Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Reclassification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Unions and council split over job reclassifications and HR restructuring; some reclassifications pass, key HR upgrades fail
Summary
After extensive public comment from union leaders and city staff, the council split on multiple labor reclassifications: several AFSCME and UPSU position upgrades were approved, while the proposed HR recruitment/outreach specialist and deputy director reclassifications failed to get a majority.
The council spent a large portion of the Sept. 3 meeting on labor reclassifications and discussion of a citywide Baker Tilly compensation study. Union leaders and affected employees urged the council to approve reclassifications they said were reached through the labor‑management process and necessary to retain staff; city directors and HR staff described operational strain attributable to understaffing.
Union representatives warned that denying negotiated reclassifications would likely lead to arbitration. “We will continue the fight at the added expense to the city,” Jim Santoro of Local 466 told the council, referencing statutory prohibited practices if contractual processes are ignored.
Council debate focused on two linked issues: (1) whether specific positions should be reclassified immediately under the existing labor‑management/Maximus framework, and (2) whether the pending Baker Tilly study should delay action. Council members who opposed immediate approval — including several who sit on General Counsel and Finance committees — said committees raised legitimate questions that had not been fully answered and that some items had not passed committee review earlier in the year.
Key recorded outcomes in the transcript:
- The proposed recruitment and outreach specialist reclassification (item K on the agenda) failed to pass (the roll call recorded 5 in favor, 7 opposed). The proposal would have changed the classification and increased the salary band for that position. The motion did not carry.
- The proposed reclassification of an HR generalist to Deputy Director of Human Resources (item L) also did not secure a majority (five in favor, seven opposed) and was not adopted in this meeting.
- Several other reclassifications tied to AFSCME and UPSU positions were adopted later in the evening after separate votes (examples include the program aid coordinator, tax assessor, purchasing supervisor, and certain public‑works operator reclassifications). Those motions succeeded by recorded roll calls.
Councilmembers and the mayor emphasized the need for a stronger HR structure and for the Baker Tilly work product to complete before making large‑scale systemic changes to classification policy. Some councilors urged immediate posting of additional HR support positions to relieve near‑term operational pressure; others said changes should await committee examination and the final consultant deliverable.
The council instructed staff to continue providing monthly updates and to bring back unresolved items in future agendas. Several union leaders said they will pursue arbitration or other remedies if contractual commitments are not honored.
