Bid to cut contracts defeated in Lawrence

Discussion

Welcome to our online comments feature. To join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address. Once you do, your comments will post automatically. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean. We reserve the right to remove comments that are obscene, racist or abusive and statements that are false or unverifiable. Repeat offenders will be blocked. You may flag objectionable comments for review by a moderator.

comments powered by Disqus

August 31, 2010

By Jill Harmacinski jharmacinski@eagletribune.com The Eagle Tribune Tue Aug 31, 2010, 02:02 AM EDT

LAWRENCE — City councilors last night rejected a proposal to do away with municipal contracts to find money to rehire laid off police officers and firefighters.

Applause from union members ripped through council chambers after four councilors voted for the contract-cutting proposal and four voted against, sinking the home rule petition request by Councilor Daniel Rivera.

Councilor Modesto Maldonado was absent.

Union members spoke against the plan, including the Lawrence Teachers Union, which would not have been immediately affected if the measure had passed. Several speakers referred to a Labor Day festival this weekend that commemorates the Bread and Roses textile strike of 1912, which gave way to an organized immigrant labor movement in the city.

"Something needs to be done, but this is unfair," said City Councilor Sandy Almonte, before casting her "no" vote.

Council President Frank Moran, however, voted in favor, calling the proposal "a tool to help us move the city in the right direction."

The plan required the 11 unions to prioritize their contract benefits. The administration would then cut from the bottom of those lists until they came up with roughly $5 million — the amount needed to restore some jobs in the public safety and public works areas.

The contracts would then be renegotiated in two years.

After the defeat, Rivera said he would have liked to hear from more residents, not just union members, during last night's public hearing. His proposal was "strategic and surgical" and certainly not meant "to go against our history."

"We are just trying to do what other communities are already doing; living within our means," Rivera said.

However, union members stressed that collective bargaining already is in place for contract negotiations. Members said they put forward various cost-saving plans to Mayor William Lantigua's administration and attorneys but felt as though their efforts fell on deaf ears.

Lantigua laid off 84 city workers, including 47 police officers and firefighters, to balance this year's $72 million budget. He has said that jobs could be saved if union members agreed to cost-saving concessions.

Police Lt. Sean Burke said the superior police officers union offered up $400,000 worth of concessions, "substantial one-year cuts" before July 1, the start of this fiscal year.

"We offered and they never got back to us," said Burke, a union executive board member. Now, as a result of layoffs, unfilled positions and demotions, the department has been decimated, special units folded, and crime is increasing, he said.

"We need more rank and file," Burke said.

Police Sgt. Joseph Beaulieu said union members want to negotiate directly with the mayor and/or his chief of staff "because they are the only ones that would be able to make the decisions that needed to be made in order to move forward."

He said he felt it is "pretty unfair to even consider this proposal knowing how hard we tried to negotiate."

Michael McCarthy, president of the superior officers union, called the plan "unprecedented in the history of labor relations in the state." The move smacks of "blatant union busting," he said, and will "taint the city's proud heritage in that regard."

In a voice that boomed through council chambers, Frank McLaughlin referred to the Bread and Roses Strike. McLaughlin, president of the teachers union, also held a now historic sign that read "Labor for Kennedy," which referred to Sen. Edward Kennedy, who died a year ago from a brain tumor.

"I don't have the words to explain to you what labor means to the city of Lawrence," he said.

Frank Lumb of the Water Department said members of his union showed the administration how they could save millions of dollars by using city employees instead of a private company to run the water treatment plant.

"We are waiting for them to get back to us, and they haven't," Lumb said.

Public works employee David Mazzaglia said cuts to union contracts aren't the answers to the city's financial crisis. "There are a ton of ways the city could save money but we are not the answer," he said.

In March, the Legislature voted to allow Lawrence to borrow as much as $35 million to fix its finances. The city borrowed $24 million last year to pay off a deficit that had accumulated over the past three years. Another $3.3 million is to be borrowed this year.

Last night, councilors Moran, Rivera, Eileen O'Connor Bernal and Oneida Aquino voted in favor. In addition to Almonte, councilors Grisel Silva, Roger Twomey and Marc Laplante voted against.

Laplante applauded Rivera for having the "courage" to put the item on the table. But Laplante said that even if the council voted in favor, he did not think "this will pass at the Statehouse."

A home rule petition requires approval from both the Legislature and the governor.

Rivera said he feels the collective bargaining process is flawed, and pointed to reports from both the administration and unions that negotiations were stalled.

"People are concerned this would not pass at the Statehouse," Rivera said. "The reality is concessions have not passed our level," he said.

• • •

Join the discussion. To comment on stories and see what others are saying, log on to eagletribune.com.