Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
and
Background
On March 12, 2009, the District advised the Association that it would be
exploring the idea of subcontracting out some of the functions performed by unit
employees, specifically work performed in the transportation, custodial,
maintenance and food service operations. Later in negotiations, the District
advised the Association that grounds work was also being considered for
outsourcing. Requests for Proposal (RFP’s) were received from bidders outlining
the potential savings which could be realized through subcontracting.
1
While Act 88 allows for fact finding if either party requests, the parties chose to utilize private fact finding
because the parties found the 40 day period for the issuance of a fact finding report to be too constraining
given the complexities of this matter.
1
The District’s Fiscal Position
The results of the RFP’s indicate that the District could realize very large
savings, perhaps as much as 15 million dollars for the next three years, if
transportation, maintenance, custodial, grounds work and food service
employees were laid off and outsourced. At first blush, subcontracting presents
a savings option for a District that has little to no money to spare, and a limited
ability to find more.
At the same time, subcontracting can have the obvious impact of the loss
of unit employees. A good number of these workers are citizens and taxpayers
in the District. Therefore, their layoff due to outsourcing would have a negative
ripple effect upon the local economy. Moreover, these employees, many with
long tenure, have served the District well, providing invaluable and essential
service to the District’s children.
Putting aside the direct impact on unit employees and their families,
subcontracting, quite simply, does not always “work.” If the District were to
outsource key operations, it may lose control over the quality of those essential
functions. A subcontractor may hire employees who are unqualified. It may give
those employees low pay and benefits, and limited job protections, resulting in
frequent turnover and poor work product. If this School Board takes the knee
jerk response, in an attempt to appease taxpayers today, of jettisoning its
experienced employees and replacing them with the unknown workers of a
subcontractor, it may find itself in a far worse predicament down the road, and
much explaining to do to its taxpayers, when basic services, needed to support
the education of its children, have been compromised.
2
far better if the parties can reach agreement, allowing the important work of the
District -- the education of its students – to be its focus.
Two critical facts have been revealed. The District is entitled to realize
significant savings in this contract in light of the above. At the same time, it is
unrealistic to expect this unit to bear the total cost of the savings potentially
realized by subcontracting given the wages and benefits of this unit. Savings
should be expected in this collective bargaining agreement, but the District also
needs to also find savings elsewhere.
Rejected scenario #1
Given the problems with subcontracting, and the impact upon the workers,
I first considered a scenario where no subcontracting would be recommended.
However, in order to achieve substantial savings in this contract, cuts would have
to be made across the unit, impacting those employees who are in no danger of
being outsourced.
There are only limited areas where savings can be found: through a
reduction of the labor costs of wages, current employee benefits and retiree
benefits. To achieve significant savings, in exchange for a no-subcontracting
promise, the following would be reasonable: 1) a 5% pay cut across-the-board
each year of the proposed collective bargaining agreement; 2) the Health plan
proposed by the District (Blue Cross Personal Choice C3-F3-01 or comparable
plan along with the proposed dental, vision, and prescription plans); 3) Health
care premium co-shares of 10%, 11%, and 12% starting with the 2010-11 school
year; and 4) retirees going forward would have to pay the same health care co-
shares as the unit, with no retiree benefits for employees hired after July 1, 2010.
It is obvious that this proposed contract would be painful for all unit employees,
and retirees, and it seems inequitable that those employees who are not
threatened with subcontracting should bear such a heavy burden.
3
Recommended scenario #2
Along with job protections in the short term, unit employees should be
granted the right to protect their jobs and benefits in the long term, through
representation of the employees by the Association. In very persuasive court
precedent, which reflects a similar situation to the one before us, a federal court
upheld the decision of the National Labor Relations Board, which found that a
subcontractor was required to recognize the union that had previously
represented the school district’s bus drivers when the sub took over the provision
of school bus transportation. 2 Rulings by the NLRB are dependent upon the
facts of each case, but given the circumstances presented here, this precedent
appears to be applicable and provides a very appealing option. In order for the
District to be fair and equitable to its transportation employees, any outsourcing
contract the District pens with a subcontractor should include job and union
protection guarantees.
2
Dean Transportation, Inc. and NLRB, 551 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2009).
4
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE FACT FINDER
• Article 8: All current retiree benefits remain intact, with the exception, if it
not already the status quo, that retirees be placed on the same health plan
as current employees. Amended to state that no retiree benefits will be
provided to those employees hired after July 1, 2010.
• Appendix B is deleted.
5
3. All hired employees will be entitled to $3,000 of summer
unemployment benefits.
All other contract provisions, not referenced above, will remain the
same as reflected in the 2003-09 agreement.
____________________________
Margaret R. Brogan, Fact Finder