Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting Alameda Rank-and-File Employees Post a Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) Supreme Court Decision.  (Councilmember Oddie)
Consider adoption resolution supporting Almeida Rank and file employees post a Janice versus American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Supreme Court and the sign was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Odie. So briefly. It's going to be recognized. Sorry. Sorry. So briefly, I think that the clerk described the referral, and the referral is to actually adopt the resolution that's attached, and that's reinforcing our continued cooperation with all of our public sector unions and supporting the freedom of them to collectively bargain post a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Janus . And I think everyone knows that that that decision is imminent. It could come down any day now. And this resolution is just to make sure that our workers rights are respected and that any communication related to this and their their rights and any changes of that, and that they don't have that information come from management, that they're able to have it come from their bargaining units, and that that can be done, you know, with release time. So I'm sure our speakers will talk more in detail on some of the intricacies about it. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers now. And I'm not sure which order who wanted to go first. I have Al Fortier with IBEW 1245 and I also have Josie come and watch the sorry Camacho. Whoever wants to go first. And if you could identify yourself, that'd be great. Thanks. And looks like now it's. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm now 48. I'm the business representative for IBEW Local 1245. I represent the electrical workers that work for Alameda Municipal Power. I have a 20 year relationship approximately with the city of Alameda, 11 years as an employee, as a journeyman lineman, and eight years as the business representative representing the electrical workers. Like I said, I rise in support of nine. See the resolution that supports the Alameda rank and file employees post Janice versus me Supreme Court decision as you guys have seen in the resolution. The whereas is highlight the many benefits of working families who are union members. Many of our members are Alameda INS who have benefitted from the relationship between our union and app. They benefit not only from the good wages and benefits that we provide, but also from the training, joint training between the union and app and also the joint safety programs that are provided. Our electrical workers have gone through the apprenticeship program, as I said, at and we have a number of them who are Alameda INS. One of our earlier speakers talked about the need to attract high tech in order to provide good jobs for folks who can live in Alameda affordably. But I would submit that our relationship with AMP has already provided a model for training through their apprenticeship programs that would provide good jobs. And the union in the city has worked hand in hand for decades and both our parties to the IMO you that covers our agreement for working conditions for providing city services to the citizens of Alameda. The provisions of our agreement are put in jeopardy by the Janice versus Asman decision. Particularly, we have agency shop language that governs our dues collections. We also have a provision of our contract. As you may know, the separate severability provision which requires us to meet and confer over items of our MRU that become or become deemed illegal, which this likely would as a result of. Janice So I believe that the resolution reinforces the right to meet and confer the rights for union members and workers to have a voice. And I don't think it does anything or says anything that would not otherwise take place statutorily between the union and the city of Alameda . I think it does reinforce, though, that it is important to maintain a good and vibrant working relationship. I mean, that's you know, we have. Thank you. Next speaker, jose, also. I'm sorry. We have a strict time limit. I'm sorry. We just do appreciate it, Jose. You know. Thank you all. Jose Camacho. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I am the Executive. Secretary Treasurer of the. Alameda Labor Council. We proudly represent 132 local affiliated unions, 135,000 union members throughout Alameda County in support of supporting. Our public sector unions. Under the direction of the Trump administration, there have been nothing but attacks on a national scale and international scale. And this is one of those bullets that starting to hit home, we feel, in light of the MeToo movement, you know, now women more than ever are speaking out and being heard. And sexual harassment and abuse is no longer tolerated and never should have been. But now it's taken a movement to fight that. The other is. The civil rights. Movement. The Trump administration is trying to turn its back 40 years from what we have fought for this very day. My parents came from the island of Guam. There were ten of us and worked really hard during World War Two when the call was made to the people of the islands. But living here in Alameda County in Oakland at the time, there was so much racism that we faced just merely because of who we were and what we looked like. And now today we have the attack against unions. And I will say proudly that in Alameda County. AC Transit last week voted to support its public sector workers. Alameda County Board of Supervisors. This morning unanimously voted to support its public sector workers. The city of Emeryville Unified School District and Berkeley and other jurisdictions. Have it. On their agenda. Coming up with the Port Commission, with city of Oakland, city of Hayward, Berkeley, and other school districts and public entities. And tonight I am asking those of you that are elected leaders, that are public. Employers, that. Have public employees to support this resolution, it would simply mean that in light of the eminent decision from Janice, that you will stand with your public sector workers and allow the continuation of collective bargaining, allow the continuation of people, workers to have a voice, and allow the continuation. Through that voice to. Exercise raising of standards in terms of wages, benefits and working conditions. We have been in conversations with our public employers. They have been very receptive, were willing as labor. Thank you very much, Mayor. I got you before you got me. I know. I don't know. If I should say goodnight or good morning, but. Thank you. Yeah, it's 1130. Almost here. All right. Remember matter. S.E.. I'm. I think the the timing of this is is apropos as far as the whereas as I on the resolution, I don't have any issue at all with that. The city has used collective bargaining in good faith negotiations to provide us with a good framework for our behavior. And I think it should be continued. I think when it gets to the further resolved in our direction to staff, because there will be impacts on how we as employers have to change. I think it's important that the direction is not as is written here, but to make sure that we are prepared to address the changes in the law should this ruling comes down as expected. So I think that's the first point that should be addressed and in which staff our staff should do. I think our Council I, I am standing for this, but. I think our council is willing to stand for it as well. But as far as the implementation of membership cards, our staff really isn't isn't directly involved in that. But I think what we have to provide is the assurance that we're going to continue operating under the model or the standards that are set in collective part, the principle of collective bargaining and the principle of good faith negotiations and . I'm trusting that staff and I think our direction should be that staff will engage. As far as we know, we're going to have to react with with the union representatives so that and the association representatives so that we're all on the same page in maintaining, again, the principles that are established in collective bargaining and in good faith negotiations, which I think, again, is it's a standard that served the city well. Amber Ashcraft Thank you, Mary Spencer and thank you to Mr. 14 Ms.. Camacho for coming and staying till all hours to address us. This is an important issue, and I will quickly add that my father was the president of his union, and it was a large union in San Francisco. And I very much believe in union principles and the value and good work that unions do. And I also agree with councilmember matter. I have no problem with any of the warehouses. I think the one that talked about union membership declining in Wisconsin. Had there been enough time, could probably also have added in union members or former members are suffering and even having to go on public assistance as a result of some of the lack of collective bargaining. I'm also, though, mindful of what my colleague, Councilmember Odie, reminded us earlier in this meeting, that the council must be careful not to direct staff, not to step out of our lane, if you will, on things that are not within our purview. And so I would would favor this, and I could support this resolution if the further resolved language is modified to give it to staff, to come quickly back to us to draft language, that that reinforces our commitment to union membership, collective bargaining. All of the wonderful programs that benefit our workers and our community because we want people to be able to to live and support their families. But I, I am hesitant to a to for the Council to urge appropriate staff because we have three direct reports in there the city manager, the city clerk and the city attorney, and also the way that the specif specific directives are worded. I would just hand it back to staff to make sure that we stay within the appropriate legal framework. And and I believe that's something that they're able to do. I believe they are vice mayor. So I actually think that. To remove any of the further resolved language is to completely undermine the spirit of what this resolution is trying to achieve. I guess my question is and by the way, Emeryville unanimously adopted this exact resolution tonight. Alameda County adopted unanimously this exact resolution tonight. San Francisco adopted this resolution back in March. It's being heard in a number of different jurisdictions. I don't quite understand how this is interfering with staff. Ask them specifically to engage in good faith discussions around implementing membership cards in release time. All that saying is essentially to say that, well, we're going to continue to engage in the status quo, but we're also going to work with the new law as well. The new law is going to create a number of different issues that, frankly, our staff is going to have a hard time figuring out. And part of it has to do with when. In the year of this protest. This decision is coming out. It's coming out at the end of the fiscal year. So. I think that there could be a lot of issues from a staff perspective, frankly, by not having something in place for what the process is. And I'm not sure. I mean, is it our hope that we engage in bad faith? I just I don't understand that. Also, outside of California, this language has been adopted in a number of different cities. Columbus, Ohio. Chicago, Illinois. El Paso, Texas. Saint Louis, Missouri. Baltimore, Maryland. Nashville, Tennessee. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Durham, North Carolina. So I think it's all fine and dandy to say we believe generally and we're we're going to accept the warehouses. But when it comes to actually giving direction to engage in good faith discussions, we're not going to direct our staff to do that . I find that to be troubling and not in line with at least my values. And certainly I think. When we're talking about the intent of our own staff, my sense has been that their intent is to engage in good faith discussions around this issue and what could potentially come up and to also adhere to the current contract language which, as Mr. Fortier stated, is in line with those exact provisions. So in many ways I think that this is something that we should all be voting on. I think it's imperative that we enact it tonight. And I don't know why we have to rewrite something that so many other jurisdictions who represent similar workers with similar charter provisions have already enacted. So I'm ready to support this as written tonight, and I think that we can't wait on it because this decision is imminent. So I'd like to speak. Well, actually, remember already that you want to speak next. I'm happy to let member already speak. Trying though next. And then I'll hear what you have to say. So, I mean, just a comment on some of the comments. I mean, the first resolved clause is basically a value statement. It says that we support the freedom of all employees to exercise their right to voice and dignity on the job through joining together in strong unions. I mean, there's no prescription of how to bargain, you know, not what what to say. You know, there's nothing related to any ongoing negotiations. And I will say that, you know, a lot of those cities that the vice mayor mentioned had adopted this while they were negotiating new contracts and extending contracts. So I don't I don't see where that's an issue because it hasn't been an issue before. And then so the first resolved, I think, is just a clear value statement, and I don't know why there would be an issue with that one. And the second one, and look at what, you know, we're actually doing. You know, we're urging our staff to work with our labor unions. So that is basically, you know, bargaining in good faith. So if you chunk that up, work with the unions, I don't see how that's a problem, especially given that that probably is one of our requirements now for our current contract. So post the Janice decision to cooperate to mitigate impacts but doesn't say how to mitigate those impacts. It doesn't say exactly what to do to mitigate those impacts. It doesn't prescribe any behavior. It just as we're going to sit down in a room together in good faith and cooperate to mitigate those impacts, and actually that's the actual behavior that it's prescribing is good faith discussions. So it's not saying that that those good faith discussions have to result in A, B or C, and it just gives some framework around what those discussions should be. Membership cards and release time and explaining the negative decision. So I'm at a loss to see where it's being very prescriptive and it's where it's interfering with any ongoing negotiations. But, you know, feel free to enlighten me. So I'd like to speak. I haven't had a chance to speak yet, so I'm going to go ahead and everyone else is talking about their connections to unions. So my dad was a part of the Department of Water and Power for many, many years and retired from that. So I don't have a problem with unions. And in fact, you know, I have supported many of our employee unions here in town. That being said, we have this other thing that I think is unique to the city of Alameda, maybe is our city charter. Our city charter is very clear that the council hires the city manager, the city attorney and the clerk, period. And then the city manager, for instance, here, would work with the employees. And I don't. To me, it's very clear. I think we have just had a huge investigation about what is our lane and what is not our lane. At the end of the day, our city ended up paying $900,000 to resolve this issue. I think it's very troubling from my perspective. I try to stay in my lane. I think my lane is that I hire the city manager, council hires the city manager, and then the city manager works with the employees union or not. But our charter is very clear. We give direction to the city. Actually, we hire the city manager. The city manager then would implement any i'm working with h.r. My opinion of how this works is that then they renegotiate contracts. If there's an issue, staff can come to us and let us know otherwise. H.R. handles that. I don't think it's appropriate for our charter for us to be touching directing. I think it either goes through negotiations which is coming up or we're in negotiations already. I think that's appropriate when it goes to negotiations and we go back and forth and then we address this issue there. I'm comfortable with saying, you know, just a broad statement, but not in regards to directing the city manager of how she or he would implement our employee contracts and work with that. I think that's out of our lane. And so I and I think it is because we have, you know, these other entities, they don't have our city charter. Most places I know do not have our city charter. I think, in fact, we've just gone through this in regards to other councils can get involved in hiring of other employees. We cannot. And so I'm going to I think my position is I'm going to honor our city charter. I don't plan to support the second one because of our city charter, I think. And I want to honor that. And I honestly, I think we've just been spent the last I don't know how many months on staying in our lanes. And so I plan to honor that and not go not try to dance around it and maybe end up where it's safe or not safe. So I think it's appropriate that it goes through negotiations on this issue. I'm happy to address the for the warehouses and support that and the first resolved and maybe some general principle of that we support. And but honestly, I'm confident that we do operate with good faith all the time. So I would not want to make any statement that would suggest that we don't do that already. Member matter. I'd like to propose a motion. I move the resolution with the amendment to the further resolved statement that will read that the city that the Alameda City Council urges the city manager and appropriate staff to work with the public sector unions at the City of Allen at the City of Alameda Post a Janice versus me Supreme Court case. I cooperating to mitigate impacts. And by engaging in good faith discussions around. Around. I'm sorry. Good faith discussions. To explain and mitigate the negative implications of the Janisse decision. Question. I know. Can I? All right, let me do member Ashcraft and then vice mayor. I was I might be able to support that. What I was going to ask, though, was if staff because I saw city attorney and acting city manager maybe furiously scribbling. Have you possibly come up with any suggested language? Well, I mean. Obviously, the city city manager can speak for herself, but we were trying to figure out a way to potentially modify this, I guess, from my own personal perspective. We could come back on the 19th, which is very quickly. I mean, I understand that a couple of the council members think that's too late, but we could come back on the 19th. We can try to wordsmith it. Now, what we're concerned about is what you've said. We are in negotiations with bargaining units now. And so we want to be careful not to get too specific. But I think we want to definitely we hear all of the council members being supportive of wanting to say that, yes, we we want to continue to have good relationships with our unions, that you are making a statement. I heard some of you say that we're going to continue on to be supportive of collective bargaining standards. We're going to do good faith negotiations. I think some of the things that I had heard before had to do with making sure that it was clear that the impacts of this decision, which has not yet been delivered, and be reminded, we want to make sure that the union representatives have the ability to convey what they think it means to their rank and file as opposed to just the employees. I mean, we could add a couple of things like that, take out some of the specificity. We could try to just what council member Matt, R-S.C., was just trying to suggest as a way to try to modify this. I'm not sure that gets at the more positive aspects. I mean, one of the ways I suppose we could do it is we could even just put a period after engaging in good faith. Discussions period. That kind of takes out some of this more specific type thing. But if there's time, the best way to do this would be to let us come back on the 19th. But if you don't want to do that, we can try to sit here and wordsmith this. Member Ashcraft Can I say. Okay. I do want to come back to media, but if the vice mayor wants to. Vice Mayor and the member Ashcraft. So I just feel like we're trying to wordsmith something that really doesn't need to be wordsmith. If we're going to say that, we're going to engage in good faith discussions around, you know, around this. What specifically has to deal with is implementing membership cards in release time, because I don't know how we're going to engage in good faith discussions if we don't have release time. And, you know, as to the fact that we're negotiating contracts right now, those are future contracts. This is we have current contract that are still in effect and they're going to be in effect until December. And this has to do with an impact that's going to come into effect potentially right away. So it's in our own best interests to sit down and figure out, do we. Are we going to require a new membership card, all of those sort of details. How do we want to streamline it if people you know, how are we going to actually implement this? And from an implementation standpoint, I would think that we would want to do this and we already do it. So I guess I kind of disagree with the fact that this is somehow impacting bargaining because this is about an existing contract, not a future one. And I also, in terms of staying in our lane and what we're supposed to do as a council, we also give direction relative to the general values and policies that we're enacting relative to our staff and our employees. And so this isn't a department head position where we're directing somebody be hired. This is about taking a policy stance. So. I just I think that we either adopt it as written or we don't adopt it because otherwise we're just making a statement that really is meaningless. That's not going to do anything. And I think that there's a lot of people professing to care about certain things. But then when it comes about actually taking a stand and saying, this is what our policy is going to be, people seem to be backing off from that. So I'd like to I'd like to adopt it as written. And and do that tonight. So we have emotion already still. I'm still I appreciate that. But she, I think, might have been close to. My that was in a second. So I wasn't sure what to do with the vice mayor's comments. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Well so so let me confirm that because member matter he had made a motion. Okay. And I don't think my clock should be ticking down when I'm trying to organize this. That's true. Right. Sorry about that. So I'm just trying to find it. So member matter. You had emotion. Did anyone want to second that or is that dying? Natural death? Okay. I don't hear. Is like a substitute. I do a. Substitution. I had my hand up. And I appreciate that. Actually, I think vice mayor came very close to making a motion. But that was because I ceded the floor to her and I would like to finish my remarks. Mayor Spencer. I'll go to so. So we have finished the motion from member matter and then I'll just go ahead to Nebraska. This is what I would suggest. And it is not too far off from what Councilmember Matariki said, but and I would also just remind us all that reasonable minds can differ and we can still feel very strongly about our values in supporting a union labor. But I'm trying to to take away a little of the specificity and it's minor, but I would say the second further resolve that the City Council urges the city manager and probably acting city manager and appropriate staff to work with the Public Sector Unions Act. The City of Alameda Post a Janice versus ask me Supreme Court case decision by cooperating to mitigate impacts and by engaging in good faith discussions calmer which could include implementing membership cards and release time for rank and file union leaders to explain the implications of a Janice decision. And so that is a little less specific direction. And it also leaves open the possibility that there might be more things that items that need that could be addressed. It is. All right. I swear. Is it okay to have Vice Mayor speak you? I have a second question. I have a question. Yes, vice mayor. So my question is for the maker of the motion. When you say which could include these things, is your expectation that it that it would include those things that could include other things or that it. Says say that last part again, you're a little bit soft there and just repeat it again louder. What you just said. So my question my question is when you say it could include I can't really hear you counts Nebraska. Mutual I'm afraid. Should I come over to. If you can talk louder, then maybe she can hear you. Okay. Councilmember Avella, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. So the wording. I simply actually took out the word around and said, which could include. And the rest is in there. Right. And my explanation is that way we're not giving specific direction to staff, but that is one of the topics we're adjusting. And there could be others that maybe aren't contemplated because we haven't seen the decision yet. So so my question is as to the intent of what we're voting on. That it's not that it would not include those things. Absolutely. No, it would be thing. Which could include. Yes, absolutely. Then you took out the word negative. Would it be the same as saying which includes. But I didn't ask you. Is that what you're saying? Oh, she didn't. And she didn't read. Negative, but it's in there still. I was speaking over malice. I apologize. Oh oh. And I was kind of trying to hurry because I'm watching the clock, too. But yes, I did it so intensely. Yes. You know, when you when you make that change, you mean including. But not limited to. Which could include but not be limited to. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, that basically instead of around, you're saying including but not limited to those two things. Correct. That's the intent. That's you know. It's the intent. I think the wording I mean and I'll just look to the city attorney. What? Well, I mean, frankly, I have to say that I prefer councilmember as the Ashcroft's version, because it isn't as directive, it says, which could include and I think the tenor of the previous resolved, along with the idea that we are supporting the unions what have you, but it isn't saying you must do these particular things. It says it could include these things. And it leaves the door open to even do other things. Yeah. That it will help support the union's position if we say if instead you're changing it to say you have to do these things and anything else, then I think we're kind of back to where we started. Okay. So my motion stands and I believe I have a second though. Can you clarify then when she says it also means it doesn't have to include these things? I think that's right. But I think the. Intent is there, which is what the vice mayor's concerned about. I think the intent is clear in the previous resolved and and even in the further resolved that the notion is that we're trying to work with and support the unions in light. Of this this expected negative. Decision. But we're not directing what exactly has to be done to do that. Yes. I mean, one possible suggestion, because you had released time for rank and file union leaders to explain the amplifications. You could say. Include. Okay. What you said released Hammond rank and file comment. Depending on the implications of a Janus decision. Well, I believe that this resolution was actually compiled in large part with the assistance of the Army, the Labor Council. That's how and they're not similar. But but it is true that the Board of Supervisors is transit the city of Oakland to save Emeryville. And I believe the Port of Oakland either has or is about to vote on it. But the wording is just a little bit different there. I I'm I would like to see a vote on on this language. So can you clarify? Would you be. Go ahead. Here. Would you be willing to delete the word hood and just say which includes. No, for the reasons that were explained before. It's it's still it's still positive. It's just not specifically directive. Okay. Well, we have a motion and a second we do. So can you clarify when it says and release time for rank and file union leaders? Does the release time mean? What does that mean? Does that mean that that they they when they would get paid to go do this instead of their current job? That's correct. But for the leaders. Yeah. And how many union leaders do we have? I'm going to ask Nancy Brown, senior director, to come up and she can give you the details. Plus, she stayed here till almost midnight, so I want to make it worth her while. So we least time. I mean, we do that now for. Certain situations. And it's for our union leaders. To go meet. With the employees. I think with IBEW, we. Have two shop stewards who would get some time to go do this. We would work with Al on that and then ACA three. So that would also they would get time. Okay. So the release time currently is at negotiated though, but release time it's yet or is not is determined by usually the city manager who makes those decisions. There specific items that they're allowed. Release time on so to go meet and to confer to go negotiate and then. So do they already receive release time to do this under the current contract. They they re they do receive release time. It's it's probably a little more specific. This may be a little broader, but we work with labor to make sure to mitigate those impacts of somebody, you know, not being in the work site. So we'll work with them on that. So does this change then what we would normally do? Because this is actually my concern is I actually think that this is something that normally our for our charter but should happen is our city manager or you would be working this out with labor on your own without coming without getting direction from us. And thus, for whatever reason, which I don't think has ever happened during the time I've been mayor, you would come to us and say you need us to give you some direction. But I but I would think that doing so. So that's a a concern that I have in regards to council giving direction to the city manager of how to operate with staff per our charter, which is unique to us as opposed to you all just normally implementing the current contract. Well, one thing sounds like that's what you would be doing. One thing it's which could include. I mean, if we go with the change that's been suggested by the motion maker and seconder, I think that doesn't. Specifically direct. That it has to happen. That gives the. Flexibility. To the council I'm going to make. I thank you for all of your explanations. I'm going to make a motion to call the question. I'm second. Second up. Okay. I think we've got a two thirds vote there. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. She has to do a roll call on the motion to call the question. Councilmember, as I see. Yes. Hi, Spencer. Hi. Okay. That passes by five. Now the. Oh, yes, on the original question. Marilyn Marilyn's yes. Motion. And who made the second? Now. I remember Battersea. Council member as Ashcroft. I met Harris. Oh, yes. I. Mayor Spencer. No. Can we just get clarification on what the languages. Oh, yes, that's everything is the same. I typed it while she did it. She added acting in front of city manager and then she just changed the word around to which could include. With a comma in front of it. I have it in the resolution. I typed it. Washington. Okay. So. My name. Okay. So it is now almost midnight here. That means is 3 a.m. or vice mayor is. So there's a professional courtesy to her. I actually do not plan to go forward with nine, eight and nine. Tonight I will kick those over to the next council meeting. Those are both my referrals. I think that's a nice and nice job. That's much appreciated. I do want to make my nominations. She barely a I get to still do that separate so that we can proceed with that. So for civil services I'll be nominating.