Although thecounty is supposed to inform the union of pending layoffs and providedocumentation of the financial benefits of laying off employees, Abelson saidthe county provided no such proof.
“They sentus a notice that they were laying people off and the layoff notices at the sametime,” Abelson said. “They've never even attempted to sit down with us and showus their numbers.”
According toa fact sheet supplied by Fran McLaughlin, spokeswoman for Milwaukee County ExecutiveScott Walker, the county would save $1.8 million by laying off 27 securityguards, 25 parks maintenance workers, nine airport employees and 15 otherworkers. More than $400,000 would be saved by privatizing the 27 securitypositions alone, the county asserts.
Abelsonisn't buying it.
“I'mquestioning the upfront premise that they're going to save $400,000,” he said.“Where do they get that number? What are the components of that number? They'venever shared any of that information with us.”
The countyissued a request for proposal (RFP) on Aug. 3, 2009, for the security workers,estimating that privatized workers would staff the courthouse complex, citycampus and Vel Phillips Juvenile Justice Center on Jan. 1, 2010.
On Tuesday,McLaughlin told the Shepherd thatWackenhut Corp. won the security contract from among four bidders, but it hasnot been signed yet. Wackenhut workers are already at the courthouse,apparently to fill in for county employees who may not show up for their finalweeks.
The other 49laid-off workers at the parks, the airport and in the Departments ofTransportation and Public Works would not be replaced by privatized workers,McLaughlin said.
About $1.4million would be saved from leaving those positions unfilled, about $28,000 perposition.
Abelsonscoffed at the county's estimate of saving almost $2 million from the masslayoffs.
“Where doesthat number come from?” Abelson said. “It's just as mysterious as the $400,000”saved from privatizing security services.
AFSCME alsois fighting the county's decision last year to replace housekeeping staff withprivatized employees, saying that the county had not provided documentation ofcost savings, as required.
“In ourestimation they had not been able to come close to justifying the numbers thatthey claimed,” Abelson said.
AWeek of Bad News for Employees
The layoffsannouncement was only one piece of bad news in a string of setbacks for countyemployees.
On Feb. 25,the county board approved Walker'splan to increase unpaid furlough days from 12 to 22 days this year, forcingmore than 1,400 employees to lose about a month of wages. The county claims thefurloughs would save $2 million in 2010.
Yet Abelsonchallenged that assumption as well, saying that understaffed departments willhave to call in workers on overtime paytime and a halfto replace furloughedemployees who would have been paid regular hourly wages.
Thecombination of layoffs and furlough days is an attempt to close an estimated$10 million hole in the county's 2010 budget.
The deficitwas created because the budget was built on assumptions that included wage andbenefit concessions that had not been presented to the county's unions prior tothe final budget. The original budget proposed by Walker contained about $32 million inconcessions never presented to the union; the final version of the budgetcontained an estimated $10 million in concessions.
In fact,tentative agreements with the county's unions had been negotiated with Walker's labor negotiatorand approved by two board committees in 2009. But those agreements wererejected while the budget was being crafted last fall.
Abelsoncalls the county's 2010 budget “illegal” because the state requires counties topass balanced budgets.
“This budgetclearly was not a balanced budget,” Abelson said. “This budget presumed thatthere would be concessions from the unions that at the time that they passedthe budget hadn't even been proposed. I don't know how you can stretch thedefinition of a legal budget to somehow include items that haven't beenproposed at the bargaining table when you have an equally binding obligation bystate statute to negotiate in good faith.”
He saidcurrent negotiations with the county are at a standstill. The county hassubmitted its latest package of concessions as its final revised offer inarbitration, and has filed suit against AFSCME's final offer, which is thetentative agreement that had been approved by the board committees last year.
“We can't goforward until those issues are resolved,” Abelson said.
