Union members urge Solano supervisors to resume meaningful bargaining, warn of retention crisis
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Multiple county employees and SEIU representatives told the board the county is not bargaining in good faith, accused the administration of withholding budgeted health benefits, described recruitment and retention crises, and asked supervisors to reinstate prior allocations and attend negotiations.
A series of public commenters at the Solano County Board of Supervisors meeting on Feb. 3 pressed the board to resume meaningful bargaining with employee unions, arguing county tactics are worsening retention and service delivery.
Speakers who identified themselves as county employees or union leaders said bargaining has stalled and accused negotiators of relying on a repeated talking point about balancing compensation with fiscal sustainability rather than making movement at the table. Linda Cheeseman, an office supervisor and bargaining-team member, told the board that "rejecting every economic proposal while services erode is not fiscal responsibility" and framed the issue as a retention crisis that leaves the county short of experienced staff.
Union leaders pressed similar themes. Simone Arnett of SEIU Local 1021 described a desire to work cooperatively but said employees are harmed when previously budgeted benefits are withheld. Michael Kitsis, a senior behavioral health manager and union local president, said holding health-care benefits "over our heads" and pitting unions against each other is unethical and urged the board to restore benefits and meet negotiators at the table. Other speakers, including Joe Ortiz (chief shop steward) and Elizabeth Harrison (regional SEIU vice president), urged the board to make movement at negotiations and to adopt Juneteenth as a county holiday as part of their asks.
Several callers and in-person commenters also described long-tenured employees leaving or seeking work outside the county because neighboring jurisdictions offer better pay or benefits. A caller, Leila Walton, described contracting outside Solano County for higher pay and called the board's negotiating stance "shameful." Commenters said prior allocations for family medical plans should be returned to eligible employees and asked supervisors to attend bargaining sessions.
Board members acknowledged the comments and did not take immediate formal action during the meeting; the item noted pending closed-session labor negotiations under Government Code section 54957.6. The speakers requested concrete bargaining movement, suggested board members attend negotiations, and urged staff to prioritize retention as part of fiscal responsibility.