a two-term limit on the office of Mayor. Mind you, they are not doing this to help the City reach fiscal austerity (cutting Council members would affect less than 1 percent of the $427 million budget).
The fact is they are doing it in response to City Council “failing” to push the state to release the City from Act 47 distressed status. Since Act 47 actually curtails some of the privileges that the fire union has won due to Act 111’s binding arbitration provisions, they want it gone. Since a majority of Council voted against it, the union wants to reshape Council.
This is not the first time the fire union has pushed to cut Council when members had the temerity to call for cuts to the fire department, and it probably won’t be the last. (They also tried to make an end-run around the recovery plan by calling for a referendum on response times to preserve their ranks). But City residents who might be asked to sign the petitions ought to ask themselves something: who runs Pittsburgh? Is it possible that a union representing around 700 employees will have the power to not only downsize Council, but also then be in charge of redistricting neighborhoods so they are guaranteed the ability to elect a majority of very sympathetic council members who will do their bidding?
If the petition comes to a vote, a defeat would send the message to the union leadership that the City will not be bullied and be held hostage to political hardball on the part of the fire union. It has gone on too long already, much to the detriment of the City.
In fact, the firefighters effort has the appearance of being a desperation move by a group that sees its power slipping. For the City’s sake, let’s hope that’s the case.
The fact is they are doing it in response to City Council “failing” to push the state to release the City from Act 47 distressed status. Since Act 47 actually curtails some of the privileges that the fire union has won due to Act 111’s binding arbitration provisions, they want it gone. Since a majority of Council voted against it, the union wants to reshape Council.
This is not the first time the fire union has pushed to cut Council when members had the temerity to call for cuts to the fire department, and it probably won’t be the last. (They also tried to make an end-run around the recovery plan by calling for a referendum on response times to preserve their ranks). But City residents who might be asked to sign the petitions ought to ask themselves something: who runs Pittsburgh? Is it possible that a union representing around 700 employees will have the power to not only downsize Council, but also then be in charge of redistricting neighborhoods so they are guaranteed the ability to elect a majority of very sympathetic council members who will do their bidding?
If the petition comes to a vote, a defeat would send the message to the union leadership that the City will not be bullied and be held hostage to political hardball on the part of the fire union. It has gone on too long already, much to the detriment of the City.
In fact, the firefighters effort has the appearance of being a desperation move by a group that sees its power slipping. For the City’s sake, let’s hope that’s the case.
