Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County workers warn the board a strike is possible unless contract talks resume
Summary
Union representatives and dozens of county employees urged Solano County supervisors to return to bargaining, alleging bad‑faith tactics and increased employee health care costs; four unions have issued strike notices unless negotiations progress.
Dozens of Solano County employees and union representatives used the public‑comment period to press the Board of Supervisors to return to direct bargaining and address a contract impasse they described as harming workers and county services.
Justin Decker, a representative of IFPT Local 21, told the board the unions have been negotiating with county staff for more than four months with limited progress and have filed unfair labor practice charges alleging bad‑faith bargaining. “We have been negotiating with the county for over 4 months. We have met at least 14 times,” Decker said, and added that four unions have given notice of intent to engage in protected strike action if talks do not advance.
Several SEIU and Local 21 members described concrete impacts on household finances. Michael Kitsis, president of Local 21, Unit 16, said county negotiators were offering multi‑year packages that trail neighboring counties and that the county’s decision to maintain prior health‑care cafeteria plan rates had cost some employees roughly $200 in December pay. “Leveraging health care over us feels demeaning and disrespectful,” Kitsis said.
Other employees detailed long commutes, mortgages and utility bills that wages do not cover, chronic vacancies in public‑facing departments and the downstream effects on service delivery. Juliana Williams, a Solano County behavioral‑health clinician, said she takes home $2,800 every two weeks and described her mortgage and utility burden in asking for a “fair contract.”
Speakers asked the board to send decision‑makers to the bargaining table rather than delegates who lack authority to finalize agreements. Several commenters urged face‑to‑face meetings, direct board involvement and rapid movement to avoid strike action that could disrupt county services. Some speakers alleged that the county paid outside negotiators who lack authority to make substantive proposals, which they characterized as an obstruction.
The board did not take action on the dais during public comment. The board later listed closed‑session labor negotiations under Government Code §54957.6 on the agenda. No formal report or resolution was announced from closed session during the meeting.
Next steps: union leaders have signaled that protected strike action remains a possibility if talks do not produce meaningful movement; the board and county negotiators may return to closed‑door bargaining as allowed under state law.
