01/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman Williams wondered why AFSCME members felt they were not affected by the Act, and why they felt it was in their interest to involve themselves in sup- port of,;employes in other jurisdictions. Bill Fritz, state representative of AFSCME,.. replied that the local was a part of an international union and although there had been no negative effects on local city employes, any challenge by NLC supported by the city could have negative effects in other parts of the country, and it was that aoncern local employes were supporting as the primary position of the union. It .. Mayor Anderson felt there was not a great difference of opinion between the Council, administration, and employes. He saw the NLC suit as trying to clarify judicially a law passed, by Congress and he felt that would be of benefit; to all. He thought too that strong opposition should be presented to any mandated legislation affecting operations and financing of.local governments, saying this Act appeared to be a "foot in the door." He respected employe concern with conditions in other parts of the country but thought that if those concerns were critical Congress would respond. The Mayor said the Council as a representative of its constituency had somewhat,of a manage~nt.role in attempting to protect the rights of the people from whom the resources would develop to pay any bills'resulting from the legiSlation. Councilman Bradley saw the, only issue as being a question of ~hether the city should contribute to the NLc suit. The question of whether the FLSA should apply to the city, he s~id, was not the issue', He didn't think the city s~ould contribute to the suit, that there were ways of supporting it other than financial - a letter of support or filing of an amicus curiae brief. Councilman Haws agreed with Mr. Bradley that the question was two-part. He thought if the law was not liked, Congress should be lobbied for change rather than having the courts decide the ex- tent of the Act. . Councilman Murray favored no action saying that he felt ,the proper position would be to "sit back and do nothing." He said the employe input confirmed his worries about their position'at the time he asked to hear from the,ir groups. He did not agree that the Council's position was clearly on the side of management any more than he would agree it was clearly on the side of labor. However, he did see some element of labor/management disagreement, he said, and his reading of past Counctl action was that the Council should stay out. He added that to become involved in the lawsuit which seemed to have the intent of more than clarification would clearly place the Council on one side or the other of the issue. e ,M k~ndagefr commented that he felt the Counc~ was "wearing two hats" in this . ~n 0 ,concern - one, as representatives of the people d part~cular all workin 1 dl an , as such, representing - g peop e regar ess of where employed, as well as emplo ers secondly, as an emp~o~er of the city organization and staff. Fed~ral ~nd.u~e~~lOyed; wo~ld affec~ the ab~l~ty of the Council to oPerate responsibly as an emei~sea on sa~d, when ~ t mandated requirements that limi ted the C ' I ' ., p y r, he problems at the local level through the 0 1 ounc~ s ab~l~ty to work out Of t' 1 n rma process of collective bargaining par ~cu ar concern was an apparent trend established b 't d' , . the publi t hi h' Y ex en ~ng th~s Act to ~~epari~ ~o~e~n~~o~u:~~o~p:;a~~: ~~x~s:::~~~s~;n~o~;~:;: ~:dl:~~~~a~~~dn~:n::~:g e,co ect~ve barga~n~ng process in the public sector. He noted existin cit ~~~~n~~~~s;'o~h~:e; ~rov~sions, and state law cove~ing collective bargain~ng a~d e era government to impose additional regulations would a' ar ~desirable and unneeded interference with local authority. ppe Manager asked',Council members to further review memOs distributed previousl from : =:::h~;~~~~~l t::P:~~::~ rai~ing these issues, keepi~g in mind they did hav; local . ,emp oyer and as representat~ves of the people. Some . r*:sponse could then be: g-tven at the January 27 Council meetin with re ar k~nds of operating problems reSUlting from the Act if alloweagto stand9asd,to tze noted there had been some problems already which had curtailed employe cho~~~S. e Cou~~~lman ~:ller inquire~ of the employe representatives the method by which their pos~ ~ons been author~zed, whether a 'poll of the memberships had been tak Mr. Jackson reviewed the history of the FLSA and said the Fire Fighters locale~~re ~adbapproved bot~ the vetoed original legislation and that subsequently adopted o ecome effect~ve the first of this ~!?ear. He, 'said there were some restrictions , 1/27/75 - 22 '3f:>