.
.
.
The newest lawsuit brought by the “beleaguered” employees of Costa Mesa is just another in a long train of selfish lawsuits brought by public unions in a continuing effort to protect their fiefdoms. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to do the unthinkable – SAVE ITS CONTITUENTS’ MONEY – by reducing public payroll, benefit and pension obligations by outsourcing about 200 public jobs. Because the collective bargaining agreement required the City to give employees six months notice before eliminating public jobs, the City issued pink slips to about 200 employees to give the City the flexibility to outsource during 2011. In the event that the City Council determines that outsourcing the jobs is not its best option, the pink slips can be withdrawn at any time. Evidently viewing their jobs as permanent entitlements the public employees first howled at the moon and then sought an injunction to stop the City from having the ability to decide to save the taxpayers money. The suit is simply an effort by the public unions to protect its fiefdom all funded by tax payer dollars. This action in Costa Mesa followed closely on the heals of the OC Sheriff employees “successful” defense of its unconscionable pension plan that allows double dipping and all sorts of other fun. Unfortunately, it is the tax payer left holding the bag every time.
I am not sure who has the most courage – local agencies willing to stand up and say “no” to demands that exceed value and fairness to the taxpayer, or the legislature enacting laws that require fiscal responsibility in public employee contracts. Unfortunately I do not have a whole lot of faith in either. I am afraid that it is going to take a genuine taxpayer revolt to undo the damage wrought by the public union bosses out for their own greed. I just hope it happens while California is still clinging to some small amount of solvency.
This post has now been picked up by the public policy web site Pension Tsunami. If you would like to look at other pension issues threatening California’s solvency, take a look at http://pensiontsunami.com/
Wow Geoff, way to give context. Are you this sloppy in your day job?
Costa Mesa Employees File Suit to Stop Layoffs
Costa Mesa employees have asked an Orange County Superior Court judge to order the Costa Mesa City Council to do what they can’t get it to do on its own: rescind more than 200 pink slips.
In a request filed Monday for a temporary restraining order, the Costa Mesa Employees’ Association argues that the city’s outsourcing plan, which so far has included the issuing notices of possible layoffs to 200 employees, violates both state law and their contract, which runs through 2013.
“The city did not have the legal authority to take this action,” said Nick Berardino, general manager of the Orange County Employees Association, which represents the CMEA in contract issues.
City officials declined comment.
“The city attorney’s office has not seen the complaint,” said Bill Lobdell, interim communications spokesman for Costa Mesa. “Once the attorneys can review it, the city will have a response.”
— NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
Or, just link to my story from yesterday; after all I’m the one who brought in the word “beleaguered.\,” and this is Geoff’s response to it.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/05/costa-mesas-beleaguered-employees-fight-back-in-court/
Good to see anonster and anon weighing in on a local story though! If I can make the time, I’ll question some of Geoff’s “facts.”
Anonster, your post is so muddled I can’t tell the point other than to attack me. In my first sentence I state that “[t]he newest lawsuit brought by the “beleaguered” employees of Costa Mesa is just another in a long train of selfish lawsuits brought by public unions in a continuing effort to protect their fiefdoms.” Which is, without the adjectives, pretty much the same thing that you describe in quoting Mr. Santana – the City would like to save the taxpayers money by outsourcing jobs and the public union wants to protect its fiefdom and prevent the City from saving money.
You know my day job so you feel free to attack away while you hide behind the cloak of anonymity.
Sorry Geoff, my bad, I mistook your brain-fart for a post.
Stay classy as always Anonster.
“the legislature enacting laws that require fiscal responsibility in public employee contracts.”
You have the wrong state Geoff. The last time that happened here was … well, I have no idea.
“.. the Costa Mesa Employees’ Association argues that the city’s outsourcing plan .. violates both state law and their contract,”
What is the basis in law and the contract on which the OCEA makes the claim of the City’s violations?
The employees argument is technical and basically says that for a “General Law” City (like Costa Mesa, as opposed to a “Charter” City like LA) outsourcing is only allowed in very narrow circumstances that do not apply here. I have not looked at the validity of the claim, merely noting another example of public unions doing everything in their power to maintain a fiefdom. If the public employees are correct, outsourcing could still be allowed if the City adopted a charter (which I am sure the unions would pore huge dollars into trying to defeat) or a change in legislation (ditto).
“I have not looked at the validity of the claim…”
No, of course not…better to push an ideology before becoming informed.
The validity of the claim is irrelevant to the post. The point is that unions are going to do everything that they can to maintain their fiefdoms and that it will either take a concentrated effort of public agencies to develop enforceable strategies to control runaway public employee costs or legislative action to allow cities to take action in simpler ways.
Right. Whether or not the City is doing anything contrary to the law or contractual obligations is irrelevant. That’s the sort of thinking that leads you to MOST of your conclusions.
But you will take everything the union says as gospel anon – no contradiction or ideology there, right?
Show me where I said that. Show me where I said the union was right. But then, it’s easier to say that about me than about the author of this post and HIS failure to become fully informed before spouting off…would you care to address that? I didn’t think so.
See Geoff, adding a little context wasn’t so hard, now admitting it, thaaat’s hard!
Great work Geoff.
Like most cities in California, Costa Mesa is not a charter cuty, but if it were…
But it’s not.
So the unions are insisting that the city follow the law and honor contracts, and asking a court to agree with them.
So you are celebrating that council members in Costa Mesa have the moral courage to proceed against the advice of their attorney, and really hope that a judge will be equally contemptuous of the law.
Oh, and there is no evidence that outsourcing will save a dime.
Just magical thinking.
“The validity of the claim is irrelevant to the post.”
Be that as it may, the validity of the union’s claims are relevant to the City’s position. I think that the union thugs are blowing smoke – again.
From the Brown Act:
“.. advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter.”
Please explain to me exactly how the CM council is violating the Brown Act.
What Costa Mesa’s city council needs to do is reduce the pay of the safety employees by 35%, reduce the pay of all other employees by 25%, make an employer contribution into the employee’s pension plans of no more than 10% of pay (for safety) and 6.25% of pay (for everyone else) – collecting the rest via payroll withholding, and require a 50% employee contribution to all medical benefit premiums.
This would balance the budget, avoid layoffs, and possibly generate surpluses that could be used to retire debt.
Doing this would also focus the priorities of the unions onto how they might advocate public policies that lower the cost of living through deregulation combined with fiscally responsible welfare and immigration reforms.
Well, we can dream, can’t we?
It’s a nice dream Jack, but total fantasy when it comes to getting the unions to actually agree to any of it.
What a bunch of senseless drivel……..
The legality of completley laying off an entire municipal work force without proper open meetings, studies, or alternatives and in breach of existing right to work contracts negotiated in good faith by publicly elected officials is at issue here.
All driven by a idealogical political agenda at the expense of the residents……but spin it however you wish,………..
Geoff Willis belongs over at Red County…..and Costa Mesa should never again be referred to as a “Rule of Law” city as long as these charlatans are running the carnival.
Geoff Willis belongs over at Red County
No, Gericault. We need him here where we can keep an eye on him.
“The legality of completley laying off an entire municipal work force without proper open meetings, studies, or alternatives and in breach of existing right to work contracts negotiated in good faith by publicly elected officials is at issue here.”
Three points. First, your flair for the dramatic aside, it is not the entire municipal workforce that is being laid off. The city is trying to see if it can outsource any of its work to mitigate the crushing public employee benefits that are threatening most of California’s public agencies. While they have issued notices to over half of the staff, not a single employee has been terminated. Second, to my knowledge, no lawsuit has been filed on the alleged Brown Act violations by the ad hoc committee, so it has nothing to do with the union’s challenge to the outsourcing (I’m happy to retract if that’s incorrect). Third, your conclusion that the contracts have been breached without any evidence other than apparently towing the union line (by the way, the unions lost their recent TRO) shows that you don’t really care about discussing the merits but you’re more concerned with simply attacking Geoff.
“All driven by a idealogical political agenda at the expense of the residents”
Two points – first, the unions are equally driven by a political agenda, only theirs seeks to continue to suck more and more resources from the public, at the expense of other areas that the public agency is responsible for. Second, you say the possible pink slips (the city only had to issue them now because the union required 6 months notice before anyone can be laid off) are at the expense of the residents with absolutely no evidence, while ignoring the fact several south county cities have contracted out many of their departments and services, with no noticeable effect on service.
Way to distract from the real arguments without petty little things like facts getting in your way gericault. The City Attorney has opined that the City is acting legally and the unions claim the reverse and a court will determine whose right. Maybe your used to slamming your fist down and getting your way at home but that isn’t the way a republic works. “at the expense of the residents?” Hardly. More like to the benefit of the residents and at the expense of the bloated selfish union. Nice to see liberal tolerance at work in trying to have me banished. You know what William Buckley said: “there is nothing so intolerant as a liberal preaching tolerance.”
Speaking of the City Attorney telling his bosses that what they’re doing is OK – after being quickly hired to replaced a FIRED attorney who opined the opposite…
Shades of Bush and Cheney, getting the intelligence they wanted to go into Iraq, and the legal opinions they wanted to torture. And firing brave General Shinseki, who accurately predicted how many troops Iraq would require, and firing brave Lawrence Lindsay, who accurately warned how much the Iraq adventure would cost…
Just sayin’. Same logic. Costa Mesa council got the opinion they paid for. That really holds water for ya?
(or should i say “for YOO?”)
Right-o mate! He puts the “dumb” in fiefdom.
Thanks for bringing such wit and valuable posts to the Juice.
The unions are suing the cities to enforce their wills on the treasuries.
How did these council members get elected in the first place, and who’s choice was it to hire the management teams?
The city managements and city employees are a team, so are the city council members and their union campaign buddies. Look at your archive records, these 4 groups have stood side by side with big smiles on their faces at every election, etc.. Life has been very very good to these people.
For years and years these teams have been feasting off of the local taxpayers, threatening loss of local services if the masses did not give in to increasing tax burdens.
But now that the broken economy has dried up their fortunes.
The taxpayers have all ready been tossed under the bus, a necessary evil to protect the good deal for the 4 horses of the government people.
The cities are dieing under the massive weight of their good deal, and the evidence of this is the fact that the 4 horses of government are now attacking each other, with the front line employees being the first under the bus.