Read on Twitter
So @carmenbest and @MayorJenny are telling us #defundSPD would lead to layoffs of young diverse officers because of union seniority rules
Last night I went down a SPOG contract rabbit hole to see if this is true or if our Mayor and Chief are making threats.... let’s examine 1/
Last night I went down a SPOG contract rabbit hole to see if this is true or if our Mayor and Chief are making threats.... let’s examine 1/
By way of qualifications I’ve worked in labor for 13 years, read 1000’s of contracts, helped bargained contracts that cover 25,000+ workers, etc. I’m also a lawyer but not practicing 2/
First of all, oddly enough the SPOG contract is SILENT on layoffs. Let’s stop right here and say this is weird. Most contracts have this language and this is an example of how much the city and SPOG assumed they would have an ever expanding budget
So where’s the language? 3/
So where’s the language? 3/
Apparently this is governed by the Public Safety Civil Service Commission which lays out the order for Layoffs and does list length of service as a factor.
BUT there is a huge loophole... here is the language: 4/
BUT there is a huge loophole... here is the language: 4/
As @Lisa_Herbold has pointed out— this loophole is huge and really undermines the argument that layoffs have to happen in order of seniority and essentially allows for a lot of leeway from Chief Best. But how much leeway? 5/
If you compare it to, for example, the UFCW 21 contract we have really clear layoff language with no such loopholes, so obviously this language is there for a reason. See our language below. 6/
So what does the language mean when it says out of order layoffs must be “in the interest of efficient operation of his or her department”
Well the city doesn’t know- Mike Fields SPD HR says "We have not laid off officers in department history” and says language is “untested” 7/
Well the city doesn’t know- Mike Fields SPD HR says "We have not laid off officers in department history” and says language is “untested” 7/
But historically in arbitration rulings, language like “business need” in a contract gives an employer pretty broad latitude to use their judgement to do what they think is best for the workplace. SO, I would have to imagine that“efficient operation” is even more broad. 8/
In this case the burden of proof would be on the Chief to make the argument that the criteria they wanted to use was simply more effecient. Something like laying off officers first who have a high number of public complaints seems like a very effecient standard. 9/
So that’s the language— it’s likely that any out of order layoffs would be subject to a demand to bargain. We can go into the weeds on that, but in general a “demand to bargain” charge under NLRA succeeds when the policy change results in a material change to working and... 10/
... is a topic not covered by the CBA. In this case I think the language in the PSCSC is pretty clear so I don’t know if D2B succeeds. But even if it does, the city could and should stand strong from layoffs that don’t adversely impact BIPOC officers 11/
In summary, if we take @carmenbest and @MayorJenny and SPOG at their word that they think reverse seniority based layoffs would be harmful, the good news is, the language supports their ability to layoff out of order! 12/
It is also, of course, entirely possible that the Mayor and Chief know this and are instead USING labor values as way delay accountability and invalidate defund efforts by threatening harm to BIPOC officers when in fact this harm is complete avoidable and in their control 13/13
