Troy's Firefighters Get Heated
An attempt to get a 2% raise for 2024 comes with a price -- early contract negotations
A Facebook Post
On Tuesday, January 3rd, IAFF Local 1638 placed a letter to City Officials on their social media page outlining frustration with a recent decision made by the City to provide non-union employees with a 2% wage increase. The measure was another step in long-runnng labor disagreements between Local 1638 and the City.
The current labor agreement runs from 2022 through the end of this year, but even getting to an agreement in 2022 was a challenge. Both parites needed to rely on State mandated fact-finding in the middle of 2022 before an agreement could be reached. The factfinders report, which is a public record, portrays a complex and historical struggle centered around contract negotiations, wages, and working conditions. The historical context, as detailed in the fact-finding document reference earlier, shows a pattern of challenging negotiations, where the union consistently seeks better compensation and conditions, often met with the city's more modest proposals due to budgetary constraints. This backdrop reveals a long-standing, intricate relationship marked by a series of complex discussions and compromises, shaping the current dispute over wage increases and negotiation approaches. The essence of this ongoing dispute lies in balancing union demands with administrative feasibility, a theme recurrent in their interactions over the years.
Reed, representing the union, voices a deep-seated disappointment with the proposed 2% wage increase being limited to non-bargaining members, effectively excluding union members. He articulates his perception of the negotiation process as uncharacteristically rushed and unconventional, specifically criticizing the city's proposition to condition the wage increase on reopening contracts. Furthermore, Reed's mention of a rejected Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) underscores his viewpoint of an unfair and demotivating approach to compensation, emphasizing the importance of fair recognition for the union members' contributions.
A Bureaucrat Responds
In contrast, Patrick Titterington, the city’s top bureaucrat provided a response on behalf of the city.
First off, the city’s top bureaucrat states that the information the union put out is “incorrect” (not exactly the most appropriate posture to put out when discussing detailed information) as he attempts to clarify the bounds of the existing contract, noting that the union's 2024 wages are already determined and appeared to beyond alteration.
The city's suggestion to initiate early negotiations for the 2025-2027 contract, with the possibility of an MOU for an additional wage increase, is framed as an efficient and proactive solution, albeit contingent on a timely agreement. Titterington's refutation of Reed's claims and his openness to maintain a traditional negotiation schedule, albeit with no opportunity for a 2% increase for this year, in Fall 2024 reveal some the city's perspective on the dispute.
Titterington makes the claim that negotiating the agreement now would be in the best interest of both parties since it would be more “efficient”. But a question needs to be asked, “efficient” for whom? The union seems comfortable with the efficiency of negotiating in the fall, as is the past practice. The city for their part never articulated how negotiating earlier was “efficient” for the community, or even the union; the breaucrat simply made the claim with no evidence to back up the assertion.
Furthermore, Titterington offers in his social media post that “if we reached a timely agreement, the City was willing to agree to an MOU for an additional 2% for the Union in 2024.” This language makes it sound like the additional 2% wages that was offered to non-union employees would be offered to the fire union only if negotiations happened on the city’s schedule. This is where the union is claiming the “city is not negotiating in good faith”. It’s hard to argue against the union’s assertion.
The essence of this labor dispute lies in the differing approaches to negotiation timing and methodology, the scope of wage increase eligibility, and contrasting views on what constitutes good faith in negotiations. This scenario is reflective of the intricate dynamics often present in labor relations, where contract details, strategic communication, and perceptions of fairness play pivotal roles.
Negotiating over Social Media
Turning to the topic of using social media for negotiating labor contracts, this modern methodology introduces a unique set of dynamics. Social media, with its capability for swift and wide-reaching communication, can significantly impact the negotiation landscape. It provides a platform for transparency and heightened public engagement, potentially drawing in not just the direct stakeholders but also the wider community.
These disputes can be highly charged and keeping these negotiations behind closed doors keep the public from influencing these decisions, which often is the goal in the negotiations. The risk of misinformation spreading rapidly through these platforms can lead to confusion and complicate the negotiation process. The traditional privacy and confidentiality associated with labor negotiations are significantly reduced, potentially resulting in premature exposure of negotiation strategies or positions. Moreover, the public nature of social media can lead to polarization of opinions and intense scrutiny, which may hinder the progress of sensitive discussions. It should be noted that most public records and open meeting laws exempt labor negotiations from these public disclosures.
In summary, while social media offers a novel avenue for democratizing information in labor negotiations, but it also necessitates careful navigation to avoid pitfalls such as misinformation and the loss of strategic confidentiality. Balancing the need for transparency with the requirements of private, focused discussions is crucial in ensuring constructive and equitable outcomes in labor negotiations.
Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter. This project is growing each and every day and your support is critical to the publication’s success. Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors and leave your insights and ideas in the comment section.
I’m going to start this comment by stating that I have an admitted bias toward labor. Give me a choice between the people doing work and the organization paying them and I’m gonna side with the people doing the work almost all the time.
With that out of the way, boy did Mr. Titterington screw this up. Before getting into that, however, I’d like to ask if you have any insight into why the city wants to reopen negotiations sooner than later. To me, this is the crux of the issue. What is the motivator here? Please share, if you know.
Back to Titterington’s folly. So, rule number one of negotiating with public unions should be not to do it in public. Go find Governor Kasich and ask him how that worked for him. You’re gonna lose almost every time. People like the firefighter who saves their family. They don’t care about city officials.
Second, if you insist on breaking rule number one, don’t publicly admit to doing EXACTLY what they accused you of doing! You’re doing the very definition of negotiating in bad faith! Not only that, even if it wasn’t the intent, it now looks like the only reason you gave the 2% raise was to try to force the union to negotiate early. This leads everyone out here to ask the question I did above; why do you want that?
The best response, Mr. Bureaucrat, is to do NOTHING. Let the union post stand and go about your business. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose by responding (even if I likely disagree with you, I offer this advice for free).
Excellent reporting, Mr. Lutz. Any additional insight you can share would be appreciated.
My family has had a union shop for 45 years. In no way shape or form should any of this be put on social media. Our union and our contractors have diligently been working together for the betterment of the industry. We would NEVER think of putting something like this on social media. Posting this is not tranparency. It is just wrong. Obviously there is not a good working relationship or trust between the fire department and the city. Hmmmmmmm and so it continues.