North Las Vegas warns of layoffs without Teamsters deal

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 | 10:33 p.m.

Teamsters reject deal with North Las Vegas (4-2-2009)
Metro Police union ratifies contract without cost-of-living raises (4-6-2009)
Police union for civilians OKs more meager wage increase (4-3-2009)
Police union for civilians OKs lower wage increase (4-1-2009)
County, employee union agree to cut pay increases (3-20-2009)
Rival unions’ efforts to reconcile will be visible to valley nurses (3-20-2009)
New coalition, backed by SEIU, leaves Culinary out (3-17-2009)
Culinary parent's battles threaten national union federation (3-14-2009)

North Las Vegas officials said Wednesday they would try again to reach a deal with the union representing its employees or layoffs would be eminent.

City Manager Gregory Rose presented the City Council with possible options on offsetting a budget shortfall that has grown to $16.8 million.

Failure to reach a deal with the Teamsters Local 14 could trigger up to 160 layoffs but that number could be reduced if the city outsourced or privatized some of its services, Rose said.

"I'm proposing that we continue discussions, but we cannot simply rely that we will eventually reach an agreement," Rose said. "We think that we have a strategy that if accepted by the union, will result in no person losing their job."

Teamsters Local 14 chief executive officer Gary Mauger said the union would be willing to try and reach an agreement with the city but wasn't sure it could be done.

"I feel very strongly that they will come back to the table. It's in both our best interest," he said. "I'm not guaranteeing anything."

The two sides negotiated a contract five months ago but revenues have dropped more than expected, forcing the city to ask for concessions from its three unions, Rose said.

The city informed the Teamsters on Feb. 23 that it would have to make concessions and set an April 1 deadline.

Union members rejected the city's proposal by a 3-1 margin on April 6.

The union had three meetings with the city and five with its members in 37 days but it wasn't able to reach a deal, Mauger said.

"The union and the employees felt rushed and the deadline of 37 days felt more like railroading," he said.

Mauger said the city asked the union to give up its 4 percent cost-of-living increase rather than defer it until the economy rebounded or make up the lost wages in some other way.

The city also couldn't promise there wouldn't be layoffs -- even if the union accepted the concessions.

"They want to keep (part-time and temporary employees) and lay off our full-timers," Mauger said. "That's not the way to go."

The deal would have deferred employee cost-of-living increases in return for better vacation benefits, Rose said.

The city reached a tentative agreement with its firefighter union, which, if accepted, would save the city about $1.5 million. Rose said he is in discussions with the city's police officers union and will talk with non-union employees Thursday.

The proposed deal with the non-union workers would save about $1 million, he said.

Councilman Will Robinson said the administrative staff hasn't trimmed enough top-level management benefits or cut non-essential city-funded events.

The only way Robinson would support layoffs is if Rose renegotiated "in good faith" with the Teamsters and still failed to produce an agreement.

"If you try to be fair and don't try to play hardball with them that's the only way to come to a conclusion. If you try to play hardball, then we're going to be right back where we are now," he told Rose.

Other options Rose proposed to the council included raising the property tax, reducing the fund balance below 10 percent with no layoffs and reducing the fund balance to 10 percent while laying off 160 employees.

Comments
Print
E-mail
Share
- Facebook
- Fark
- Digg
- Reddit
- Stumble
Tweet

Discussion: comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

No trusted comments have been posted.

By neiman1

April 16, 2009

9:57 a.m.

Flag

Hang in there Teamsters. You bought and paid for these elected officials and they should not be crossing you.
By tbvegas

April 16, 2009

12:21 p.m.

Flag

Robinson is the only hope of reason that city has!
By inmyrightmind

April 18, 2009

6:14 a.m.

Flag

I think both sides would like to see this resolved. As long as this is hashed out in the media, the Teamsters will be portrayed as greedy, and I think that the City Council showed how concerned they are for the city.

Up until the middle of February, in our shop meetings, we were told how good everything is, and there was nothing to worry about. We were told that the city was in great financial shape, then suddenly, we're handed a letter telling us that there were 13 things we had to give up to keep our jobs. There was not going to be any negotiating, they didn't want to hear about any other cost saving measures, that was the way it was going to be.

In our small shop alone, we came up with several ways that the city could save over a million dollars a year, that would not cost an employee a penny of their annual salary. We felt that the city was trying to take advantage of the slow economy by announcing this right when Henderson and Boulder City were re-negotiating their contracts.

I don't feel like I really got any answers unti that City Council meeting. Now that things are out in the open, I'd like to sit down at the table and see what we can work out.