The avoidance of a public employee strike at the county was likely good for both Marin taxpayers and workers.
The county and members of the Marin Association of Public Employees, the county’s largest union, reached an agreement giving workers a three-year contract amounting to an 8 percent pay hike.
That was less than what MAPE had been demanding at the bargaining table, but in line with pay packages the county had reached with other Civic Center unions.
It pretty much mirrors the cost of living, keeping Marin wages in line with those paid for public jobs across the county.
Does it answer workers’ frequent complaints that they aren’t paid enough to rent or buy a home in Marin? No. Few Marin businesses can afford to match the demands of local housing costs these days.
For the county to do so would likely necessitate other budget cuts, a reduction in county services or — and we’ve seen an escalation of these and talks about more — increases in county taxes and fees.
So the goal of the Board of Supervisors, we assume, was to keep pay and benefits competitive with other Bay Area public agencies, enabling Marin to retain and recruit workers.
Unlike most of the private sector, the raises have nothing to do with merit. They are across-the-board raises, regardless of job performance.
They also raise questions.
How does this pay pact affect the county’s efforts to reduce its long-term obligations for pensions and retiree health coverage? Both are generous — and costly. The county has already called the current equilibrium “unsustainable.”
Does this contract take steps to fix this deepening problem? Or does it make that goal more arduous? Taxpayers should receive a clear picture of the short- and long-term projections before the contract is approved.
What does this contract do to public services?
The county has already cut services and given a three-year pay pact amid a time when the rise in property tax revenue appears to be flattening. Is this contract going to drive more cutbacks, or more increases in county fees?
What does it mean for county job holders? They may now be in line for annual pay raises, but what if the growing payroll and the rising cost of pensions leads to the elimination of their jobs?
Besides, the rising cost of the county workforce has already led the county to contract with private firms in order to save money. In short, in some cases, it is more affordable to hire private-sector workers for county jobs than use county workers to perform them.
But a tentative contract was reached on the brink of a strike, strategically called by the union to hurt the county fair.
In fact, MAPE’s executive director Rollie Katz said: “We’re going to exercise our First Amendment rights to ask people not to go to the fair.”
Such a narrow-sighted view is sad.
Yes, reducing attendance at the county’s annual fair would have cost the county money. In recent years, the fair has done well financially, but it costs money to stage.
So MAPE’s three-day strike could have hurt the county — or taxpayers — in the pocketbook.
MAPE apparently had lost sight of other important considerations. Many local nonprofits, which perform valuable community services, rely on the revenue they raise from the food booths and parking lots at the fair.
MAPE telling people not to attend the fair would have hurt them.
There are also dozens of kids who had been preparing for performances at the fair. The strike put them in a position of honoring the picket line or performing.
And even more local kids entered their artwork, crafts and writing in county fair sweepstakes contests. Denying them a chance to see their work on display seems a particularly heartless approach to get a pay raise.
As the first day of the strike neared, MAPE softened its tone, talking about “informational” pickets instead of a labor boycott, but the die had been cast.
Maybe it worked. It kick-started the resolution of talks that appeared to be at an impasse.
But the strategy was not a shining moment for MAPE, whose membership includes many talented and hard-working public servants. They deserved to be treated with fairness and respect.
Avoiding a strike was a good goal, one reached by the county and MAPE. But it comes with many costs, many of which remain unclear.
