Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Aua-ZS-Z006 16:40 <br /> <br />September 25, 2006 - ATTACHMENT 2 <br /> <br />P.OOZ/OQ7 F-173 jr~ <br />Page 36 <br /> <br /> <br />ROBERT MORALES <br />Secretary-Treasurer <br /> <br />SANITARY TRUCK DRIVER.S AND "ELPERS <br />Local Noo 35,0 <br />.A.flI'ILlATED WITH Tm: <br />lliTERl'1ATIOI'iAL EROTfiERlIOOD Of' TEAMSTERS <br /> <br />Offiee; CEDAR ffiLL OffiCE BUILDING <br />29B 89th STREET. SUITE 304 <br />DALY CITY, CALll"OR.N1A 940015 <br />Telephone: (650) 75'-7290 <br />FAX: (650) 757-7294 <br /> <br />~~.. <br /> <br />'- . <br /> <br />APPILlATEO WITH <br />Joint Council ofTeamste!'$ rio. 7 <br />aay Area Onion ~bOT Party <br /> <br />August 29; 2006 <br /> <br />The Honorable Barbara Pierce - Mayor <br />1028 Eden Bower Lane <br />Redwood City, CA 94061 <br /> <br />Re: Solid Waste & Recycling RFP <br /> <br />Sent Via Fax: 650-368-6246 <br /> <br />Dear Mayor Pierce: <br /> <br />As Teamsters Local 350 Business Agent Jim Furgas promised at last evening's City Council <br />meeting, I am enclosing copies of Local 350'8 proposed labor protection provisions to be included <br />in the RFP for franchise agreement(s) to become effectivem. 2011. <br /> <br />In the light of the discussion at the City Council meeting concerning this subjectj I think it will be <br />heI.nful to make the followimr exulanations. <br />. - . <br /> <br />The "employee retention" provisions in the Union's proposal would be applicable only if the <br />franchise is awarded to a non-incumbent contractor. In that siPlation, the City Manager's report <br />presented to the Council's members recommends that "emplo)~ent preference" be given to the <br />employees of the current contractor. We do not think that is sufficient. The SB"WMA is entitled to <br />adopt and enforce an employee retention policy as a matter of fairness in the treatment of the <br />employees who perform. This essential municipal service. and should not leave it to the contractor. <br />The term '~reference" is in any event very ambiguous and impossible to enforce_ <br /> <br />Similarly, the Union opposes the City Manager's recommendation insofar. as it would impose an <br />obligation on the successful contractor to pay "competitive wages and benefits." As was pointed <br />out during the discussion, this is also a very ambiguous standard, and pt'obably incapable of <br />administering. We think the problem can be, and should be eliminated by the requirement in the <br />Union's proposal that a new successful contractOr be required to adopt the tcnns and conditions of <br />the collective bargaining agreement in effect immediately before the new contractor starts work. In <br />addition to maintaining stability, this provision would provide companies that respond to the RFP <br />with necessary information about the hlbor costs involved in making their proposals. If there is no <br />collective bargaining agreement in effect immediatdy before takeover - whieh is highly Lllllikely- <br />the Union's proposal suggests that the contractor be made to provide the wages and benefits that are <br />