I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
The majority of the Albuquerque City Council said it was the only fair thing to do when they passed an ordinance tonight to allow binding arbitration to break an impasse during labor/city contract negotiations. The arbitration provision could be triggered by either side if mediation fails to break an impasse, and would apply only to non-economic issues, excluding management rights and alcohol and drug use policies.
Councilor Debbie O’Malley, who sponsored the bill, said the city simply doesn’t have true collective bargaining without the change. Councilor Rey Garduno agreed, saying that the ordinance would “level the playing field.” Currently, public employees are legally barred from striking, and therefore have no recourse to city imposed contracts when negotiations come to a stand still.
“The essence of a union is that if the employer doesn’t negotiate in good faith, they can strike,” Councilor Michael Cadigan explained. “In New Mexico the public unions can’t strike so we need to give them some fair leverage here.”
But Ed Adams, who was confirmed as the city’s Chief Administrative Officer earlier in the evening, said the city’s ability to provide services would be impaired by the ordinance because it would prevent the city from making critical staffing decisions about where and when public employees should work. “The bill is touted as leveling the playing field, but it reverses the playing field,” he said, ”…placing our futures in the hands of an arbitrator who on a whim can make a decision.”
Labor representatives disagreed. Andrew Padilla, president of AFSCME Council 18, said the point is to not get to an impasse, with both sides coming to reasonable agreement. This mechanism would prevent one side from having more leverage than the other, making that outcome more likely.
And AFSCME Council 18’s Josh Anderson added that, ”…as it stands, the union has an underlying belief when they enter into negotiations that the administration doesn’t have enough incentive because at the end of the day they can impose a contract.”
Another concern mentioned by Adams was that it might do away with the city labor relations ordinance, which is grandfathered into the state labor statute. One of the provisions of the grandfathering provision is that the ordinance is no longer valid if “substantial changes” are made to it.
Councilor Don Harris, who voted against the ordinance, also had this concern. While he agreed with much of the arguments for the ordinance, he said, he also believed it was a substantial change that would do away with the city’s labor ordinance.
O’Malley disagreed, saying that any legislation can be reversed. But she offered an amendment stating that the ordinance would automatically become null and void if a court found the new ordinance to be a “substantial” change to the city’s labor ordinance.
Councilors Ike Benton and Ken Sanchez both were in support. Benton said there was a need to “hold the administration accountable” and that arbitration was a long established form of settling disputes.
Sanchez also noted that public employees lack recourse because they can’t go on strike, and said it was the responsibility of the Council and the administration to “do well for the employees.” In particular, he pointed out that they had not received the pay raises provided for in the budget. “If we give them 3.5 percent pay raises, they should get that. I will support this. I believe it’s fair and equitable.”
Councilor Trudy Jones voted against the proposal, saying that she didn’t like arbitration in general, and that she didn’t think it was necessary because the unions had been negotiating with the city for decades without needing it. Jones said she thought the ordinance was really about the Council’s relationship with the administration instead of a problem with the process, and that she wouldn’t support it.
The one other Councilor who did not support the measure was Brad Winter, although he gave no reasons for his vote.
The ordinance passed on a 5 to 3 vote and will become law if the Mayor doesn’t veto it.
