Arbitrator might save city money in fire union contract

By Joe Schoenmann

Sunday, May 30, 2010 | 2 a.m.

After the Las Vegas firefighters union announced last week that its contract negotiations had reached an impasse, a specter arose of those negotiations being put in the hands of an arbitrator.

Why describe arbitration as a “specter”? Doesn’t that imply that it’s something bad?

It’s something city officials wanted to avoid. Indeed, sources said city administrators were on their way to signing an agreement with the firefighters two weeks ago, until a Sun story pointed out the proposed deal would result in union concessions far below the 8 percent cuts Las Vegas Mayor Goodman had publicly demanded.

Why avoid arbitration? In 2005, didn’t Clark County and the city win through that process after being at loggerheads with the Police Protective Association?

In the 2005 case, the arbitrator sided with government, lowering the proposed pay increase — the union reportedly wanted salary and benefits increases of 26.5 percent over four years — by almost 5 percent and saving the city and county, which both contribute to Metro’s budget, about $17 million combined.

So why fear the arbitrator?

Historically, arbitrators here have sided with unions. In the past, the process had the two sides present their last contract offers, and the arbitrator picked one over the other, without the option of compromise.

However, some new wrinkles have appeared that might give a little more weight to local government. State law says an arbitrator has to compare offers with not only what other local governments pay, but also with compensation outside Nevada. He also must look at a government’s ability to pay over the length of a contract, not just the first year.

How would that tilt arbitration toward local government?

It’s generally conceded that local public employees are paid pretty well, so comparisons with other states could help governments. Also, it’s no secret that local government’s “ability to pay” has been severely hampered by plummeting tax revenue during the Great Recession.

•••

There was a sense of how desperate people are for employment when Metro revealed last week how many had applied for a highly specialized job within its DNA Lab.

The Metro Civil Service Board last week discussed an opening in the biology/DNA detail of the Forensic Laboratory. The lab needs a DNA technical lead. The job pays a starting salary of $70,200 to $85,405, but with time can pay as much as $103,917, along with health, dental and other benefits.

Metro’s job description says the employee will monitor “DNA analysis methods ... to ensure compliance” with FBI standards, perform “biology/DNA analyses on physical evidence” and interpret test results and testify as an expert witness.

I suppose you need more than a high school diploma for this gig.

It requires a master’s degree from an accredited college in biology, chemistry or a forensic science-related area; five years of professional forensic DNA lab experience; experience as an expert witness in court; and completion of a DNA auditing workshop sponsored by the FBI.

And what were they getting for applicants?

This is how Chairman Elgin Simpson summed it up: “Some of these people clearly had no idea what they were applying for.”

Out of 90 applicants, four were qualified. Of those four, one failed a practical exam and another failed the oral exam. One of the two remaining candidates might be hired.

Simpson said he didn’t see the work histories of all the applicants, but said, “I think a lot applied online but didn’t really look at what we were asking for.”

In previous years when this job was open, just a few people applied, lab staff said.