Why Not Contract Out The Chief Negotiator Job?

At the end of yesterday's post about the still-bubbling controversy over the county's chief labor negotiator, Diana Garcia, I threw out the suggestion the Chief of Employee Relations be contracted out to someone removed from the culture of government.

A reader with an extensive background in OC municipal government dropped me an e-mail urging consideration of the idea as an antidote to the dangerous chumminess that has arisen between union honchos and the current and past chief count negotiators:

Are such meetings between the chief negotiator and the union general managers in the best interest of the negotiation?  Of course, from the AOCDS or OCEA standpoint, they would certainly want a chummier relationship with the County negotiator.  Would they get that from a Liebert, Cassidy or some other human resources law firm? 

I'm sure they'd meet for lunch, but the private negotiators have no vested interest in such a relationship other than to find out information on how to better get the deal they are charged with getting.  They cannot be talked into a "this is good for you, too" position. 

The supervisors would hired them to seek certain deal points, obtain concesssions, and hopefully secure the best package for the taxpayers, but one also fair to the employees. At the very least, contracting it out ought to at least be tried out before it is condemed.  Diana Garcia was hired to be chief of employee relations under a guy who lasted about 8 months after Jan Walden.  Instead of replacing him, the supervisors made Garcia the interim chief. That position could be easily contracted out with or without Garcia still in the HR position.

And an anonymous commenter on the earlier post argued cogently for contracting out the chief negotiator position:

It will be an advantage because the non-government contractor in charge of labor negotiations will only be interested in the job he or she does on behalf of their employer.

Hopefully, that contractor will report directly to the Board of Supervisors and not possess the inherent conflict of interest that the "employee" negotiators currently and previously have possessed.

For instance, the current head of HR and her non-union buddies stand to benefit personally from the union negotiations, as unrepresented units almost always are given a similar package.

Folks at both sides of the "round" negotiating table stood to benefit from the 2.7% @ 55 packages that were negotiated on behalf of the OCEA employees. How can you remain impartial if prior to the negotiations you stand to retire at 62 with 1.67% of your salary times your years of service, but you are "negotiating on behalf of the County" new benefits that if adopted will be applied retroactively and will now allow you to retire at 55 with 2.7% of your salary multiplied by your years of service?

Even more obscene, the folks negotiating on behalf of the union were all senior employees with the County that have now since retired and balanced their retirements on the backs of the union's younger members. Many of these employees (less than 10 years of service) will have to stay with the County for 10-20 more years to recoup the healthcare costs they picked up for their "leaders" retro retirement. If they stay, it is a good deal but many of those younger employees wanted raises instead, hence the fight now during re-openers for a fat increase.

Why not give it a try?

Comments

[redperegrine]

If this is such a hot idea, then why not apply it to cities, too? Why have personnel directors and city managers oversee negotiations with all their pals? Why not have a disinterested party do it, one chosen directly by the council, not by staff?

Wait! That IS a good idea!

[redhawk]

One thing is for sure if a law firm is chosen. Negotiations will be stalled until the monies allocated for settlement discussions has spent completely spent.

I doubt anyone is going to give an open ended contract to someone who bills by the hour.

[642]

so, what part of contracting out to "someone removed from the culture of government" solve the problem? What is the problem you are solving?

"The supervisors would hired them to seek certain deal points, obtain concessions, and hopefully secure the best package for the taxpayers, but one also fair to the employees" is not what they do now and with someone they have full choice of appointment/dismissal with?

Why do those who have no clue believe the solution to problems they do no understand is to bring in staff as dumb, uninformed, and have no steak in the venture (who's sole goal is get their on contract renewed and at a higher rate and for more power, with which they can get a better contract at a higher rate... Ad infinitum) as the ones who want them brought in?

Contract employees have a role, limited and to the point, and if it needs explaining to you there is not enough time, or paper in the world to make you understand or believe.