Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Negotiations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teamsters and city workers press Montclair council to return to bargaining; commenter alleges council member owes city more than $500,000
Summary
Union representatives and city employees urged the Montclair City Council to return to negotiations for a successor Teamsters Local 1932 contract, saying bargaining has stalled and wages lag comparable cities; a public commenter alleged a council member owes the city more than $500,000 and criticized the council for not pursuing collection.
Several union representatives and city employees used the Montclair City Council’s public-comment period to urge the council to re-engage in stalled contract talks and to press the city to negotiate in good faith.
"The city has failed to bargain in good faith for a successor MOU," said Teresa Preciado, business agent for Teamsters Local 1932, adding that the union’s contract has expired and that many city workers earn "between 6% upwards to 21% below the median" for comparable positions. Preciado urged the council to "return to the bargaining table, prepare to negotiate in earnest, and reach a fair agreement."
Carlos Gonzales, also representing Teamsters Local 1932, accused the city manager of preferring less organized employee groups and said that past negotiations were brief and tilted toward managers’ preferences. "Mr. Edward Starr is not in favor of Teamsters Local 1932," Gonzales said, calling the current approach "union busting" and criticizing one-year offers he said were designed to weaken the union.
Several city employees who identified themselves as Public Works staff told the council staffing shortages and pay contributed to turnover. Richard Herrera, a public-works parks lead worker, said he has seen employees leave "because of money" and asked the council to "help us with the negotiations" so the city can recruit and retain workers.
Separately, Alice Garcia, a member of the public, addressed the dais with allegations about a council member’s financial obligations to the city. "Ben Lopez did the unthinkable and [harassed] two of our city employees. He legally owes us over half $1,000,000," Garcia said, calling on the council to pursue collection and to explain why regular enforcement tools — liens, debtor examinations or garnishment — had not been used. The council did not take action on the allegation during the meeting.
Councilmembers did not engage in a substantive back-and-forth on the public comments; under the Brown Act the council may give brief responses but not deliberate on items not on the agenda. Several speakers asked the council to assert fiduciary oversight and to intervene in bargaining; no formal direction or vote on the labor contract was recorded during the meeting.
The public comments followed prior council business and preceded a scheduled public hearing and other agenda items.
