Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Relations Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit committee forwards ordinance implementing SEIU Local 1021 settlement after public support
Summary
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee voted to forward an ordinance implementing Amendment No. 2 to a 2012 memorandum of understanding with SEIU Local 1021, a settlement-related change staff said will cost about $4.8 million and take effect June 30; public commenters urged approval.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee on Thursday moved an ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors that would implement Amendment No. 2 to the 02/2012 memorandum of understanding between the city and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021.
Mary Howe of the Department of Human Resources told the committee the amendment implements a legal settlement with SEIU Local 1021, will take effect at the close of business on June 30 and does not affect the current fiscal year budget. "It will cost the city approximately $4,800,000, which is about 0.65% of payroll for the SEIU-represented group," Howe said.
The item drew public comment from union representatives and a former hospital employee. Gus Feldman, a field representative for SEIU Local 1021, recounted a 2009 "deskilling" that he said left about 300 members reclassified with pay reductions of about 20% and called the earlier treatment "a gross injustice." Gabriel Holland, the union's San Francisco political coordinator, framed the amendment as part of valuing work "of women and people of color," noting the positions had been underfunded in a prior comparative study. Former hospital employee Douglas Yap said he was puzzled the MOU appeared before this committee rather than a finance body.
After questions from a supervisor about how the city's controller letter treated the out-year costs and bargaining-credit language, Howe said the city's payments will be counted toward the settlement and toward current bargaining for a successor agreement. The committee chair moved to send the ordinance forward with a recommendation to the full board; the motion was carried without recorded objection.
The committee did not record a roll-call vote on the item. The board is scheduled to consider the item at its April 3 agenda unless otherwise stated; the committee referred the ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors for final action.
