Editorial: Firefighters' sweet deal a bitter pill for San Jose

ARBITRATOR ENSURES POLICE WILL TRY FOR EVEN BETTER PACT

Mercury News Editorial

San Jose Mercury News Article Launched: 08/15/2007 01:35:25 AM PDT

Negotiations with public safety employees have become a costly battle of leapfrog on taxpayers' aching backs. A concession won by one union becomes another union's demand and evidence for future binding arbitration, levering costs upward without regard to fiscal burdens or a need to attract and retain employees.

Two key pieces of the arbitrator's decision last week favoring San Jose's firefighters illustrate the problem. One, an annual 2 percent raise for anti-terrorism training, is an added pay increase masquerading as a public benefit. The other, a change in the retirement formula, will provide an incentive for firefighters to retire early, at significant public expense.

After five years of cuts to the beleaguered city budget, the two changes combined will put San Jose an additional $4 million to $5 million in the hole. This should force Mayor Chuck Reed and city council members to take a hard look at retirement costs and other benefits for all city workers, not just those of police and firefighters. The city's elected leaders cannot continue to put off the hard decisions.

Last week, many council members squirmed when Reed raised the idea of taking a look at the city's generous lifetime health benefits for retirees and family members. That was before Friday's announcement of an arbitrator's decision on terms of the new firefighters' contract. The likely result, if nothing else is done, is further reductions in such services as libraries and parks.

The automatic 2 percent raise for anti-terror training is troublesome because of its history. In their last contract, firefighters negotiated more money than the police union got, which ticked off the police union. So in the months following Sept. 11, Mayor Ron Gonzales and the city council used the war on terror as a pretext to bump up police pay an additional 5 percent, for anti-terrorism training pay, to create pay parity. It was a bad precedent. Firefighters, in turn, demanded the same benefit and will get it even though, according to the city, firefighters receive only 90 minutes of online disaster response training annually.

We believe public safety workers should be well-paid and well-trained, and they are in San Jose. Training, however, should be seen as part of their everyday job - not an extra reward.

The change in the retirement formula will not only cost more money, but also make it harder for the city to negotiate future contracts without going to binding arbitration. That's because the arbitrator gave to the firefighters a sweeter deal than the police had settled for in earlier negotiations with the city. The police had made a conciliatory gesture to save the city millions of dollars in avoided pension costs. The new message to the police union: Play hardball, and you'll get more. Not wanting to be seen as chumps, the police already have announced they'll seek what the firefighters got.

The spiral will continue.

Binding arbitration always involves risks. It turns control over spending to an outsider without a stake in, or understanding of, the city's overall budget. The arbitrator in this case didn't give enough weight to the city's tough times or to the job market. A better retirement package for early retirees isn't needed to maintain a quality workforce; there are already 100 applicants for every firefighting opening in San Jose.

An arbitrator can choose to ignore the city's economic reality. To keep faith with voters, Reed and the city council must not.