Show Transcript
Disclaimer: The following transcript was auto-generated and may contain spelling or contextual errors.
Hi, welcome back to Open Agenda this
week. I'm your host Joe Venosa. With us
we got Joe Scaffidi from Salisbury once
again. Morning, sir. And from Delmarva,
Mr. Mike Goldberg.
>> doing?
>> Very well. We're hanging in. A lot of
things going on with the city obviously
this week and the previous week. The big
story of course is that they have voted
to rescind collective bargaining.
>> Tonight before you is Charter Amendment
Resolution number 2026-3.
This is a resolution of the City of
Salisbury to amend Article 23 of the
charter which authorizes collective
bargaining by repealing Article 23 in
its entirety and abrogating all
collective bargaining rights. Tonight
for you for this public hearing followed
by second reading.
>> And now there's an effort underway to
undo that decision via a ballot petition
that would put the issue to the voters
in a referendum. So a lot's going on. It
brings up huge fiscal, political
concerns.
What I'd like to do is if Joe, if you
can hang out for a little bit and Mike,
if you could step away and I'm going to
bring on Trish Melvin, get her
perspective because she's looked at a
little bit of data with regard to the
numbers and we'll kind of talk about
the timeline of events and then after
that we'll bring you back on and kind of
talk about where things go and sort of
the broader debate about collective
bargaining. All right, stick around and
we'll be back with our next segment of
Open Agenda with Trish Melvin.
Hi, welcome back to Open Agenda. So with
us in the house today from Fruitland, we
have Ms. Trish Melvin.
>> Hello.
>> Hello, thanks for coming in. So we this
past week have seen quite a bit of drama
once again in the City of Salisbury's
government. And of course this one you
could make the argument has a lot of
validity depending on your perspective
because the city ultimately voted to
rescind its 2023 labor code. Now um to
back up a bit and give people the
timeline, um this did not sort of come
out of nowhere because there had been a
previous effort, I believe last fall or
winter, uh in which um the mayor's
office uh had initially proposed uh this
effort, and it was actually voted down
uh at the time by by the council. Now,
what the council did do is they did
acknowledge that the initial agreement
at the time um they said uh needed to be
reworked to alter the timeline of
negotiations.
>> Right, to have it line up with the
budget because
>> With the budget.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, so there was criticism of the
2023 labor code then even just in the
sense of how it was organized, but
nevertheless,
um it was thought that the basics of of
having the collective bargaining
agreements and having the protections to
collectively bargain or would be there.
But, of course, in the last few months
we've seen um an effort to bring that
back, and ultimately, um
a majority of the council
uh had publicly supported pushing
through a first reading. This was back
in um
April to push for an actual recision a
recision of that actual 2023 labor code,
and there's been a lot of community
pushback and support, depending on who
it is.
>> Good evening, Council President Jackson
and members of the council. My name is
Ennissa Pear Sessums. I serve as
Executive Vice President with AFSCME
Maryland Council 3, representing AFSCME
Local 1081.
AFSCME Local 1081 members strive every
day to deliver great public services for
the people of Salisbury.
We have urged this council time and time
again to respect respect the dignity of
our city employees by recognizing that
their voice matters, and that their work
matters, and that they themselves
matter.
Tonight, I hope you will listen to our
call and vote this resolution down.
>> Council members, my name is Jack Hughes.
I serve as the union representative with
AFSCME Council 3. In my role, I have the
honor of working side-by-side with city
workers in the city
from AFSCME Local 1081. In 2023,
[clears throat]
these workers stood together and
accomplished a significant victory in
winning their union.
They knew then what remains true today.
Workers are stronger standing together
and forming a union to create real
meaningful change in the workplace and
in the community.
Our members negotiated in good faith
with this administration for the first
agreement, and this administration was
responsible for negotiating their side
of the agreement and committing their
word by signing
by signing it.
Now, the administration claims that they
must repeal workers' collective
bargaining rights tonight to solve a
future projected budget shortfall, which
will occur in fiscal year 2030. This
claim is simply not true.
First, it must be emphasized that
workers' freedoms
freedom to collectively bargain and a
government's responsibility to balance a
budget are separate issues.
>> Uh Riley Smith, City of Salisbury.
The mayor has already succinctly
addressed the issue of the union, and I
would like to add more facts and
especially for the C math students
living in the county and not paying city
taxes. I am for paid heroes, but like my
family, they get a Kia Soul even though
they want a Bugatti. Why? Obviously, I
do not have unlimited taxing authority,
scary thought. And if I did, I do not
belong to a union that tries to
negotiate for something I can't afford.
>> The people of Salisbury depend on career
firefighters and paramedics to answer
their call on their worst day. Safe
communities start with strong
departments, and strong departments
depend on stability.
The stability comes from collective
bargaining. It comes from bringing
people together to solve problems, not
taking away the process that allows them
to do it. Stri- Stripping collective
bargaining rights from firefighters,
police, and other public workers is the
wrong direction for Salisbury. I urge
the Salisbury City Council to reject
this proposal. I've made my position on
this very clear over the last few
months.
Um that
I think it's a bad decision for many
many reasons. Uh the morale issue has
been brought up before, the cost of
turnover, all things
that people have also mentioned. But the
reality here is that even if the council
does do away with it, it's more than
likely going to come back in the future.
And so I guess the question becomes is
it worth taking away now for it to come
back in the future?
Um I I've also had said this before as
others have that two things can be true
at the same time. Um the simple fact,
and this is an irony for me to say, but
some of the people that are supporting
collective bargaining had a hand in
helping the city become bankrupt. Um
there are at least two sitting council
members and one former appointed member
who just spoke who gave away millions of
dollars to developers that bankrupted
the city. They gave away a lot of the
salaries and benefits to Nick Simpson,
to Dave Layfield, to Brad Gillis,
and
in exchange for political support. And
that's unfortunate. That has to be said.
Nevertheless, I agree with them in the
sense that collective bargaining
shouldn't be taken away, particularly
for our first responders, who we have
already heard from the sheriff, we've
heard from the state's attorney,
um and other labor representatives that
this is going to be a public safety
problem. Ultimately,
this sort of crescendoed last week with
a vote in which the council finally
passed, as it currently stands, the
three major unions,
AFSCME,
the Salisbury Fire Department's
local, and the FOP, their local, all now
lose collective bargaining rights. Why
did it happen in the sense of what are
the arguments, at least what are the
official arguments given and what are
the unofficial arguments sort of that
others have have have
>> Yeah, I just want to make a couple
comments. Um, a little frustrating
tonight. I'm glad we um
have this to vote at least behind us.
Um, I think it's very frustrating
um
to uh have a lot of people here that
don't even live in the city
come and comment and people out of the
area come and comment. Um,
you know, this is a difficult decision
for everybody
uh council. It was, you know, and and
the mayor's office.
Uh, but we had to make [clears throat]
it on the basis of the reality of the
finances. You know, these are very
practical and mathematical realities
that we've got to live in. Um,
it can be very be very very easy to be
um
bold from a safe distance. Does that
make sense?
>> There's no way I could sit behind this
table tonight and not cast the vote I
did based strictly on the budget. I
attended every budget work session. I
attended the closed session. I heard
where we were at. I will say it again,
it is not fiscally responsible to fund
an operating budget off of a surplus.
It's not sustainable. I do care about
the workers. As much as people want to
say that's not true, I'm a worker.
Always have been and I do care. So, I'm
sorry that this is the way it came.
Mistakes were made in the past that
brought us to where we are today.
>> I I
cannot believe
that we are
eliminating after just 2 years.
After years of fighting for it
we are undermining these workers, these
people who give their lives to the city.
I think
what happened here tonight is what we
can look forward to for the next 18
months.
And I am just appalled at the glib
behavior
the dismissiveness,
the chuckling
at comments from the public
that don't align with the majority on
this council or the mayor's office.
I'm ashamed
of this council.
I'm ashamed
of the leadership in the city.
>> I mean, even with the the union, it
wasn't something that I wanted to do.
Honestly, it really wasn't something.
But as Melissa has said, and I concur
with her, before I would allow this city
to go into bankruptcy,
I will stand firm
on my beliefs.
Nobody persuaded me or anything. Like I
said, I'll say it again, I think for
myself.
>> So, what do we know about the finance
and how that plays into this whole
debate?
>> Well,
again, you know, fiscally, I'm I support
the mayor. He's done a
a good job. He inherited a hornet's nest
from the previous mayor and and council.
Um
trying to right the ship fiscally.
Um years of giveaways to developers,
giving away properties undervalued,
waving fees, you know, set the the
the general fund just
millions of dollars. So,
he's trying to make
and get us on on level ground. Now,
one of the arguments for liquidating uh
the union was that uh
there was a risk that binding
arbitration could award the unions more
than the city could afford, therefore
bankrupting the city.
Talking to some of the firemen,
they said that's not the case. They said
the arbitrator cannot award more than
the city can afford. In other words, the
arbitrator cannot
rule
to bankrupt the city. So, now we've got
two opposing
arguments on there
we should should know about.
>> So, it sounds like the primary reason
that was presented is financial.
>> Oh, yeah. Definitely.
>> But, there are theories that ideology
played a role in this, too, depending on
who you talk to. And
And And And I guess the thing that the
city council has stated on both sides is
that
the money issue is being
used right as the excuse, right?
>> That's what I hear. That's what I hear.
>> So,
I I I guess we're at a situation where
um if we look at the actual budget
numbers that have been presented
the city, I think we all agree, is in a
lot of financial trouble. It It It
doesn't seem to be that we're getting a
resolution on this issue because now
we're just debating the statistics,
right? We're We're sort of taking the
data
and people are kind of using it to sort
of say, "Well, this is why we got to get
rid of it versus this is why we should
keep it."
Um so So, it seems that the financial
argument only kind of hardens the
positions of of people rather than maybe
illuminate.
>> You know,
I heard That's what I keep hearing is
structurally, financially, it's
unaffordable.
>> Okay.
>> And there was a PowerPoint presentation
about a month ago at Salisbury meeting
council meeting and there were some
tables and charts presented and one that
got my attention
uh showed projected revenues and
projected salary increases for the fire
and police union employees. Um and the
It showed the bar for the salaries was
much greater than the bar for the
expected revenue increase.
But, what got my attention is that that
chart was presented in in percentages
>> Mhm.
>> rather than straight dollars.
>> Mhm.
>> And presented that way, it does strongly
support the argument of the mayor and
the council.
>> Mhm.
>> But if you look at the numbers
themselves, now I went back to 2026, not
2027, [clears throat]
but the total budget revenues look to be
172 million.
>> Mhm. [clears throat]
>> And the fire and police non-clerical
salary portion is about 13 and a half
million.
>> Mhm.
>> So that's only 7.8%
of the entire budget. So if that chart
had been constructed based on straight
dollars, it would not support the
argument to dissolve collective
bargaining.
>> Was it union busting?
I mean, I don't know.
>> Well, yeah, that that jumped out at me
when I saw that graph. Why are they
expressing it in percent?
>> Yeah.
>> Well, and here's the irony too, not not
necessarily the irony, but here's here's
the reality of where this goes. You
know, the city council took the vote on
the 26th. There was a lot of turnout,
not as much turnout as previous
meetings, but nevertheless, people did
show up and people did sort of comment
and certainly
elected officials also gave their
perspective. But now the question
becomes what happens because there's an
effort underway
to
effectively undo this through a ballot
referendum.
>> Right.
>> Now, in order to get a referendum on the
ballot for the city where voters can
actually go to the polls and undo this
resolution, they have to go under 3,600
verified city resident signatures. So
you have to be a voter, you have to live
in the city.
Um
and as we speak, there is an effort
underway to get those signatures. Now,
in full disclosure, I signed it myself
Let the voters decide. Let the voters
decide. Nevertheless, this I think
speaks to some of the long-standing
structural problems that uh have been
talked about that we've talked about
with regard to the city's overall uh
makeup and it's and it's just it's
general fiscal character.
Um so it's going to be interesting to
see what happens with that um
particular ballot initiative.
>> Next year is an election year for mayor
and city council. So, there'll be
interesting campaign.
>> issue will be I think at the center of
the election.
>> Yeah, 2017 could be an
could be more attention to voter
turnout.
>> Yeah.
>> Indeed, in Salisbury.
>> Well, we shall see.
>> Yep.
>> So, what I'd like to do uh because
you've both given your great analysis on
this issue is I'd like to bring in Mike
Goldberg from Delmar um and get his view
of it as as a county resident um someone
who's not in a municipality per se
and also maybe tease out a little bit um
how this issue kind of broadens out to
the to the general um
support or or lack thereof of collective
bargaining because, you know, part of
this is a fiscal argument, but part of
it also, as we know, is a sort of
ideological one. All right, and thank
you for watching and we're going to be
right back with the next segment of Open
Agenda. Stick around.
Hi, welcome back to our next segment of
Open Agenda. Sticking around for us is
Mr. Joe Scafino. Thank you, sir. And
coming back from the big city, well, the
big town of Delmar, Mike Goldberg.
>> The big city of Delmar.
>> You're certainly not far from Salisbury
and you're not far from the drama
because as as you've been watching,
we've talked a lot about this big issue
that's come up with the decision of
collective bargaining. So, as a county
resident, um what what's your take on it
uh at least from kind of the um the
fiscal and sort of the the the the
practical sense of it as it stands.
>> I've got issues with unions, period,
particularly public sector unions
because they're put in a position where
they can hold the taxpayers hostage. You
know, if let's say you belong to a union
and you work for IBM. Okay, well, if if
you if you're going to hold them hostage
then you're only hurting IBM's
customers. But we're all customers of
the government. We all pay our taxes and
I
it it it I find it deeply concerning
when you have unions that
can
withhold or reduce needed services to
the taxpayers. And even though that may
not happen all the time, the possibility
for that is always there.
And when you're dealing with public
safety
as as Trish mentioned
earlier that
public safety is the number one job of
of government. And we can't afford to
have the the
our safety mitigated by by a union
failing to
to to do the job that their employees
are supposed to be doing.
>> Well, while I understand your concerns,
my understanding is that Maryland
by law prohibits public sector employees
from striking. Your concern is valid,
but it's it's basically
a non-issue in Maryland.
>> And that may very well be the case. I
I'm going to you take take that at at
face value as as being true.
The larger problem is then I think the
more practical problem is the cost of
collective bargaining. The
city administrations or county
administrations
have to prioritize what the needs of
their constituents are.
And they all too often prioritize
things that should not be a high
priority.
We see a lot of wealth redistribution
schemes that both the city and the
county engage in.
There's just a lot of stuff that the
local governments are doing that really
are not even necessarily a legitimate
function of the government. They need to
prioritize public safety.
>> Well, and I I think a lot of us and this
is where I would put myself too is that
and I fully agree with with your point
about
you know, some of the decisions that are
made that don't prioritize
not only our our fiscal health but but
public safety. But I think
the argument that this is actually going
to have a detrimental effect on public
safety, I think is is very true. I I
think when the sheriff, when Jamie
Dykes, when other
city labor activists came several weeks
ago, they all had a kind of common
thread of you know, by getting rid of
this, you what you're going to do is
essentially you're going to incentivize
people to leave to places where they can
get better protections and possibly
better pay. And it's also such a morale
killer that you're basically
compromising
the work and and the views of people
that that does that the city requires on
that the city requires to do the most
essential services. So it's it's sort of
like I don't think we're in any
disagreement that governments much like
businesses can like fiscally mismanage
things. But if if if ever there's a
priority to invest in, it's the
personnel that you rely on to do the
most critical job.
>> I agree with that and and I think that
we have to pay a competitive wage to all
county or city employees.
But the uh
if
the management if management, the mayor
or the city council
it is incumbent upon them to ensure that
the fire departments, that the police
and everybody else are being paid a
competitive wage. If you're not If
you're not being paid a competitive
wage, of course, you are going to go
elsewhere. So, in the absence of of
collective bargaining, it it
[clears throat] it becomes the
management's responsibility to be
certain that people are being paid
fairly so that they can attract and
retain good employees.
>> And and and to your point,
one of the reasons that the the union
was voted in was that in the past the
city fell behind on
pay raises and and and bump-ups. That
was one of the big complaints where as
collective bargaining
made sure that
>> I'm sorry. And
and then it's incumbent on the voters to
replace management then and be so that
they can ensure that the city's needs
are being met.
>> Well, one of the things too though and
and you spoke to this just now a little
bit, but beyond cost, right, is that
there's other issues that collective
bargaining, you know, provides, right,
in terms of, you know, certain safety
requirements, trainings,
um non-financial, non-fiscal stuff. But
to your point, one of the issues that
that everybody talks about and I I hear
this a lot cuz, you know, I get a lot of
friends who either have worked, uh you
know, for the city police, fire, EMS,
and especially just other general
services. They all talk about
compression. They all talk about that
salary compression is one of the biggest
things. I mean, working at a university,
I can tell you like when you're in that
mid-tier, you you know, you're sort of
the forgotten people because you
basically um
lose a lot of access to it advancement
as management seeks to bring in newer
people or they have those that have a
lot of seniority. And so, I do wonder
now that the city has rescinded
collective bargaining for now and let's
say for the time being it it stays this
way,
um what is that going to do to a lot of
those mid-career people
uh who do have the ability to go? Like
if they do leave, right? If if to your
point it's true that people are going to
go elsewhere for better opportunity,
what does that put us as city residents
in a position to deal with? And
>> If those people leave, then hopefully,
provided that the that the pay rates are
fair, they will be able to attract other
people
>> But
>> have the requisite experience to fill
those jobs.
>> Yeah.
>> Look, I I've never belonged to a union.
>> Mhm.
>> And you know, I've been By and large,
I've been treated fairly in any place
I've ever worked.
>> Mhm.
>> But if I didn't like my working
conditions somewhere or I felt that I
was not being paid a salary commensurate
with what I produce and and my level of
experience,
>> Mhm.
>> then I tender a letter of resignation
and I find another job.
>> Well, you know, I've been in unions in
the past. Uh I worked for one company,
it was it was union, and then I went to
a company that was non-union, but the
non-union company to stay competitive,
their wages were
nickels and dimes less than the union
wage. So, it was it was
comparable. So, the union actually
helped the non-union wage. So, you know,
historically
>> It's sort of like the idea of a rising
tide lifts all boats.
>> Exactly.
>> But does it rise into a point where it
becomes unaffordable? Let me give you an
example.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh the the Davis-Bacon Wage Act, which
I've had to deal with, you know, quite a
bit in the past, where I've seen where a
common laborer
would actually have to be paid more than
a junior civil engineer.
>> Mhm.
>> That's absurd. I mean, we're we're
talking 60, 70 dollars an hour for
someone who's turning dirt with a
shovel. You know, you just cannot When
when you pay those kinds of
extraordinary wages
>> pay my plumber much higher than I would
do a similar job.
>> Well,
you're only paying him a dollar for
doing the work, but you're paying him
the other $100 per hour for knowing how.
So
And and and
>> No comment.
>> [laughter]
>> And and and that's that's the
difference. It's um
>> Well, this is I'm sorry. Yeah, but I I
mean I don't think David Bacon is
relevant to to this situation.
>> it's not except to the extent that it it
it is another type of collectivism that
pressure has been put on the federal
government to establish these wages just
as unions put pressure on local
governments to establish the
wage rate.
>> again,
we're not going to necessarily solve or
maybe come to an understanding about the
broader philosophy of of collective
bargaining. Like, you know, I personally
believe that it's it's a basic right to
collectively bargain and to have that
option.
>> Why is it a basic right?
>> Well, because it's the idea of freedom.
It's the idea that if I choose with
other workers to improve my ability and
my standards, we can we should have that
option to do so. If other people don't
If other I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> And as a manager, then
it would be my right to release those
employees who are causing a problem in
my organization.
>> Yeah, or or as history has proven, kill
them. I mean, like that happens to
>> I think you're being just a little bit
extreme.
>> Well, I don't advocate that.
Again, we can we [laughter] can get into
this
interesting maybe for another time.
>> That's another issue.
>> But but I but I do think that regardless
of where you come from on it, whether
you're sort of, you know, with me and
Joe or or anybody else who's on the
other side of it, the bottom line is
that one of the things that is has been
brought up and that we're now going to
see happen is does the taking away of
collective bargaining in the short term,
does it lead to the kind of shortages
and the kind of uh absences that people
are worried about? And I think
regardless of where you stand on
collective bargaining or
the city or the mayor or the policy or
the motivations behind it, that is the
one thing that keep the people keep
coming back to is what does this do for
the quality of services and the quality
of safety because I I think as as as
Trish said so perfectly well and so view
and you, you know, public safety is the
essence of local government. And the
question is as Salisbury gets into this
new experiment in for the time being and
not having collective bargaining
protection, what will happen? And that's
>> It can go south, honestly.
But that's where it really becomes the
responsibility of the mayor and council
to ensure that competitive wages and
benefits are being paid, you know,
particularly to
public safety personnel.
>> And also everybody else.
>> And I'll say this, putting aside even
just the general collective bargaining
debate, one of the things that really
scares me and we've talked about this
for the county issues and just to think
on this
because we're almost out of time.
Next year the state of Maryland is going
to be in much worse financial shape as
is from what it looks like the federal
government. Things are not Things are
not getting any any any any cheaper.
What is that going to do to Salisbury's
situation if we're having this
conversation now?
And that and that's And again, there's
no way to answer that now but
>> It's only worse. We can't answer that.
>> you know, I don't like to be pessimistic
on it but but I think we got to look at
the trends again, federally, certainly
statewide, and then how this is going to
impact the things that the city is also,
you know, going to have to deal with.
And
and I think we would all agree that
that's something we have to keep an eye
out for and it's going to probably make
this debate even more
uh intense and probably vitriolic
because I do think that this issue,
regardless of where you stand on it, is
is doing a negative uh disservice to our
political discourse in the city.
>> Our local problems, by and large, stem
from what happens in Annapolis. You
know, these you know,
let's face it, our House of Delegates,
our State Senate, our our governor,
they're not really doing what's best for
the people. That's why we have high
taxes, high regulation, businesses do
not want to come here, and we're at a
distinct disadvantage here on the
Eastern Shore for those very reasons, as
well as our geography, which is you
know, problematic as well. I don't know
that I hate to be pessimistic, but let's
face it, a
pessimist is nothing but an optimist
with experience. And experience tells me
that that we are going to be in for a
rough ride in the coming years.
>> Some some some would say there's 3.2
billion reasons to be a little bit
worried about
next year. So, we're we're going to see.
[laughter]
But, um thank you for your analysis. I
appreciate the discourse, even if we
don't always agree on it. It's always
good to dialogue.
It's good It's good to collectively
negotiate and talk, right? Go figure.
>> [laughter]
>> All right. Thank you so much, and thank
you so much for watching, and we'll be
back with a new episode of Open Agenda
next week. Take care out there.
>> And I don't want to say anything else,
because I'm going to start getting rude.
As some have now heard, the Salisbury City Council formally voted to rescind Collective Bargaining Rights for Police, Fire/EMS and City Workers. Regardless of your views about it, we at Open Agenda always strive to give the full picture with the facts. Because there is no true local media fully covering these issues, we will continue to cover these matters.
