Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br /> <br />reasonable balance between the needs of the work force and the needs of the Page 3 <br />community in having as much competition as possible for the contracts that expire <br />in December 2010. Having restrictive labor provisions in the RFP may dissuade <br />some collection operators from submitting proposals. We also believe it is not <br />advisable for the SBWMA or the franchising agencies to become too closely <br />involved in the labor-management issues between the collection operators and the <br />employees. <br /> <br />CARD CHECK AGREEMENT <br />local No. 350 has also requested that the RFP contain a provision requiring the use <br />of a "card check" agreement in the event a question arises as to which union should <br />be representing the employees. The card check agreement is one of several <br />methods permitted under Federal labor law under which employees can determine <br />their representation. We continue to believe that it is not appropriate for either the <br />SBWMA or the franchising authorities to become involved in this area as this is an <br />area that is well regulated by the National Labor Relations Board. <br /> <br />LABOR PEACE <br />The final provision requested by Local No. 350 is that the RFP require proposers to <br />".. .include in their proposals a full discussion of how they will assure that no labor <br />dispute or unrest that may affect the continuity of their services will occur during the <br />term of the Franchise Agreement." Staff continues to believe that this requirement <br />may insert the SBWMA and the franchising authorities too closely in the arena of <br />labor-management relations and could also dissuade potential proposers from <br />responding to the RFP. <br /> <br />Attached is a copy of the correspondence dated August 29, 2006 from Local No. 350 that <br />contains their specific requests (Attachment 2). <br /> <br />Code of Conduct <br />The proposed code of conduct probably elicited the strongest reaction from Council at the <br />August 28 meeting. After meeting with the subcommittee. staff has a much better <br />understanding of Council's concerns and agrees that existing state laws provide sufficient <br />guidance in the areas for conflicts of interest and campaign contributions. Accordingly we <br />now recommend a code of conduct that references the applicable state statutes that <br />govern conflicts of interest and the receipt and disclosure of campaign contributions. <br /> <br />With respect to prohibited contracts, we continue to believe that value will be added to the <br />competitive process if Council members and SBWMA Board members avoid any non- <br />public discussions about the competitive selection process with potential proposers. <br />Avoiding such conversations does not preclude Council members or SBWMA Board <br />members from social interactions or conversations about any other matters unrelated to <br />the competitive selection process. <br /> <br />Use of Alternative Fuel Vehicles <br />Several Council members expressed an interest in receiving more information before <br />endorsing the requirement that alternative fuel vehicles be used under the new contract. <br />Staff agrees with this request and has asked that Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, the consulting <br />firm providing staff and technical support for the development of the RFP, provide us with <br />more information on the costs and benefits of using alternative fuel vehicles before the <br />Board's meeting in October. <br />