Skip to content

Editorial | Bad timing on strike, unreasonable demands, from county employees’ union

Here was the opening sentence in a Sentinel report this week on negotiations between Santa Cruz County government and the union representing workers:

“Santa Cruz County residents who rely on government services will face delays in care beginning Jan. 25, when approximately 1,600 workers are anticipated to go on strike.”

That’s why we think this strike will not be supported by many county residents.

The timing for a strike is simply wrong, during the latest pandemic surge. And some of the demands, if met, would also adversely affect county government and eventually the 136,000 residents who live in the unincorporated areas, many of whom depend on county services and staff.

At this point, a strike seems likely. SEIU Chapter President Veronica Velasquez told the Sentinel that 87% of members voted to authorize a strike and the union expects membership to not cross picket lines.

Some workers, however, have been deemed “essential” and will be required to work during any strike. These essential employees include people in the Health Service Agency. But in other cases, entire county departments will be shuttered to the public.

One of the SEIU’s grievances is a contention that, despite saving money from a year-long furlough of hundreds of workers and getting money from the federal American Rescue Plan Act, the money saved and the federal funds have not found their way into workers’ paychecks. They also say that workers are impacted because county agencies and departments continue to be understaffed. All this on top of having to exist in one of the most expensive places in the country to live and as inflation continues its inexorable climb.

The county’s last offer included an 8% cost of living adjustment over the next three years for workers.

The SEIU has not provided a specific percentage it is seeking across the several classes of workers it represents, but has objected to the lack of COLAs offered in 2019 and 2020 that demonstrates a pattern of the county significantly underpaying employees.

On several points, however, we find the SEIU’s positions to be unreasonable.

Take furloughs. The county put furloughs in place in 2021 to avoid layoffs, a tactic the SEIU agreed with at the time. It’s worth noting that in Monterey County, workers were laid off, with no furloughs put in place. Santa Cruz County employees also got 19.5 days off in exchange for a 7.5% loss of wages from the furlough; their pay now is back to pre-furlough levels, according to county officials.

Then there’s the American Rescue Plan, intended to provide relief from pandemic-related economic losses. Under the federal rescue plan, Santa Cruz County received $53 million; of this, $19 million went to restore furloughs. The remainder went for COVID-19-impacted programs such as homeless sheltering, child care and vital services provided by local non profits. County officials say all the funds from the rescue plan have been spent.

They also note that county workers already have generous benefit packages that include, with the recent addition of Juneteenth, 14 paid holidays added to vacation and sick leave. We’re not aware of any private businesses that offer that much paid time off.

Officials also note that Santa Cruz County is a relatively “low revenue” county. With a lower property and sales tax base to work from, county officials say they try to stay in the middle of wage and benefit packages offered by other jurisdictions and simply cannot give the union what it wants. Still, the union initially sought a 10% wage hike over three years, according to county officials. The SEIU in Monterey County agreed to a 7.5% increase in its recent agreement.

County Administrator Carlos Palacios told the Sentinel Editorial Board that giving in to union demands would become a “zero-sum game” with the county having to cut services and programs to pay more to employees.

No doubt, many county employees have suffered economically during the pandemic; but so have many other local taxpaying residents who don’t have the generous benefit packages union members have negotiated for themselves.