Last week was an interesting one for us to observe negotiation, controversy and disclosure. First, it was reported that the Teamsters’ Union, negotiating for the County Administration’s employees, was asking for an 8.5% across the Board increase. This was in response to the County’s opening offer of continuing their current pay and benefits in the face of severe 2009 budget cuts. These workers recently voted to switch representation to the historically more aggressive Teamsters’ Union, reportedly due to hopes of duplicating recent gains in the Fire/EMS and Sheriff’s contracts. The union is trying to justify that vote and the employees have unrealistic hopes, so a “no gain” offer has virtually no chance of acceptance. With the County Administration reducing their workforce by downsizing and buying out nearly a hundred workers, neither does an 8.5% increase. The two sides need to honestly negotiate a realistic compromise as quickly as possible. We hope that the Commission’s decision NOT to employ a professional negotiator does not result in a contentious process or a contract as one sided as the last three with the IAFF.

Also Martin County’s Teachers voted last week to approve their new contract, after working some 8 months at their 2006/7 salaries. The District and Union went to “impasse” early in the negotiations and mutually agreed to appoint a mediator. On the three major points of contention the negotiator agreed with the County on one issue and the Union/Teachers on the other two. The union/teachers agreed with his decision, but the District did not. The School Board, by law the final arbiter, adjudicated in favor of the District and that decision was delivered to the teachers just after completion of the students’ FCAT testing. It was also then pointed out that, by law, the teachers could only receive their 8-month retroactive pay increase if they approved the contract. If they voted “no” that money, amounting to hundreds of dollars each, would be kept by the District and the contract would take effect immediately, without retroactive pay.

It certainly appears that the District’s negotiations were effective and saved tax dollars. It is also apparent that the dollars saved were relatively minimal and the methods employed by the School Board caused severe angst among many of our excellent teachers. We believe that having discussions and presentations closed to the press/taxpayers contributed to the controversy and earlier coverage could have helped resolve issues. It certainly adds to our call for televising all School Board deliberations subject to Sunshine Laws.

In researching the above “union” subjects we came across a virtually unnoticed change that significantly added to the County’s personnel costs. Last year Martin became the only Florida County to have lifeguards covered by the State’s “Hazardous Duty” retirement plan provided Firefighters and Law Enforcement personnel. This plan allows retirement at 25 years of service with 75% (90% at 30years) of the average of their highest five years of income including overtime. We are also told that the County had to make an additional $400,000 one-time contribution to the State retirement fund in order to add our 17 existing lifeguards to the more expensive plan. They were already budgeted to cost an average of about $70,000 each in FY 2007 but, largely due to increased retirement contributions, “other salary” distributions and “overtime” the actual cost averaged nearly $75,000 each. Having a certified EMT as a lifeguard is certainly a plus, but at what cost? Just the FY 2008 retirement and benefits budget under the new plan is over $300,000, or some $18,000 for each lifeguard.

There were only 16 actual ambulance transports from Martin County beaches for any reason in 2007. Were any lives saved by having EMT trained lifeguards? Would having many more Red Cross Lifesaving/CPR trained lifeguards for the same money make our beaches even safer? Someone needs to quickly answer these questions.