Measure A would cover 16,500 county workers as unions report $7.7 million raised for passage

Los Angeles County voters decide on Nov. 3 whether to strip the Board of Supervisors of final say over contract terms for unions that cannot strike. The board now can impose a last offer when talks stall; Measure A would instead send an impasse to a three-member arbitration panel whose ruling becomes public record.

The measure would cover 14 bargaining units and roughly 16,500 county employees, including lifeguards, deputy medical examiners, firefighters and deputy sheriffs. It would not apply to units whose members retain the right to strike. Under the proposal, each side picks one panel member and the two picks choose a third to chair; the panel would hear evidence on wages, hours and related terms.

Unions are funding the campaign. Reports filed through mid-October show $7.7 million raised by the associations representing sheriff's deputies, firefighters and other employee groups to back Measure A. No committee has reported spending against it, and no formal opposition has been filed with the ballot. Two progressive groups do urge a no vote: L.A. Forward and La Defensa, which objects to including the Sheriff's Department. La Defensa wrote that bundling deputies with firefighters and lifeguards "weaponizes a process we would otherwise support."

Supporters argue the current balance is lopsided. Derek Hsieh, executive director of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, said that "currently, the employer has near unilateral control over what the contract provisions are." Dave Gillotte, president of International Assn. of Firefighters Local 1014, which represents more than 3,000 county fire employees, said arbitration "really brings about leverage to move both parties to work hard to get a contract done, where we don't have that now."

The board voted 4-0 to place the measure on the ballot this year, with Supervisor Holly Mitchell abstaining. Mitchell objected to handing power to unelected decision-makers: "Arbitrators aren't elected. They're not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, like healthcare, capital improvements, all those things." Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who helped write the measure, said the process "opens up the books, allows the parties to come together and base decisions on facts rather than political preferences."

The county's record of imposing contract terms is thin. The Times previously reported that supervisors have mandated final terms twice since 2001. Horvath also noted that six of the 21 California jurisdictions with binding arbitration, including two counties, have actually used it.

Vallejo shows what can happen when an arbitrator and a strained budget collide. That city adopted binding arbitration more than 50 years ago after a police strike, and in 2007 a mediator barred reductions to fire department staffing. Vallejo declared bankruptcy eight months later, and voters repealed the arbitration rules in 2010. County chief executive Joe Nicchita included coverage of Vallejo and other jurisdictions in his impact summary this year.

Justin McBride of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment said academic research does not show arbitration tilting consistently toward one side. He cited a 2010 Cornell University study of negotiation outcomes in New York over several decades; it found that arbitration filings declined after a few years. "Everyone gets a deal, and just like in a lot of contracts maybe both parties aren't 100% with it, but that's kind of the nature of collective bargaining," McBride said.

Horvath said arbitrators would be expected to weigh the county's fiscal position. "That's what this is designed to do," she said. The board's 4-0 vote to place Charter Amendment A on the Nov. 3 ballot came with Mitchell abstaining.