Mayor John Cranley today officially unveiled his proposal to offer city union employees raises above those negotiated by city administration, jabbing back at questions from some Cincinnati City Council members about the move.
Joined by local labor leaders as well as a number of elected officials and Democratic candidates for local office and the state legislature, Cranley framed the proposal as a long-overdue effort to make things right for city workers who have seen scant pay increases since the Great Recession.
“For the better part of the last decade, our firefighters, police officers and public servants that plow our streets, pick up the snow and ensure the safety of the water we drink have sacrificed their pay to help the city stay solvent. Our economy has improved, and I’m proud to say our administration has balanced the budget such that two years in a row we’ve had excess of $15 million in surplus. So now is the time to catch up our frontline workers to the cost of living.”
But at least some City Council members still have reservations about the proposal, which would give some 6,000 city employees a five percent raise starting in December, another five percent raise in 2017, and a four percent raise in 2018. Among concerns: that Cranley’s move circumvents traditional collective bargaining procedures, that it could cause cuts in other areas in future city budgets and that it is a political maneuver.
The mayor’s ordinance, which will go before Council when it reconvenes next month, could put Democrat Councilmembers in a tough spot. Organized labor has been a big supporter of local Democrats, and Council critics of the mayor’s plan have been careful to stress they support its end goal.
Democrat Councilman Seelbach said he “unequivocally” supports and believes that city workers deserve higher wages before launching into his reservations about Cranley’s plan in a video response posted to social media following the news conference.
Some union leaders aren’t happy about the hesitation, however.
“The choice for city council couldn’t be more clear,” Pete McLinden, executive secretary-treasurer for Cincinnati’s AFL-CIO. “Is it more important for you personally to attack our mayor and his leadership? Is it more important to play politics? Or is it more important to stand up for your workforce, which makes this city great? The time for talk is over. We need action.”
While the first pay bump can be covered by a budget surplus, the additional pay bumps over the next two years in the proposal could send the city into $5.5 million and $7 million deficits respectively, City Budget Director Chris Bingham told Council last week.
“We deserve to hear what he wants to cut,” Seelbach said of the projected deficits.
In addition to questions about where that money will come from, Democrat Council members like Seelbach and P.G. Sittenfeld also have reservations about the process used to give employees pay raises. Firefighters and AFSCME employees already negotiated a raise with city administration earlier this year, and the FOP was in the negotiating process when Cranley first tipped his hand about his proposal last week.
Raises for city workers are “the right thing to do,” Sittenfeld said in a statement posted to social media before the news conference, but added a caveat that echoed Seelbach’s concerns.
“Doing the right thing, of course, also means doing it thoughtfully and thoroughly. What I’d like to see get sorted out is the following:
A) Resolve how having politicians intervening in the middle of contract negotiations could potentially undermine collective bargaining in the future in a way that could hurt workers. This must be avoided.
B) Hear what service cuts the mayor is suggesting as part of his proposal so as to still maintain a structurally balanced budget. I personally will not sign off on gutting important city functions or threatening any of our employees with pink slips.”
Additional questions have arisen about whether the unconventional arrangement is legal under Ohio law. Some on Council pointed out earlier this week that move could violate a 2004 decision by the Ohio Employment Relations Board slapping down a union in North Olmstead for reaching out directly to its city council instead of going through the standard bargaining process. Cincinnati City Solicitor Paula Boggs Muething earlier this week issued an opinion saying the move appears to be in compliance with state law and the city’s charter.
Yesterday, City Manager Harry Black, who has also expressed reservations with Cranley’s proposal, pointedly responded to a question from Council about the move’s legality by saying that Muething’s advice was “an opinion, and I would treat it as such.”
Last week, City Councilman Wendell Young, a Democrat and former Cincinnati police officer, called the plan a political ploy by Cranley to win support from unions as he looks ahead to his 2017 reelection bid. Young said the move displayed Cranley’s “willingness to pander” in order to gain political support and votes.
Union leaders at today’s news conference pushed back against that assertion.
“I guess sometimes doing the right thing can be political,” FOP President Dan Hils said. “They can be one and the same. If someone gains politically by doing the right thing, that’s the way this system was made to be. That’s what I think is happening here — nothing more nefarious than that. We very much appreciate that it’s been noticed by the community and by our leaders that we’re due for a pay raise.”
This article appears in Aug 3-10, 2016.
