Fire Union Still Furiously Spinning Staffing Bill Facts

Is it possible to award more than four Pinocchio's? 

The AFFI must be getting some push back from their ill-conceived fire department staffing legislation. Despite passage of the bill, the union's president felt compelled to respond to an editorial in the Champaign News-Gazette and tried to once again get the carousel spinning in defense of the legislation. Let's deconstruct some of the "facts" asserted by the union in the op-ed:

Assertion
When Illinois firefighters in 1986 surrendered their right to strike, they traded service for the sake of the public's safety and well-being.

In return, they received several collective-bargaining considerations. One consideration was the implication that safe staffing levels could be negotiated with the employer and resolved through binding arbitration if the parties were unable to reach an agreement.

Reality
You need to read this statement carefully to understand the full measure of what's really being asserted. There's some word parsing going on. Notice the use of the word "implication?" 

Why is the word "implication" being used? Because the actual text of the law doesn't say what they want it to say. HB 5485 deliberately inserts the word "manning" into the bill because it was never there to begin with. That's why the union had to introduce HB 5485. And it's quite curious to introduce a bill that sets out to achieve what you claim to already have as a function of statutory law.  

Despite the word not being included in current law, the union persisted in telling legislators and anyone that would listen that staffing levels have always been a mandatory subject of bargaining. How do they argue this in the absence of such a provision in the actual law? The union argues that the sponsor of the firefighter collective bargaining legislation "intended" for staffing to become subject to bargaining and interest arbitration. The union points to the transcripts of the 1986 floor debate to make its point. But even the transcripts don't go that far. 

The transcripts, which are available here, only contain references to "equipment" manning. This pertains to the number of firefighters that must accompany an apparatus and is a wholly separate issue from the number of firefighters that must staff a shift. HB 5485 would require bargaining and interest arbitration over shift manning.

References to fire department staffing levels are not only absent from the text of the Illinois Labor Relations Act, but a review of the House transcripts cited by the fire union doesn't even carry the "implication" that "staffing levels" were intended to be included as a mandatory subject of bargaining within the 1986 law.

Assertion
The General Assembly's action on firefighter staffing does not establish the arbitration process for manning. It was already there and has been there for nearly 30 years. There are numerous examples of firefighters arbitrating this very important topic with their employer.

Reality
This is partly true, but mostly false because it takes an exception and attempts to suggest that it is the rule. 

Cities that have agreed to bargain and arbitrate over staffing are required by law to include staffing within future collective bargaining negotiations. HB 5485 would not alter this requirement one iota. These cities would have been compelled to continue to bargain over staffing with or without HB 5485. 

HB 5485 is a significant change in law because of what it would mean for cities that don't have staffing provisions in their contracts. These cities are not presently required to bargain over staffing. That is, unless HB 5485 becomes law. If enacted, all cities with unionized fire departments would be mandated to bargain over staffing levels as a function of law. But the union conveniently omits the full explanation of current law and the important distinction contained therein - that a few cities have elected to bargain over manning and must continue to do so, while most cities have not and are not required to bargain. Instead, the union infers that the arbitration requirement has been applicable in all cities with unionized fire departments since the 1986 collective bargaining law was enacted. This is bogus and extremely misleading.

Assertion
Furthermore, you suggest the legislation will cost local governments untold chunks of money. In fact, the opposite is true.

Let's look at Oak Lawn, a Chicago suburb whose mayor and village trustees tried to end-run the arbitration process and were rejected by circuit, appellate and state supreme courts.

The taxpayers of Oak Lawn wasted $2.5 million in lawyers' fees and court awards, money for litigation that could have paid for over 25 firefighters for a year — including salary and all related benefits.

Reality
Partly true but with a very notable omission. Oak Lawn did expend $2.5 million in trying to remove the staffing requirement from its collective bargaining contract. But the Village did so because the staffing provision is costing Village taxpayers almost $2 million per year in overtime costs in order to meet the terms of the staffing levels. Spending $2.5 million to try and save Village taxpayers tens of millions over multiple years changes the complexion of this story dramatically. But the annual overtime cost was somehow omitted from the union's narrative. Funny how that works!

The op-ed then becomes sanctimonious about how the $2.5 million in legal fees could have been spent:

Or it could have fixed dozens of potholes, replaced crumbling sewers and sidewalks or put a couple bad guys in jail. Better yet, the money could have been abated back to the people who pay their property taxes with the expectation they'll get service, not pay for lawyers' vacation homes.

Good to see the fire union so concerned about the many financial obligations incurred by the Village. Perhaps they'll give up the many more millions in unnecessary overtime out of concern for the Village and its taxpayers? Don't hold your breath. 

While on the subject of Oak Lawn, let's shine a spotlight on another matter that the union saw fit to exclude. Here's an excerpt from labor lawyer Ben Gehrt's testimony before the Senate Executive Committee:

Let’s talk a little more about Oak Lawn. The Union claims that the litigation in Oak Lawn has been a boondoggle, wasting tax payers money on lawyers. What the Union wants you to ignore is this: in 2014, Oak Lawn went to interest arbitration. The Village showed that because of minimum staffing, their overtime costs increased from $200,000 to $1.8 million. The Village proposed changes that would save $1.3 million per year in overtime costs. The Union refused to even consider those changes. In interest arbitration, the Village proved with expert testimony that it could change its staffing levels without any adverse impact on safety. 

Arbitrator Ed Benn, one of the most respected arbitrators in the state, called the Village’s proposal a “good idea.” Nonetheless, the Arbitrator’s ruling was straightforward: no, the Village has to keep the artificially inflated staffing levels simply because that is the “status quo.” Oak Lawn is saddled with $1.3 million in unnecessary overtime costs. That is money that could go towards pensions, police officers, roads, business development, tax relief, or any one of hundreds of good causes. Instead, it has to be spent on an inflated staffing level.

So the union portends to be the defender of the taxpayer and prudent fiscal practices in an op-ed (even throwing in some class warfare for good measure), but not so much at the bargaining table. And therein lies a big part of the problem, particularly when the union argues that HB 5485 will "save" money. And yes, they actually argued that point. 

Unfortunately, 9 members of the Senate Executive Committee listened to Mr. Gerht's testimony about the costs (or deprived savings) that arbitrating staffing levels can impose on taxpayers and weren't influenced by it whatsoever. 

The fire union got away with a big one here. And they received some help in doing so. But perhaps this is another case of having to pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it. 

Related Posts:
Politics Trumps Policy with Passage of Fire Department Staffing Bill
The Anatomy of a Spin Job
The Evolution of the Fire Service in Three Graphs
Is Illinois' Fire Service Economically Viable?