This is of concern as this is not a good agreement. As usual Curt Lee is on top of the issue and has written the following letter to our council. A letter to our council people is in order I would think.

From Curt:
Please see my email to City Council, etc., re the proposed collective bargaining agreement between the IAFF and the City.

Council Members and City officials - I understand that the City via the OGC and the Mayor's office, and the International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 122 (IAFF), have agreed to a proposed collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that involves a no layoff clause, in return for no pay increases (excluding steps and promotions). I ask you to vote against this proposed CBA when it comes to a vote, for these reasons:

(1) There are, I believe, over 1,150 members of the Jax Fire and Rescue Dept (JFRD), and the CBA would lock in the costs there of for 3 years, while there is no guarantee that City revenues will not continue to decline.

(2) My experience in this area is not terribly current, but I would suggest to you that no private business in a declining revenue scenario would agree to such a 3 year labor cost lock in, with a no layoff clause. Yes I know there may be some retirements and other departures likely from JFRD in the next 3 years to somewhat ameliorate the pain that such no layoff guarantee could cause, but it still could hurt.

(3) I challenge anyone to show me any private company that has in the last 5 years entered into a no layoff clause involving a group of employees that make up around 15% of the work force, and that make up an even higher percentage of its total labor cost component. You all know that JFRD employees are on average costlier than the average employee of the City is.

(4) The no layoff clause basically discards an idea that should have been, and should be, considered during the next 3 years - laying off the entire JFRD and substituting for that, a private firm that could provide similar services. Yes this is an innovative idea, but why discard this idea for 3 years? Further, the savings of this idea could be more than you would initially suspect, because a huge savings to adopting this idea would be:

(a) A reduction in contributions to the Police & Fire Pension Plan (PFPF)
(b) A reduction in the unfunded actuarial accrued liability of the PFPF (i.e., the deficit).

If this idea were implemented, the reduction in the unfunded actual accrued liability (UAAL) might be over $100 million. This would greatly help, and thus this idea should be studied.

(5) Anyone who knows a lot about defined benefit plans knows that massive reductions in force greatly improve the financial situations of those plans.

Further, I suggest to you that rejection of the proposed CBA is merited, because the IAFF is unreformed in many ways, as evidenced for example by the letter published in the Times Union on 9/2/12, and authored by Larry Osborne, a VP of the IAFF. In said letter, Mr. Osborne advocates up to a 2 cent increase in sales tax to fund the bloated and excessive PFPF.

Think what that would do to Jacksonville businesses. Many people would buy cars outside of Jacksonville, for example. The Orange Park mall is just outside of Jacksonville - its owners and tenants would just love this idea.

There is nothing legitimate or sacred about the PFPF and the benefits provided thereunder. Police and fire employees in Jax have, historically, retired at approximately the age of 49, on average. The average retiree under the PFPF had an annual pension last year of over $51,000/year. Plus, they all get 3% COLA's, regardless of inflation of the lack thereof. So, thanks to the COLA, the current average PFPF pension approaches $53,000 per year.

This is foolish and unsustainable. And, the proposed CBA would do nothing to correct same.

I therefore suggest to you that, when all such things are considered, that the IAFF must, both as a practical matter, and as a moral matter, be taught a lesson, and that the proposed CBA must be rejected. Then, the parties can resume bargaining, and management (the City) can both get a better deal, and can retain its normal prerogatives, including the right to lay employees off.

Interim (partial) solutions are possible, that as far as I know were not considered. E.g., offer a 1 year no layoff clause, but not a 3 year no layoff clause, just in case property values decline again. Other ideas are possible. It is a matter of writing an agreement with triggers and other protective clauses.

I am not an expert in the American auto industry, but I do know that a large part of the reason it had to be bailed out was due to giving away too much to its unions, in terms of both pensions and restrictions on layoff rights and flexibility.

I am out of town now through Sept 13. Please call me after Sept 14 if you so desire.

I hope that you appreciate my thoughts. Since I am officially a second class citizen in Jacksonville - along with tens of thousands of other Jacksonville residents who are gay and lesbian - I often wonder whether I should bother to give you the benefit of my advice. Bigotry is bad enough, but officially sanctioned and endorsed bigotry is even worse.

Curt Lee, 594 - 6192