Loading...
R9Q-Discuss- Letter From CWA President Re- Outsourcing Of Property Maintenanceg MIAMIBEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Jimmy Moroles, City Monoger From: Jonoh Wolfson, Commissioner Dote: October 14,2O14 Re: Commission Agendq ltem Pleose ploce on the October 22,2014 Commission Agendo the following item: Discussion regording rhe Ietter from CWA President McKinnon (see ottoched Ietter) requesting thot lhe outsourcing of property mqinlenonce be holred qnd referred to the November Finqnce Committee meeling for discussion. Pleose feel free to contoct my Aide, Brett Cummins ot x6437, if you hove ony questions. JW We are committed to providing excellent public service ond sofefy to all who live, work, ond ploy tn our vtbront, troniccl, hi:15;ffilt;, R f O. Date lo-?2-l\739 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 3178 - MIAMI BEACH AFr-CtO - CLC 7455 Collins Ave., Suite 212 MiomiBeoch. FL.33l4l (305) 401-0927 cwo3'l 78. Presidenl@omoil.com EXECUIIVE OTTICERS RICHARD D. MCKINNON PresiiCenl JOSEPH FISHER Vce-PresiCent JONA]HAN SINKES Secreiory VICTORIASTEVENS Trecurer October 8,2074 Mayor Philip Levine & City Commissioners City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FI33139 On July 30,2014, the City Administration decided to amend the20l3-2014 budget and outsource 25 positions in the Property Management Division of the Public Works Departrnent. Normally, such drastic personnel action would have been part of a new budget process that usually starts in April and finishes with 2 budget hearings in September with plenty of opportunities for review by all parties. This action was done under a 4ft budget amendment for the fiscal year 2013-2014, with no scrutiny while I was on vacation. As the justification for this action, we were told that Eric Catpenter, the Director of Public Works had decided to go into "another direction". The City Administration told the Commission, the union and the affected employees that nobody was going to lose a job or take a pay-cut. Nonetheless, when I came back, we started asking questions, made some public document requests to try to figure out the justification for outsourcing the vast majority of the employees hired to maintain ourpublic buildings and facilities. On September29,2}l4, the Union, Jonathan Sinkes, Larry Jessup, Noah Warman, myself and the City Administration, Kathie Brooks, Mark Taxis, Eric Carpenter, Tony Kaniewski, David Miller and Jose Del Risco met for what was supposed to be an Impact Bargaining Session. When the parties realized that the meeting had not been properly noticed by the City, as per the State of Florida Govemment in the Sunshine, we decided to use the time as an information gathering meeting. We asked Eric Carpenter, the Director of Public Works, about his experience managing a Property Management Division. He assured us that he had a Property Management Division in Doral while he was the Public Works Director. When we pressed to find out how many employees worked in that capacity he finally relented and answered that he had three employees (3) in that Property Management Division. At one point, we asked them who was responsible for giving out performance evaluations to employees. At first, Mr. Carpenter told us that it was the employees' responsibility to make sure they got their annual evaluation. When we pressed, he admitted that it was the management's job of issuing performance evaluations. The union pointed out that if problems with the performance of the delivery of service by employees existed that it should have been addressed in their performance evaluations. We also pointed out that the Administration had failed to do its job by failing to give out performance evaluations to 90% of the affected employees in a timely manner with many of them late by ten month. It was only after we asked Labor Relations how they would handle the 3o/o merit increases that these employees were entitled to receive with their 2013-2014 evaluations that we discovered the degree of failure of this management team. OTHER BOARD MEMBERS JASON CASAVOVA Chief Sleword sEcnoN - r EMIL CRUZE Chief Steword sECnoN - 2 OSVALDO GARCIA JR Chief Stewcd sEcnoN - 3 MANUEL \1LAR Chief Steward sECnoN - 4 Chiel Sleword sEcnoN - 5 JASON BRUDER ChieF Siewqd sECnoN - 6 EDWARDO DIAZ Chief Sleword sECnoN - 7 740 o Page 2 October8,2014 We were repeatedly told at the September 29,2014 meeting that employees' performance was never an issue which is a direct contradiction to information relayed to me by members of the City Commission's office, when the Administration privately met to justify its decision to outsource. I have attached a summary of the 912912014 informational gathering meeting written by Noah Warman, our Attorney. As members of a City Commission that ran on a transparency platform, you need to ask yourselfa few questions: Why did we amend our 2013-2014 budget on July 30, 2014 instead of waiting for September during the 2014-2015 budget process? If there were failures in the delivery of service, don't we want to know who's ultimately responsible? What if, it wasn't the employees' fault, as our Administration claimed in private? What if, this division had managed its mission in the same manner, as it had managed issuing simple performance evaluation? And, in the event mismanagement had occurred, do we want to charge the same individuals with the responsibility of managing private contractors who will be working for profit? Are there other unintended consequences that we have not considered, including who will be in charge of maintaining Lincoln Road? Since there has been no implementation as of today, I would like to request that this personnel action be halted and furthermore I would like to request that it be referred to the next Finance Committee for discussion, evaluation and review where all parties will have an opportunity to present their cases in the Sunshine. Sincerely Richard D. McKinnon President of CWA T-ncal3178 cc. Jimmy Morales, Miami Beach City Manager 741 SUMMARY OF THE MEETING SEPTEMBER29,2OI4 BETWEEN THE CITY AND CWA LOCAL 3178 REGARDING THE ELIMINATION OF 25 POSITIONS IN THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DTVISION (Written by Noah Warman, Attorney for CWA Local 3178) Gentlemen- Here is my recap of the September 29,2014 Beach' s administration. information exchange with the City of Miami Note that there was no bargaining today. For whatever reason the City failed to place public notice as required by Florida's Government in the Sunshine law. Absent proper notice, any bargaining sessions are null and void. We spent the day gathering information about the rationale underlying the City's decision to supplant the skilled tradesmen. The City had nothing of substance to present. I note that Larry Jessup had previously requested documentation such as memos and studies that were performed prior to making the recommendation to move the tradesmen into other jobs with the City and had received nothing other than information pertaining to employees' job performance and evaluations. When we asked about the survey, Kathy stated that while "a" reason, the survey was not the motivating factor behind the change. Eric Carpenter spoke and said that when he arrived last year propefty management was not keeping up with its workload. He claimed that the proposed change to the duties of the tradesmen resulted from a desire to improve the "delivery method" of services. When pressed on the issues, he conceded there were problems with procurement - which he restated as the "delivery method for parts and materials" - and supervision, namely with holding employees accountable for specific tasks. Richard McKinnon and Larry Jessup both noted that not one of the issues cited concemed matters solely within the hands of the workers themselves and indeed they seemed to reflect instead poor practices on the part of supervision and management - e.g., not holding employees to their allotted tasks and times and ensuring that employees got the materials they need in a timely manner. Eric again stated that "delivery method" and a desire for "flexibility" led to the change. I believe I asked the City team at least four or five times to identify a single term of the CBA or a single provision of the existing job descriptions that stopped the City from changing the delivery system or being more flexible. No one could cite a single provision. Indeed, we agreed that subcontracting is allowed both as a matter of statutory management rights and the contract. Here is the summary of the information provided us in response to our questions. 742 The costs of our members - e.g. payroll - are not a reason for the planned change in operations, per Kathy. Indeed, the City has proposed to keep all of the unit members at their current rate of pay. The quality of work is not at issue - the employees in the unit are performing satisfactorily. There will be no reduction in personnel. All bargaining unit employees will remain in the City's employ. There will be no foreseeable reduction in the work now performed by our bargaining unit members per Eric. The long tetm goal is to perform less reactive work and more preventative maintenance, but that can be said of any property management department, frankly. The survey is not a motivating reason for the planned change. It did spark the discussions that led to the City's plan, per Kathy, and thus this all started in April or later, well after the budget process was underway. Savings on overall property management costs are not a motivating factor. Nothing in the current CBA or job descriptions need be changed for the City to operate with more "fl exibility." There are no studies or analyses at all addressing the plan, the need for the plan, or alternatives. All of this was done by word of mouth - no e-mails or other writings address the issue. The City team did not identify any specific complaints from any department that would necessitate the change. When pressed on this point, Kathy surmised there could be e- mails but that it would take time and effort to locate them - itself telling, in that had this been a reasoned decision, one would presume that these complaints would be assembled, reviewed, and considered as part of any reasoned plan to remedy the problem. There are issues with supervision - e.g. timeliness of evaluations. That is beyond our control. There are issues with procurement - again, beyond our members' control. Under the City's plan contractors will provide their own materials and manpower. Under the City's plan it is possible that a City employee will not even oversee the work. When I asked whether a City employee would ultimately do so, I heard Eric to say either a City employee or athirdparty consultant retained by the City. It may even be possible for a department to pick and hire a contractor without notice to or approval of Property Management. Thus I am stumped. I have never seen a case where the employer presses for subcontracting under the circumstances articulated by the City. There are no cost savings at all. There are no performance issues at all. There are no articulated benchmarks for that matter, no objective criteria - just some claim for "flexibility" from individuals who cannot articulate why that desired flexibility cannot be achieved while abiding with the current CBA and leaving the affected employees in their current positions. In other words, this appears to be a pitch to subcontract for subcontracting's sake. Given the vast potential for abuses by those awarding contracts, enforcing the contracts, and, for that matter, performing them, the City's proposal to supplant our members is nothing short of astonishing. o a a a a 743 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 744