MCA Negotiation Spokesperson - Julie Dietrich, Executive ... Minutes 061907.pdf · MCA Negotiation Spokesperson - Julie Dietrich, Executive Director MCASF ... upon signing the CBA,

MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA 2007 Collective Bargaining Negotiations

2007 Collective Bargaining Negotiations

1 of 12

June 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes Prepared by MCASF Representatives. MCA Negotiation Spokesperson - Julie Dietrich, Executive Director MCASF MCA Non Speaking Representatives - Jim Spors, Ed Llosent, Mike Wilson, Wade Helms LU 725 Negotiations Spokesperson - Kenny Scott, Business Manager, UA Local 725 LU 725 Representatives - Jim Taylor, Ralph Marinello, Richard Falkman, Jim Conley and Kenny Scott

Review of June 5 minutes. MCA and LU725 shared copies of minutes from the June 5, 2007 meeting. On behalf of MCA, Julie asked Kenny to please amend the third paragraph from the end of LU725 minutes, which stated “Julie Dietrich asked the question ‘do you think we need to raise the pay for the apprentices?’” Julie stated that MCASF’s minutes more accurately reflected her inquiry as stated: “Julie advised that MCASF members were concerned with the lack of first year apprentices, and asked Kenny what he felt would help to ameliorate the shortage.” She asked Kenny to please note the change to revise LU725’s minutes. Kenny agreed. LU725 asked Julie to amend MCASF’s minutes to explain why two weeks had passed since the two groups had met. Kenny also asked Julie to change the word “consider” to “accept,” line 2, page 2. Julie agreed to adjust the minutes to meet these requests.

7:00 am Kenny Scott began the meeting by stating that at the prior meeting, LU725 had requested a list of contractors MCASF representatives would be negotiating on behalf of. Kenny showed a copy of the letter provided by Julie, which simply stated, “Per your request, this formally confirms that MCASF will be bargaining for every contractor currently paying fringes to LU 725 with the sole exception of Edd Helms AC, which has chosen to opt out by formal correspondence directed to you April 1, 2007.” Kenny asked Julie to define what “paying fringes” meant. Julie said she would present his question to management during the next caucus. Kenny pointed out the Wade Helms, of Edd Helms AC, was on MCASF’s Negotiation Committee and asked Julie if that was fair and ethical. Julie replied that it was indeed fair and ethical and reminded Kenny that, in accordance with NLRB ruling, either side may appoint anyone of their choosing as a representative. Kenny asked Julie if she felt that Wade would negotiate in the best interest of MCASF contractors even if not bound by the outcome. Julie said, “Absolutely. He is the President of MCASF and has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for the greater good of all MCASF Contractor Members.” Kenny presented LU725’s opening proposal: LU725 requested a $6/hr increase, with a 1 year contract. No other changes made to the contract. Kenny advised that, upon signing the CBA, committees could review the remaining language and content of the agreement over the course of the next year. Julie asked Kenny to explain how LU725 arrived at their request for a $6 / hr increase. Kenny stated that these are volatile times, and that the tremendous cost of living increase in South Florida justifies a $6 /hr increase. Kenny added that research shows that over the course of the last 10 years (1997-2007) the cost of living in South Florida has increased 30 percent. Julie asked if 30% was cumulative and Kenny said yes. Kenny stated that LU725 members’ salaries had increased approximately 7.3% since 1997. Julie asked if this was cumulative. Kenny said yes. Julie asked Kenny if would provide his formal data in support of these statements. Kenny stated that he did not have it available at the moment, but would provide it at the next meeting.



2 of 12

MCASF requested a caucus at 7:25 am. LU 725 left the room and returned at 8:10 am Julie stated that management would like to first agree upon a date for the next meeting, and suggested two days later on in the week, Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3pm. Kenny agreed on behalf of LU725. Julie then stated that, in response to Kenny’s request to define fringes, that the answer would be better stated by saying that MCASF was representing all members of MCA, with the exception of Edd Helms Group. Kenny stated that LU725 had a list of contractors who were not contributing to fringes. Kenny asked if management represented these contractors. Contractors who pay neither the .35 nor the .02 contributions:

Advanced Integrated Carrier Day & Zimmerman Douglas Mechanical MMC Mechanical

Contractors who pay the .35 contribution, but not .02:

Continental AC Smart Air

Contractors who pay the .02 contribution, but not .35

Honeywell Julie stated that she believed that Kenny had provided a copy of signed agreements from some of these contractors, but asked that copies of all be provided at the next meeting. Julie stated that she would take this under advisement, and would be better prepared to address this issue after viewing the signed agreements. Julie asked Kenny to review the following data (per management’s request at the June 5th meeting) which he had provided via e-mail on June 18th.



3 of 12

Per Julie’s request, Kenny reviewed each line. Julie asked if he had back-up data which supported the totals, and Kenny said that he did not have it available, but that Julie could request the date from Steve Blascovich at Core, who had prepared the report. Julie asked Kenny if the hours shown were straight time. Kenny said they were. Julie thanked Kenny for providing the data. Wade then passed Julie the following data. Julie shared the date with Kenny, and referred to the column titled 2001-2003, while listed date provided by Kenny during the negotiations that formed the current CBA, set to expire July 15, 2007. She asked Kenny to explain how LU725 calculated the $.30 overtime value per hour from 2001-2003. Kenny stated that the $.30 calculation was in error, and in fact should have stated $.17. Julie thanked Kenny for clarifying.

Source, MCASF Before proceeding in response to LU725’s opening proposal, Julie stated that management was not opposed to the idea of a one year contract, but would only accept an agreement of that duration if all aspects of the proposal meet management’s approval. Julie then stated that she was a bit perplexed by LU725’s statement that LU725 members’ salaries had increased approximately 7.3% since 1997. She advised that management had documented data that contradicted that figure. She then passed out a copy of the following information to each LU725 representative. Upon her request, MCASF representative Wade Helms reviewed the data, shown below:



4 of 12

Source, MCASF Wade explained the information line by line noting that LU725 employees had received an average increase to the envelope of 4.82% per year. For the nine years from 1998 – 2006, LU725 employees had received a cumulative increase to the envelope of 43.39%, which was far greater than the 7.3% claim state by Kenny. Wade also noted that he had documented the cost of living by using the US Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index statistics for urban wage earners, specific to metropolitan South Florida. Kenny asked if these numbers including increases in housing, gas and medical care. Wade advises that the Dept. of Labor’s CPI statistics were all inclusive. Wade then noted that, over the course of the last 9 years, LU725 employees had received an increase to the pay envelope that equated, on average, 1.87% more than the increase in cost of living, which clearly defied LU725’s claim that wages were lagging behind. Wade then noted that, over the course of the last 9 years, the cost of living had increased, cumulatively, by 26.60%, noting that this came out to an average of 2.96% per year, roughly matching the amount stated by LU725’s claim of a 30% increase over the course of the last 10 years. Kenny requested the source and location of this data. Wade advised that he had referred to US Dept. of Labor website, which could be found at www.bls.gov. Wade further explained that according to the Dept of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics for standard occupational classification code 472152, Plumbers, Pipe fitters and Steam fitters, the hourly median wage in the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area, as of May 2006, was $17.26. The hourly 75% wage was $21.62. The hourly 90% wage $26.01. In simple English, with the LU725 R1 actual wage at $26.60, that puts LU725 members at approximately the 94% amongst the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area at May 2006. LU725 R1 members had a higher average median wage that 94% of all Plumbers, Pipe fitters and Steam fitters in this area. Julie stated that, based upon this data, MCASF respectfully rejected LU725’s request for an increase of $6/hr for a one year contract. Kenny requested a counter-proposal.



5 of 12

MCASF requested a caucus at 8:35am. LU 725 left the room and returned at 9:15am Julie advised that MCASF had prepared a counter-proposal, and advised that, in accordance with the request of LU725 at the opening meeting June 5th, management had prepared, in good faith, a counter-proposal that was a sign of earnest intent to reach a decision promptly, on or before the current agreement’s July 15th expiration. She advised that the terms proposed were based upon consumer price index growth, as shown by the Department of Labor. Management proposed a 14.4% increase, spread over the course of three years, as applied to current R1 Envelope of 26.60, as outlined below:

Source, MCASF Julie explained the proposal line by line, noting that the proposed increase for the first year of the 3 year contract reflected an increase of 6%, nearly double the 3.3% increase in the Consumer Pricing Index as outlined by the Dept. of Labor. Subsequent years would increase by $1.20 each year. LU 725 requested a caucus at 9:20am. Kenny Scott returned at 10:40am and asked Julie if she could assist with preparing copies of some materials that he wished to share. Julie assisted Kenny. 10:45am Kenny provided management with copies, and asked them to review the materials, and notify him when they had enough time to complete their review. Per MCASF’s request, LU725 returned at 11:35. Kenny asked management to reconsider their initial proposal, based on the materials provided. (Note, a copy of the materials, which was a report prepared for LU725 by Dr. Bruce Nissen, with Florida International University, to be filed with these minutes. Julie asked if Kenny would review the document and explain his understanding and interpretation of each the report. Kenny read the introduction, stating “wages have lagged behind those of the construction industry overall and, crucially, behind the rapidly increasing costs of living in South Florida, especially the costs of housing, health care and transportation.” Julie asked weren’t healthcare premiums 100% covered as part of the package and Kenny said no. Kenny reviewed Chart 1 “Building Permits, Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, 2000-2006.” Kenny read the report’s summary, which stated that building permits had increased some 11.3% and 150.3% in Miami-Dade and Broward, respectively, from 2000-2006. Julie asked Kenny if he had data that indicated the Union’s market share of these permits. Kenny said that was not outlined in the report.



6 of 12

Kenny reviewed Chart 2 “New Housing Unit, Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, 2000-2006”. Kenny read the report’s summary, which stated that “Between 200o-2006, the number of new housing units jumped 60.5% in Miami Dade County, and 78.2% in Broward County.” Julie asked Kenny if he had data that indicated Union’s market share of these permits. Kenny said that was not outlined in the report. Kenny reviewed Chart 3 “Total Construction Cost of New Housing Units, Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, 2000-2006.” Kenny read the report’s summary, which stated that “Between 2000 and 2006, total construction cost of new housing units jumped 172% in Miami-Dade and 50.4% in Broward County.” Julie asked how this information was relevant, since the chart outlined construction cost increases, rather than increases in home values. Kenny advised that the market is booming and that LU725 members cannot buy homes now, due to the increase in home values. Kenny reviewed Chart 4 “Employment Growth in Selected Industries, Broward county” and Chart 6 “Employment Growth in Selected Industries, Miami-Dade County” The charts indicate grown in AC, Construction and All Industries. Julie asked Kenny if the growth shown in AC Industry Employment reflected both Union and non-Union employment combined. Kenny said yes. Julie asked if he had data that reflected LU725 employment growth, vs. non-union employment growth. Kenny said that was not outlined in the report. Kenny continued by reviewing Chart 5 “Growth of Number of Establishments in Selected Industries, Broward County” and Chart 7 “Growth of Number of Establishments in Selected Industries, Miami-Dade County.” Julie asked Kenny if the growth shown in the number of AC contractors reflected both Union and non-Union growth in number of AC establishments. Kenny said yes. Julie asked if he had data that reflected LU725 contractor growth, vs. non-union contractor growth. Kenny said that was not outlined in the report. Kenny review Chart 8 & 9 which track Average Wage Growth in both Broward and Miami Dade County, respectively. Julie asked Kenny if the wages shown for AC employees reflected both Union and non-Union wages. Kenny said yes. Julie asked if he had data that reflected LU725 wage growth, vs. non-union wage growth. Kenny said that was not outlined in the report. Kenny reviewed Chart 10 and 11, which track growth rate of Local 725 wages against selected consumer costs, such as medical care, housing, and transportation. Julie stated that charts (and chart 13, which tracks increases in housing costs) chart the increasing costs of selected items, not the total cost of living, as measured by the Consumer Pricing Index statistics employed by the Department of Labor. Julie reminded Kenny that the Historical R1 Collective Bargaining Wages for LU725 Wade presented earlier in the meeting directly contradicted the author’s suggestion that LU725 wages had lagged behind the cost of living increase. Kenny reviewed the remainder of the document, including text at the bottom of page 7, “From 1997-2006 the cost of living in Miami rose almost 29%.” Julie noted that this equated approximately 3% growth per year, which was what management’s data from the Department of Labor indicated, too. Julie noted it appeared that management and LU725 data both concurred upon the 3% per year growth rate. Julie reminded Kenny that management’s proposal reflected a 4.8% per year increase in envelope, far exceeding this 3% average. Julie reminded Kenny of the approximate 14.4% increase over three years offer management had put on the table. Kenny reviewed the section titled “Lack of skilled labor” and read several quotes from Union contractors, who stated that lack of skilled labor was a severe problem. Julie said that management concurred, and felt that it was not merely a problem unique to the AC industry. She referred to Nissen’s references to attest



7 of 12

to that fact, noting that amongst all six sources that noted a shortage in labor, none was specific to the AC Industry. MCASF requested a caucus and break for lunch at 11:57am. LU 725 left the room and returned at 1:30pm. MCASF requested to continue the caucus until 2:00. LU 725 left the room and returned at 2:00pm. Julie advised that she appreciated Kenny’s review of the Nissen’s report, and appreciated the time and effort involved in preparing the report. She advised that while there were some aspects that management agreed with, such as shortage of skilled labor, and the 3% average increase in cost of living per year (page 7, Nissen) she felt that the report was not specific enough to be helpful since it did not make a distinction between Union and non-union data as applied to market share of permits, new housing units, employment growth, and growth in the number of new AC contractors in Broward and Miami Dade. She explained that, without Union-specific data, the data shown combined both union and non-union data, so was not applicable to supporting the premise that “LU725 members have not shared in the ‘good times’ of South Florida’s recent building boom” (page10, Nissen). Julie read from Nissen’s report (page 3) “From 2001 on, construction employment grew 19.3% in the two counties while AC employment grew 16.8%.” Julie asked Kenny what the increase in the number of Union referred labor during this same period was. Kenny advised that LU725 did not have the information present, but would provide it at the next meeting. (Julie later supplemented this request by asking for the total number of LU725 active member at the end of each year from 1996 through 2006. Kenny made note of the request, and said that he would do his best to provide the information at the next meeting.) Further, Julie advised that management representatives had prepared charts which combined Nissen’s data, and contrasted it against data specific to LU725 member wages. She asked Wade to review the charts, and address any questions regarding the data shown. Wade passed out the following charts and worksheets (shown in color, on the following pages, for easier viewing). Wade reviewed this information in detail, with all LU725 wage data taken directly from Collective Bargaining Agreements from 1998 through 2007. Wade explained that data shown from 2007-2009 projects the outcome of applying management’s counter-proposal (pasted below for easy reference):

Source, MCASF



8 of 12

Source: MCASF

Wade explained that the vast difference between LU725 wages over those of all AC Industry wage earners would be even more pronounced if the data shown in Nissen’s report had not included LU725 employee wages. Essentially, LU725 employees positively skew the reported data for all AC Industry wage earners, both in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties. Wade pointed out that LU725 wages far exceeded non-union AC labor.



9 of 12

Source: MCASF

As well, Wade reviewed the following information specific to Miami-Dade County, with all LU725 wage data taken directly from Collective Bargaining Agreements from 1998 through 2007. Wade explained that data shown from 2007-2009 projects the outcome of applying management’s counter-proposal:

Source, MCASF



10 of 12

Source, MCASF

Source, MCASF



11 of 12

Source, MCASF After Wade’s explanation of the information management provided, Kenny replied that he felt that information was skewed because it was based upon R1 rates. He advised that he thought that charts based upon R2, R3 or R4 wages would be more accurate. Wade stated that we would be happy to prepare a chart that precisely mapped these LU725 wages, but would need a detailed breakdown of all LU725 members, by category, for 1998-2006. Kenny advised that he was not sure if he would be able to gather the materials in time for the next meeting. Julie stated that, in sum, as much as management appreciated LU725’s efforts to provide industry data to support their requests, it was management’s stance that the data Nissen prepared for LU725 did not support their claim that LU725 wages lagged behind. Further, she stated that Nissen’s data was not specific enough to be of any real value to the negotiation process. She advised that due to the fact that Nissen’s data lumped together all AC employees, growth etc., it was impossible to utilize the date to accurately track growth of LU725 employees, and, more important, their wages. She advised that management had carefully prepared the provided graphs to precisely map LU725 wages over the years. In sum, she stated, the data provided (taken directly from Collective Bargaining Agreements) shows that LU725 employee wages far exceed that of industry employees as a whole. For that reason, she stated, management respectfully rejected LU725’s proposal of an increase of $6 / hr for a one year contract. She continued by stating that management respectfully resubmitted their counter proposal of a 14.4% increase, spread over the course of three years, reminding LU725 that the proposed increase for the first year of the year contract reflected an increase of 6%, nearly double the increase in the Consumer Pricing Index. Subsequent years would increase by $1.20 each year.



12 of 12

LU 725 requested a caucus at 2:45pm. LU 725 left the room and returned at 3:22pm Kenny stated that he questioned the Consumer Price Index increase shown in the Department of Labor data provided by management. He asked Julie to prepare a detailed breakdown of the annual cost of living increase, with the following elements tracked individually: yearly increases in the cost of gas, housing, home owners insurance, hurricane insurance, medical care, car insurance, food, etc. Julie state that she understood his request, but advised that it would be impossible to provide a detailed analysis of that data for LU725 members, without interviewing each member and assessing the average amount of miles they drove, the value of their homes, whether they had filed insurance claims, etc., over the past 10 years. She respectfully asserted that the Department of Labor data shown was a very clear, unbiased, all-encompassing analysis of all aspects of increases in pricing encountered by all consumers. She reminded Kenny that the 3% average CPI growth per year shown in the Department of Labor report matched Nissen’s claim, and his own claim, that the cost of living had increased by 30% in the last 10 years. Kenny replied that Department of Labor data was created especially for use against Unions in negotiations. Julie state that she respectfully disagreed, and encouraged him to review the data on line, to confirm that what management had supplied was, indeed, the data that the Dept. of Labor provided. Julie reminded him to please provide the number of LU725 active members per year, per last ten years for the next meeting, as well as breakdown by wage class per year. Kenny stated that he was not sure if LU725 would be able to provide the breakdown of all employees, by class from the last 10 years in time for the next meeting. Julie deferred to Ed Llosent, who advised that Kenny should be able to retrieve the information relatively easily from the Trust, or from Core Management. Julie requested that, with a spirit of cooperation, the two groups meet on Thursday, and that LU725 provide what data they could reasonably obtain by that time. Kenny agreed to do his best. Per Kenny’s motion, the meeting adjourned at 3:45. Respectfully submitted by Jim Spors & Julie Dietrich.

Documents

MCA Negotiation Spokesperson - Julie Dietrich, Executive ... Minutes 061907.pdf · MCA Negotiation Spokesperson - Julie Dietrich, Executive Director MCASF ... upon signing the CBA,