Deja vu with Waste Management

Although Teamsters Local 117, representing striking drivers of recyclable trucks, and Waste Management have reached a last-second "confidential" agreement, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it even reached this point. I don’t know who ever thought that private companies should be allowed to perform public services like garbage pick-up, but that it seems to have picked up momentum during the Reagan administration seems par for the course. People around here probably have short memories, so it is useful to remember that Seattle has seen the current Waste Management/union dance of death before. In 2006, after WM offered its “last best offer,” garbage truck mechanics represented by Teamsters Local 174 went on strike, causing trash pick-up delays, before a federal mediator was brought in to settle the contract dispute. In 2010, a federal mediator again had to be sought to avert a strike by Local 174 garbage truck drivers, after WM put on the table its “last best offer.” Local 117, representing recyclable collectors, had vowed to support a strike if it had occurred.

In other states, WM had tried other tactics besides lowballing unions. In 2007, the company locked out Teamsters in Alameda County, California; WM took a hard line for a month, ignoring Teamsters demands that they remove their “last best offer” from the table. This time, it was the Oakland City Council and other communities that decided to play hardball with WM, suing the company for the unsanitary conditions its behavior it had instigated. In the 2008, WM reached a settlement with the city, which forced it to pay $3 million in rebates to 95,000 customers, and nearly $5 million in additional services, such as expanding recycling and sweeping illegal dumping sites.

The city of Seattle, however, as usual has done little but make empty threats. I’m not sure if anyone was expecting a strike in 2012 by recyclable drivers, although it will be foolish not to expect more of the same in when the garbage drivers’ contract comes up in a few years. If WM is allowed to get away with firing current employees and hire new ones (it is already airing radio spots announcing that it is hiring) rather than returning to the negotiating table, there is no doubt that they will attempt to use the same abusive union-busting tactics.

The recycle collectors represented by Local 117 in the current dispute are demanding pay increases more in line with regular garbage haulers. I frankly am not convinced that recycle collectors deserve the same rate of pay as garbage collectors, given the rather more messy nature of the latter. At any rate, according to the contract with Waste Management the minimum hourly wages for garbage and compostable waste collectors was initially $25.77 for drivers, and 70 percent of that rate for his/her “helper. However, “new” employees must work a minimum of 3000 hours to be awarded that “minimum” rate; that is the equivalent of 18 months of 40-hour weeks. Health benefits are paid after 1000 hours of work—the equivalent of six months of 40-hours weeks. Employees then receive $1,224.77 per month in health, dental and vision benefits. Recycle collectors—the ones currently on strike, have a minimum hourly of $19.97 for drivers, and $15.33 for their “helpers.” Their benefits package is also slightly less generous than for garbage collectors. The recycle collectors are complaining that on average they actually make $9-an-hour less than garbage collectors, and this is not “fair.”

It is a matter of opinion, of course, if recycle collectors pay is “unfair”—since at an average wage of $58,000 it is still noticeably above the average median household income in King County, which currently stands at $54,000. For some of us, that sounds like a fortune; the city compensates Waste Management enough with the idea of providing “generous” pay and benefits, while those of us who work for a contractor who is paid by a company who couldn’t care less if it is only enough for the employees to live in the conditions described in the Monty Python skit “Four Yorkshiremen.” However, there are likely few services more appreciated than garbage pick-up, and most citizens would say, “just pay them” and get it over with. But since Waste Management is a private company, and unlike a public, non-profit entity, it has executives who need to paid millions of dollars and shareholders who expect dividends.

According to its contract with Waste Management, which the city initially paid the company $35 million to perform garbage removal, the city is responsible for “Establishing service levels and rates to be charged customers; directing all collected garbage, compostables and recyclables to public or private transfer stations in accordance with the terms of this contract; and paying compensation to the contractor for its services pursuant to the contract.” From what I can gather, the city is also on the hook for various taxes “imposed by a taxing authority directly on commercial garbage customers to the proper taxing authority” and which are “imposed for waste transfer for any garbage collected and tipped under this contract by the contractor.” However, there are various penalties imposed on WM for failure to perform, although they don’t exceed $300 for any single offense.

What exactly does the contract expect from Waste Management in regard to how it compensates workers beyond the minimum rate? Any potential pay raises should be in line with increases of the total compensation the city will pay WM, based on the Inflation Adjustment Factor. “The IAF for the contract year beginning in April 2010 through the contract year beginning in April 2014, will be calculated by taking the weighted average, based on the weights above, of one hundred percent (100%) of the percentage difference between the three indices’ most recent year-end values and the corresponding values for the year ending December 2008, and adding the result to 1.0.”

Just in case none of that makes any sense, the “weights” it is referring to is the following:

“The three indices and their weights are: 1) the second-half annual consumer price index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton Area, Series ID No. CWURA423SAO, or successor indices, which will have a weight of 42%, 2) the Energy Information Agency annual West Coast Retail Price Series for On-Highway Diesel Fuel, Index No. PADD5, which will have a weight of 8%, and 3) the Employment Compensation Cost Index for Private Industry, in current dollars, December 2005=100, for Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services, Series ID No. ECU12542i, which will have a weight of 50%.”

Does it make sense now? Surely Waste Management wouldn’t pretend confusion. Anyhow, increases in any of these values were will be passed on to WM consumers.

The contract goes on to say that “The Inflation Adjustment Factor, for the contract year beginning in April 2015, and for each subsequent year…The Contractor shall ensure that all Contractor and subcontractor collectors performing work under this Contract are paid not less than the prevailing rate of wage for the same trade or occupation as set by the City. The term “collectors" includes drivers, swampers, and others working on Garbage, Compostables, and Recyclables collection…If a collector, during the same pick-up, is collecting both Garbage and Recyclables, or Compostables and Recyclables (co-collection), he/she must be paid the highest prevailing rate of wage for collection…The term, "prevailing rate of wage" includes the hourly wage, usual benefits and overtime paid in the locality as defined in RCW 39.12.010(b). The Contractor's duty to pay the prevailing rate of wage and to ensure that subcontractors pay the prevailing rate of wage is absolute and mandatory. No worker may waive full compliance or accept a lesser sum.” The “prevailing rate of wages” which was noted above is to “be updated on a yearly basis thereafter.”

Waste Management claims that its current offer to recycle collectors will increase average pay from $58,000 to $68,000 a year—with an additional $30,000 in benefits; there is no immediate word if that has changed under the tentative agreement. Again, if I were these guys, I’d be more than happy with that; however, if you have become accustomed to such wages, than it is certainly hard to give it up. The recycle collectors’ union took the chance of badly miscalculating their leverage, however; unlike the Alameda County workers who were locked out, they could have been permanently replaced. If the worst came, Local 117 wass apparently hoping that the Obama administration’s generally labor-friendly NLRB would save them from themselves—meaning that the Board would have to decide if it is an “unfair” for recyclables collectors to make less than garbage collectors.

************************************************************

In another local story, Normandy Park, one of those well-off communities, is up in arms after a couple of group homes for mentally-ill patrons and recovering drug addicts were “surreptitiously” located in the community. A “grass roots” outfit, rather inappropriately named Normandy Park Cares, is all excited about it, and not surprisingly managed to persuade the Seattle Times to put a sinister spin on events on the front page of last Sunday’s newspaper, backed by a picture of a crowd of residents—all who looked suspiciously Caucasian, in typical NIMBY fashion. With the aid of city officials, a complaint with the Washington Department of Health against the California-based Hanbleceya program has been launched, accusing it of being an “unregulated treatment facility.” The residents of the homes are actually treated off-site, but we shouldn’t underestimate the paranoia of white folks who, after all, have moved to such places as Normandy Park in the first place because they want to stay as far away as possible from such “others.”

The Times quoted someone associated with the program, Kerry Paulson, as saying that residents “are ignorant and insensitive” about the needs of the mentally-ill. "You should be thanking us that they are in a place, medicated and they're not out committing crimes. Being in a program, they become productive members of society." Normandy Park residents complain that no one was “upfront” about the project, but no doubt they would have been behaving worse than the people they are now complaining about had they been fully informed. The Hanbleceya residents have to abide by strict rules to remain in the houses; Normandy Park residents, of course, can be as unruly and unreasonable as they want to be.

This is not to say that Normandy Park residents don’t have legitimate concerns; nobody wants their communities to be turned into the Island of Doctor Moreau. But it makes sense that best environment for those trying to return to a normal life is one that doesn’t include street criminals, drunks and drug dealers. If Normandy Park residents feel that their community cannot provide such an environment, then perhaps they are targeting the wrong people for their fears.