Editorial: Deja vu on arbitration

So if you want to do away with binding arbitration for public safety what alternative will they have when council members life Sharff strip away what ever they feel like. And if public safety can't strike, then why don't we make it so no one can strike, that would be fair. At least we would be on an even playing field.

The answer here is to make common sense changes to limit the items that can be arbitrated and limit the power of the arbitrator not remove it all together.

It's not the Council's fault they find themselves in the same place one year later. They didn't receive any information on the issue until last month. Nothing for 10 months, not their fualt.

Any elected official who supports binding arbitration by an unelected, unknown third party is failing in his/her responsibility to the citizens whom she/he has sworn to serve.

This is exactly how binding arbitration can doom a city:

"An arbitrator's decision is expected any day.

If the arbitrator voids the city's (Stockton) declaration or imposes a compromise the city cannot afford, and unions continue to resist, the city will face "two equally unacceptable options."

It must either slash 253 positions or declare bankruptcy."

Web Link

The answer is to put binding arbitration on the ballot. If the ff's don't like it, they can try to find another job. Same option the rest of us have. They won't be able to find another job where they are paid nearly as well. Not to mention the ridiculouly lucrative benefits and pension. Not to mention all the time off etc.

I will campaign against any council member who opposes putting binding arbitration on the ballot.

Did you notice that Spitaleri of the Firefighter's Union is not asking for an arbitrator anymore, he is now requesting a mediator!!! Is that a slight of tongue? Is a mediator legally binding? Or is this some privately negotiated compromise?

Since the city council apparently can't decide on this issue, please put it on the ballot so that we citizens can decide! For what it is worth, I agree with Palo Alto Online that this binding arbitration provision is a total outrage and must be removed! The fire fighter's union, in particular, needs to be put under control.

Frankly, I think we Palo Altans need to make sure we never elect Gail Price again.

I see a lot of people singling out the firefighters and, honestly, I can't blame you. The question I have is, can we repeal arbitration for just the firefighters and leave the police alone or maybe just tweak it for the police? Maybe I missed something, but it seems like they have at least tried to play nice and make compromises when asked.

I too want to reign in overpayment of public employees and getting rid of binding arbitration is step #1.

That said, I do agree with Bob that the police have been a lot more reasonable over the years than the firefighters, and do a much more hazardous and valuable job (firefighting has grown into a much safer and easier profession over the years, police work has not, yet FF pay has not taken this into account). I don't think the police will suffer, though, if binding arbitration is removed. The public is not outraged at them, as they are the firefighters. Spitaleri and the union made this mess with their militancy and hubris (measure R), and are about to reap the backlash.

This isn't a even vote to repeal binding arbitration, it's a vote to allow taxpayers to consider repealing binding arbitration.

Why on earth would any organization want to limit its own options for balancing its budget? Can you imagine the management of a public company actively fighting to prevent itself from being able make its own decisions that affect the financial well being of the company? Of course not, as they would be fired and sued for breach of fiduciary duty.

Several members of the City Council are fighting to keep arbitration. It is their way of paying back the Fire-fighter's Union who contributed generously to their election campaigns. They are obviously hoping for contributions in the future for their re-election campaigns!!!

Arbitration is here to stay unless those Council members can be voted out of office.

Taxpayer is unfortunately correct. A good portion of our city "leaders" have been bought and paid for by Spitaleri and the public unions. They will put the good of this special interest group before the good of the city. The cycle has to be broken.

Arbitration has been used 3 times in 33 years, please show me how this fact has handcuffed the City? I don't see any awarded wage formulas or rules which have precluded the City from reaching an agreement on contract talks?
The City Councils like to blame arbitration it seems when the facts show THEY agreed to past and present contracts.
Palo Alto is not paying it's police and firefighters anymore money than other cities in the area who don't have binding arbitration, they all make about exactly the same give or take a few dollars.

All the ff's in "other cities in the area" are overpaid and underworked also. The unions used the "Domino Method" and we got suckered2H1AY. Fortunately we are wiser and more engaged now. Time for:
1.) 30+% pay decreases till we get close to the national average
2.) no retirement pay out till 65
3.) cap payout at 50% of max salary (and no more faked injuries to escape paying income taxes)
4.) switch from defined benefit to defined contribution

If it's so seldom used, then it shouldn't be missed. Why so much fear over letting the people decide whether to get rid of it then.

The threat of binding arbitration (which contains several anti-market provisions such as the state of city finances cannot be examined) is enough to compel the city to overpay the unions, and helped get us into this mess.

Unemployment in this state is north of 12%. Firefighters averaging 170K in total compensation is a giant waste of city wealth. Continuing to allow them to stay on the city books(in the form of defined benefit pensions that will be paid by our children) is madness. The public has had enough union giveaways by bought and paid for politicians. Price and the others who have sold out the city need to be voted our or recalled.

To City Council- you have had a year to think about this. Time is up. Put binding arbitration on the Nov 2011 ballot NOW! Were are ready to vote.