Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salisbury residents and unions urge council to reject labor‑code changes that would curb collective bargaining
Summary
Dozens of residents, union representatives and city employees urged the Salisbury City Council to reject proposed labor‑code amendments they say would remove binding arbitration and give management unchecked authority over wages and benefits.
Salisbury — Dozens of residents and union representatives urged the City Council on Nov. 24 to reject proposed changes to the city’s labor code that speakers said would strip public employees of recently granted collective‑bargaining protections.
Union leaders and city workers filled the public‑comment portion of the council’s legislative meeting to oppose the amendments, which several speakers said would eliminate access to binding arbitration and concentrate wage and benefit decisions with city management. "Taking away workers' rights to ability on their negotiate … and removing access to binding arbitration … would upset that equal bargaining power," said Christian Goble of AFSCME Maryland Council 3.
Why it matters: Council members approved several routine agenda items earlier in the meeting, but public testimony focused on the labor rules that took effect two years ago. Speakers warned that rolling back those rights would worsen recruitment and retention for public‑works crews, firefighters and other city employees and could increase turnover costs.
What speakers said: Anissa Pierce Sessoms, a Worcester County Health Department employee and AFSCME local officer, told the council the proposed changes "would tie workers' hands" and asked the body to "stand with us, reject these changes, and protect the workers' rights." Dan Herr, speaking for city employees, said the changes would break an agreed collaborative process and urged the council to "keep us at the table." Brandon Records, president of Salisbury Firefighters Local 4246, asked the council to "shut this down tonight," saying the labor code provides an avenue for honest conversations about pay, staffing and equipment.
Council record and next steps: During the meeting the council did not vote on the labor‑code amendments; speakers said those changes were being considered in a separate work session. No formal council action on the labor code was recorded in the public legislative meeting minutes for Nov. 24; residents were asking the council to halt or reject the measures in the work‑session process.
Voices from the community: Several public commenters tied the labor‑code proposals to broader concerns about city priorities. "This doesn't make sense," said Melissa Bragg, vice president, Professional Firefighters of Maryland, arguing that collective bargaining is essential for retaining firefighters and first responders. Gary Brevard, a shop steward, described operational strains in public works and warned that weakening bargaining rights would harm morale and service delivery.
What wasn't decided: The council approved unrelated consent items, appointments and budget ordinances during the legislative session, but no final action on the labor‑code amendments occurred during the public legislative meeting. The proposal remains subject to the council's work‑session and ordinance processes.
