Only one winner in city, union quarrels
Someone must like watching lawyers collect the public’s money. How else do you explain the confusing swirl of developments surrounding police negotiations in two very different suburban towns Naperville and Prospect Heights?
The circumstances in the two communities are entirely unrelated, but they share common themes demands from cash-strapped municipalities for police concessions and complaints from police unions that the governments are not acting in good faith. Coincidentally, in recent days, each town Naperville (population 144,600; police department 137), and Prospect Heights (population 17,000; police department 22) announced layoffs of six police officers.
Naperville’s situation features a confusing set of complexities. For one thing, the layoffs follow by mere days the city’s approval of a new three-year agreement with its police union. The agreement, based on an offer by the city, provides annual raises totaling more than 9 percent over three years, generous terms for a budget-challenged town in an economic environment where raises of any size are rare.
No one on the council seems to dispute that the city cannot afford the contract it approved. The police union naturally asks why the option of layoffs didn’t surface during 18 months of negotiations, although its spokeswoman acknowledges as the city says the union should have assumed she figured layoffs were coming, but “it’s just a little sooner than I expected.” What’s more, two City Council members say they plan to maneuver the contract back onto the table.
In Prospect Heights, police contend that city officials were improperly furloughing some officers and initiated the new layoffs, without the participation of the union, in the midst of collective bargaining talks.
In both situations, it’s clear that the real target of all the intrigue and finger pointing is public opinion. Both sides want to be perceived as willing to talk. Neither side wants to be perceived as giving in. So, the only thing that appears certain is that nothing will be settled without a fair amount of animosity and the involvement of armies of attorneys. Why must this be?
Surely, all parties must realize that a municipality has to have ultimate responsibility for its budget; it cannot commit to payments it cannot afford. Surely, too, all parties must realize that employees deserve open, honest and fair treatment in the establishment of their working conditions. Can reasonable men and women not work together to achieve those two objectives? In both these situations the public will no doubt get stuck with sorting through everything before simply siding with one culprit or the other. And when the dust settles, no party will win. Not the union, not the city, and certainly not the public.
Oh, but the lawyers will probably come out OK. There must be a better way.