Sunday, July 04, 2010

County Appeals Ruling

These stories are so frustrating.

Washington County has appealed a court ruling that could crimp its efforts to save money by outsourcing services with private contractors.

   The court case involves a 2007 union complaint filed against the county’s Samaritan Health Center after that nursing facility hired a subcontractor to handle laundry and housekeeping services for the center and its adjacent Fields of Washington County assisted living facility.

   Those services had been done by unionized county employees previously.

   Earlier this year, Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Paul Malloy sided with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC), which reversed an initial decision by its own hearing examiner that the county had acted properly.

[...]

The decision to contract with BSG was motivated by a desire to reduce costs in an area it concluded was out of line with the relevant labor market, said Ed Somers, Samaritan administrator.

   It was determined the Samaritan was paying $4 per hour per patient day higher than the median cost for such services in the private sector.

   “Our wages were just so out of line with the private sector,” Somers said.

[...]

BSG offers housekeeping, custodial and laundry services to nursing homes, community based residential facilities, residential care apartment complexes and other adult retirement facilities in Wisconsin.

   With BSG providing those services, the Samaritan estimated it would save $234,165. The contract with BSG was for seven years.

   That resulted in 17 layoffs Aug. 1, 2007, Somers said. “They were all offered jobs (at the Samaritan).”

[...]

Somers said BSG’s has done a good job fulfilling its housekeeping and laundry services. “The building is very, very clean,” he said. “The residents are pleased and so is the staff.”

So, let’s break this down… the county was overpaying for some custodial services that were being done by union county employees.  They contracted with a private company to do the job which saves the county taxpayers $234,165.  The building is clean to everyone’s satisfaction and all of the former county employees were offered a job to keep doing what they were doing albeit at the market price for their services.  Win, win, win.  Clean building.  Taxpayers save money.  Everybody stays employed.

But, of course, that’s not the point.  The point of government still appears to be about providing jobs to union workers instead of providing services to the taxpayers at a reasonable cost.  The County Board did the right thing here, but this story illustrates why so many of them just don’t bother.

(5) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1227 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. While I appreciate your frustration, I think the actual point is that workers in America have a legal right to organize, and employers have a legal obligation to honor that right whether they want to or not.  Courts have issued mixed opinions so far in this case and I would guess, based on the article, that has to do with specific language regarding contracting that might be in the CBA.

    Contracts are important things, and neither employer (or employee) has the right to unilaterally change the terms of an agreement.  Both sides are pursuing a legal interest and that’s why we have courts other than the court of public opinion, which is usually filled with uninformed and maladroit blowhards.  Of course, this is an easy opportunity for your readers to take shots at public employees, so I fully expect the comments to go downhill from here.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 04, 2010 at 1303 hrs


  2. The County Board did the right thing here? Breaking a legal binding contract?

    A contract is a contract.  The county needs shrewder negotiators for the next contract talks.

    The legal right of two or more people to bargain over merchandise and/or a service with two or more other people and create a contract regarding that said merchandise and/or a service is given to corporations, cooperatives, partnerships, churches and other non-profits, and married couples, but a group of organized public or private workers should be denied rights to free speech, assembly, or to engage in trade (under a clear, specific set of legal guidelines) or to have their legal/binding contract honored?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 1403 hrs


  3. Contracts are important things

    Tell that to all the bondholders and others that got screwed by the government in their takeover/handout to the UAW of Chrysler and GM.

    Can’t have it both ways.  Unless of course the idea is that the role of government is to kiss the ass of union employees and stick the taxpayers with the bill.

    IOW - The employees can choose to unionize, but the county should have the right to choose to not employ them.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1731 hrs


  4. RS,
    Sure, the workers have a right to organize and employers have a right to use organized services or not, or do they?  Democrats seem to think only workers have rights as J Penterman clearly does.

    The County Board did the right thing here? Breaking a legal binding contract?

    They did?  Isn’t that is what in question, the language of subcontracting rights in the contract?  Don’t let facts get in the way anything union.

    Sure I think it will be a tragedy if the courts rule in favor of the union, but nobody has broken any laws yet.  Isn’t it great to know that union workers pay so much of their money for lawyers and the rest of us get to pay for more lawyers(either through taxes or higher cost of goods or services).  GO-O-O-O LAWYERS!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1020 hrs


  5. I believe “...only workers have rights…”

    Reread.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1305 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.