Firefighters may get less than they bargained for

Vancouver and the firefighters union reached impasse this month, with the two sides’ final offers well apart.

Under state law, public safety unions cannot strike, so the contract is now set to go before an independent arbitrator, who can choose one side or the other, or a compromise between both proposals. The arbitrator’s decision is binding and cannot be challenged by either party.

The last offer by the 171-member Firefighters Union would include an 8.2 percent wage increase immediately and another 2 percent hike in 2011 and cost Vancouver $3.2 million.

Vancouver’s most recent offer to firefighters was for no raises and called for raising firefighters’ contributions from 10 to 15 percent of their dependents’ health care premiums (at a cost of about $158 a month), which would save an estimated $200,047.

Last year saw more than $14 million in cuts from the general fund and the elimination of well over 100 jobs. They included the closure of Fire Station 6 and a reduction of police and fire ranks.

A date has not yet been set for arbitration; the two sides are working now to narrow down their choice for an arbitrator. The city and its firefighters could also reach an agreement any time before arbitration begins.

This is the first time the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 452, has been to arbitration with the city. Vancouver just had an arbitration session this month with its eight-person Police Command Unit.

In their last contract, the firefighters were the first city union to forgo a cost-of-living increase, saving Vancouver $700,000.

The Vancouver firefighter union’s push for a big raise may kill its chances at having the city council ask residents to increase property taxes for public safety causes.

As the stalled firefighter’s contract — which includes a final proposal of $3.2 million in raises from the firefighters — heads toward arbitration, the city council is preparing to head into a series of February budget retreats.

And in the wake of an overwhelmingly-negative reaction from residents to the now-public negotiations, councilors seem ready to totally abandon the idea of a levy, which would pay for salaries and other operational costs. The fate of a potential bond measure to repair crumbling stations is also resting on a shaky foundation.

“They’re basically cutting off their noses to spite themselves — public sentiment is definitely not with folks asking for 8.2 percent pay increases,” Mayor Tim Leavitt said. “It’s arrogant and foolish of the firefighters in this economic climate.”

Leavitt said the union — along with himself and several other councilors — does not want to see a core city service like public safety left to the uncertainty of a voter-backed levy, but rather supported by the city’s general fund.

So the council may favor putting parks and recreation or transportation funding to the voters — a victory for the firefighters, he said.

Mark Johnston, president of the 171-member International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 452, declined to comment on Leavitt’s view, except to agree that he thinks fire services should stay in the general fund.

“As far as full funding of the fire department goes, we’re all for that,” Johnston said. “I’m skeptical of the city’s ability to put forward some sort of levy measure.”

Negative effect?

While chances of a public safety levy are slim, a multi-million dollar bond to help rebuild or renovate the city’s seriously degraded fire stations is still on the table.

But while bond measures pay for capital projects like buildings or trucks — not salaries — the council doesn’t have to look far to find out how a union spat can affect a vote: Last November, Portland-area voters rejected a $125 million Tri-Met property-tax measure to replace aging buses and improve shoddy stops. Gadflies later pegged at least part of the reason for the loss on well-publicized union strife over a contract at the same time as the elections.

Several councilors admit they’re worried about the same possibility in Vancouver.

“The feedback I’ve received about the (fire) union was not good,” Councilor Larry Smith said Tuesday. “The sentiment out there is not good, and we’re going to have to do some checking on whether folks will be willing to step up.”

Councilor Pat Campbell, who has often talked up the need to replace seismically unsound stations, seemed disappointed that the contract may harm the city’s ability to fix its stations.

“Most firefighters know they are not living in safe conditions,” he said. “Why are they allowing this trade-off between wages and benefits and actual facilities?”

A bond is something the rank-and-file firefighters do want, Johnston said.

“The local would spend money and manpower to educate people and show them what conditions these fire stations are in,” he said. “If the earthquake comes, and it will come, our buildings will crash down on top of us, and we will not be able to help anybody.”

Education effort

Councilor Jeanne Harris said she hopes that through a public education campaign in conjunction with the union that the negativity toward the department at the moment could be overcome.

“We would have to help others understand … this is money that we’re asking for in order to make sure that our fire station on 112th can be open, to build fire stations that aren’t going to fall down in an earthquake,” she said. Councilor Jeanne Stewart didn’t return calls seeking comment.

Education or no, Councilor Jack Burkman said he’s not sure how any tax vote is going to be received at the moment: “I don’t find people wanting to pay more taxes right now; I don’t care how good the cause is.”

Councilor Bart Hansen, who received significant support from the firefighters union during his campaign last year, remained largely mum on the negotiations, and his plans for the retreats.

He echoed several other councilors who said they really can’t make any decisions until the arbitrator makes a final ruling on the contract, and did call for the union to back down a bit from its 8.2 percent raise ask.

“We all need to take cuts as a family, instead of taking layoffs as a family,” he said.

Andrea Damewood: 360-735-4542 or andrea.damewood@columbian.com.