It’s nonsense to say that Boston can’t afford the $83 million pay hike a
panel of arbitrators just awarded to the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Union. With
an annual budget of $2.6 billion, of course it can. Here’s how: Increase class
sizes. Reduce the number of cops on the street. Stop twice-weekly trash pickups.
Cut the parks department.
It’s choices like these that make this issue — a consequence of a bombshell
decision that just came out last week — perhaps the issue of the city’s mayoral
campaign. And it’s one that will hurt candidate Marty Walsh, feeding into
worries that he is too beholden to city unions to be an effective mayor.
The impact of the ruling is, in truth, devastating. Its 25.4 percent
increase over six years is more than double the 12 percent increases that the
administration and other unions had previously settled upon. But the effect of
the award goes much further. Additional police unions are also about to enter
into contract talks. The new raises set a precedent; they’ll hardly approve of
anything less. Moreover, the firefighters’ contract, last resolved in 2010, is
soon to come up again. The arbitrators have effectively boosted cops’ pay well
above that of firefighters, meaning there will be calls for parity between the
two. And civilian unions, including teachers, will doubtless see the agreement
as a model for their own negotiations. With tit-for-tat escalating demands, says
Sam Tyler, head of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, “This is like the Cold
War.”
Both Connolly and Walsh have proffered grand plans for their
administration. But Boston’s revenues grow slowly. A full 66 percent come from
the property tax which (excluding new developments) can increase by only 2.5
percent a year. The second major source of revenue — state aid at 16 percent —
is actually declining. Thus, big increases in labor costs leave little room for
anything new.
Each of the two mayoral hopefuls appears to understand this. Walsh says the
contract is “not in the best interest of the taxpayers.” John Connolly agrees,
saying, “It would damage the city’s long-term fiscal health.” But both men, in
fact, would go in utterly different directions.
As Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby pointed out on this page last week, part of
the problem is mandatory arbitration itself, a foolish system that discourages
honest bargaining between a municipality and its safety unions. (Civilian unions
aren’t subject to mandatory bargaining, a distinction that really makes no
sense.) Yet, thanks to 1980’s Proposition 2½, this version of arbitration is far
better than what Massachusetts used to have — the governing bodies of
municipalities and towns at least need to approve arbitrators’ rulings. Connolly
— right now a member of the City Council — has said he would vote against the
award. And it may well come to that; Menino has just 30 days to submit the
matter to the council and it’ll be under pressure to act soon.
Coming as it does in the middle of a campaign, Connolly’s position is
courageous. It’ll earn him the fury of cops and other safety unions, but it’s
the right choice for the city.
Walsh, on the other hand, would do away with the reforms from Proposition
2½. Legislation he’s sponsored, House Bill 2467, would make arbitration binding,
cutting the City Council out of the process altogether. In effect, it would cede
to arbitrators the city’s authority to manage its business. It is a curious
position for a would-be mayor to take (one would think a mayor would want to
hold on to power) but it is reflective of Walsh’s union sympathies. And indeed,
aside from urging both sides to go back to the bargaining table, Walsh has
offered up little to show what, as mayor, he would now do differently.
Connolly and Walsh have been typecast by some as two peas in a pod: smart,
engaging, white Irish guys. But the arbitrators’ decision now makes stark the
differences between them. Connolly quickly sided with the city’s residents.
Walsh may yet, but his hesitancy speaks volumes.
This column originally appeared in The Boston Sunday Globe on October 6, 2013.