Thursday, November 02, 2006
Union Wins a Big One in Beaver County—Taxpayers Lose Again
Contemplate this one, dear taxpayers: a judge has nixed a plan to save Beaver County taxpayers nearly $2 million a year by prohibiting a private firm from running the county jail. At least one member of the Board of Commissioners believes that this ruling will lead to a tax increase, possibly 2 mills.
The Commissioners were thrilled by a proposal by a private firm to operate the jail and allowed the guards’ union to try and match the savings, which they could not. “People with less training making lower wages” was the union’s refrain as to how the savings were to be reached.
After months of negotiations and several drafts of the County budget (one with no tax increase and one with), the County decided to go ahead with the private firm’s proposal while still bargaining with the union, whose contract had expired on December 31, 2005. Several months later, the bargaining moved to arbitration, where, not surprisingly, the union was granted a favorable ruling. After the Commissioners opted to say “no thanks”, the union moved to the courts, asking a judge to declare the award legal and binding. This meant that the County would have to go with the lower level of savings with the union manning operations at the jail. The union and its affiliates even threatened a “political shutdown” of all electoral efforts because of the dispute.
Well, the court case finally ended shortly before the firm was to take over operations with the Judge ruling that the arbitration award was binding. Not wanting even more legal hassle and costs, the Commissioners opted to agree to a union contract that gives some concessions, not nearly as much savings as outsourcing the guards, and lasts through 2010. Labor peace is achieved, indeed. And how convenient that it was achieved one week before the election.
Upon hearing of the ruling, the union steward said “What bigger sigh of relief can you have other than hearing that you’re going to have a job for the next couple of years?” And here we thought the union was concerned first and foremost about safety.
Basically, the judge is saying that elected officials cannot privatize a function unless the union agrees to it, which will never happen. The Commissioners should have been ready to turn the jail over to the private firm the day the contract with the union ended: their willingness to bargain probably cost them. And we would not be surprised if the private firm that was led along decides to sue, possibly costing the County more.
With judicial rulings and public sector union favoritism to this degree, is it any wonder that Pennsylvania continues its decline?
The Commissioners were thrilled by a proposal by a private firm to operate the jail and allowed the guards’ union to try and match the savings, which they could not. “People with less training making lower wages” was the union’s refrain as to how the savings were to be reached.
After months of negotiations and several drafts of the County budget (one with no tax increase and one with), the County decided to go ahead with the private firm’s proposal while still bargaining with the union, whose contract had expired on December 31, 2005. Several months later, the bargaining moved to arbitration, where, not surprisingly, the union was granted a favorable ruling. After the Commissioners opted to say “no thanks”, the union moved to the courts, asking a judge to declare the award legal and binding. This meant that the County would have to go with the lower level of savings with the union manning operations at the jail. The union and its affiliates even threatened a “political shutdown” of all electoral efforts because of the dispute.
Well, the court case finally ended shortly before the firm was to take over operations with the Judge ruling that the arbitration award was binding. Not wanting even more legal hassle and costs, the Commissioners opted to agree to a union contract that gives some concessions, not nearly as much savings as outsourcing the guards, and lasts through 2010. Labor peace is achieved, indeed. And how convenient that it was achieved one week before the election.
Upon hearing of the ruling, the union steward said “What bigger sigh of relief can you have other than hearing that you’re going to have a job for the next couple of years?” And here we thought the union was concerned first and foremost about safety.
Basically, the judge is saying that elected officials cannot privatize a function unless the union agrees to it, which will never happen. The Commissioners should have been ready to turn the jail over to the private firm the day the contract with the union ended: their willingness to bargain probably cost them. And we would not be surprised if the private firm that was led along decides to sue, possibly costing the County more.
With judicial rulings and public sector union favoritism to this degree, is it any wonder that Pennsylvania continues its decline?
