Read on Twitter
So, lots of follow up questions from yesterday's budget thread wanting to know more about the police contract.
Hereâs a primer that tries to explain the interplay between the budget and contract w/ the caveat that I am not a labor lawyer.
Settle in, this is a long one. 1/
Hereâs a primer that tries to explain the interplay between the budget and contract w/ the caveat that I am not a labor lawyer.
Settle in, this is a long one. 1/
First, here is a copy of the most recent contract with the FOP. It was set to expire this year but the Mayor extended it by a year because it's a huge thing to try to renegotiate in the middle of a pandemic.
https://fop5.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Contract%20'17-'20.pdf
https://fop5.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Contract%20'17-'20.pdf
âThe extension guarantees 2.5% pay raises and $750 bonuses for police officers and 2.25% pay raises and $450 bonuses for sheriff's officers after the contract extension goes into effect on May 31. The extension runs through the end of June 2021.â https://www.phillytrib.com/news/health/coronavirus/city-and-police-union-agree-to-contract-extension/article_80cb289f-c2c4-5563-bef5-b86f46853e7e.html
So before we dig into the substance of the contract, which is problematic, letâs talk about the process for the contract, which is problematic. The process is governed by state law, Act 111 of 1968.
Act 111 provides for binding arbitration when a city and its uniformed officers (police/fire) canât reach an agreement on a labor contract. It applies to municipalities throughout the Commonwealth, not just Philly.
Whatâs binding arbitration? Arbitration is a dispute resolution system in which 1 or more âarbitratorsâ are selected by the parties or a court to rule on a dispute between the parties. The binding part means the parties agree in advance to accept the decision of the arbitrators.
And by binding, they mean binding. Under Act 111, there are no appeals allowed to any court. You are stuck with whatever the arbitrators decide.
By submitting to binding arbitration, the uniformed officers give up the right to strike.
By submitting to binding arbitration, the uniformed officers give up the right to strike.
So who are these arbitrators? Under Act 111, there are three. One chose by the union, one chosen by the city and one mutually agreed upon. If they can't agree, there's a process to pick and appoint a third, "neutral" arbitrator who chairs the panel.
So what exactly are they arbitrating? Pretty much everything you can think of. Not only does arbitration cover wages, health and pension benefits, but also work and disciplinary rules and processes.
...âthe terms and conditions of their employment, including compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions and other benefits, and shall have the right to an adjustment or settlement of their grievances or disputes in accordance with the terms of this act.â
The arbitration process is like a mini-trial, with both sides calling witnesses and putting on evidence to support their demands. Arbitrators can "compel the attendance of witnesses and physical evidence by subpoena."
However unlike a trial or legislative hearing (and this is a MASSIVE however) these proceedings are not open to the public. Evidence is presented, witnesses called and arguments made - all behind closed doors.
After both sides are finished presenting their cases, the arbitrators must make a ruling. Under the Act, the determination of the majority of arbitrators âshall be final on the issues in dispute & shall be binding upon the public
employer and the policemen or firemen involved."
employer and the policemen or firemen involved."
And here's another big problem, the ruling has to be in writing, but the arbitrators ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RATIONALE for reaching their conclusions.
Reminder that this ruling, which had no public scrutiny and for which arbitrators don't have to provide any rationale, is not appealable to any court. But it gets better because of the binding part......
âSuch determination shall constitute a mandateâŠto the lawmaking body with respect to matters which require legislative action, to take the action necessary to carry out the determination of the board of arbitration.â
And this is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to defunding the PPD - the Mayor and Council are legally obligated to implement the ruling of the arbitration panel through administrative or legislative action.
But collective bargaining is critical to unions! YES! 100000% You can be pro-union and still want to see some Act 111 reforms implemented. This is actually an issue that has the rare bi-partisan support.
One of the biggest criticisms of Act 111 is the lack of transparency. $727 million of our city budget is tied to the outcome of a hearing conducted behind closed doors. An outcome that is not required to be justified or rationalized.
There are a number of Philly electeds like @CouncilwomanKGR who are fighting to bring more transparency to this process. Reforms at the state level have long been proposed, but withered on the vine.
The Act 111 arbitration isn't just about how much money or days off the PPD gets. It also sets the disciplinary process. These rulings are the reason it's hard to fire bad cops and why so many of them get their jobs back, with back pay.
So if you care about really changing what policing in Philadelphia looks like, support those efforts to reform Act 111 - to bring transparency and accountability to a process that has such a devastating impact on people's lives.
That's it for now - tomorrow, I'll try to tackle the substance of the FOP contract. I'll try to answer any questions, but as I noted above - labor law is not my area of expertise - there are a lot of really smart people on this site who probably have way more thoughtful insights.
