Dan Horn

dhorn@enquirer.com

It’s no surprise that Cincinnati City Hall went a little crazy two weeks ago when Mayor John Cranley proposed giving city workers raises.

The mayor’s plan touched multiple nerves. Politics, organized labor, taxpayer spending, good governance and the value of city employees all came into play when Cranley made his pitch for higher wages.

Some council members accused the mayor of playing politics with contract talks. The mayor portrayed his critics as hypocrites. And the city manager described the raise proposal as a death knell for collective bargaining.

But the fuss is about more than bruised feelings and name-calling. Cranley’s plan raises serious questions about the way the city does business.

Based on interviews and records gathered in the past two weeks, here are answers to 10 of the biggest questions:

What exactly is the mayor proposing?

Cranley wants to give police, firefighters and other city employees a 5 percent raise beginning Dec. 4, another 5 percent raise next year and a 4 percent raise the following year. About 6,000 members of four major unions would benefit from the wage increases.

Amid 'chaos,' did Cranley campaign score big?

Didn’t the city just sign deals with two of those unions?

Yes. Both the firefighters’ union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) approved contracts with the city this year, with AFSCME’s contract winning City Council approval just last week.

The firefighters got 3 percent raises in each of the next three years, while AFSCME got raises of between 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent over three years.

Both unions voted overwhelmingly in favor of the deals, with 87 percent of firefighters and 95 percent of AFSCME members saying yes.

The president of one of AFSCME’s local unions even sent an email to City Council praising the work of City Manager Harry Black and his negotiating team.

“The tone was very professional and both sides worked together toward a very fair result,” wrote Tom West, president of AFSCME Local 1543.

Cincinnati police pay lags, but contract reveals other benefits

What happens to those contracts now?

If the mayor’s plan wins council approval, the raises negotiated in those contracts go out the window.

Cranley said it’s only fair to give everyone the same raise, even if lower raises already had been negotiated. But some question why the city would rework deals to the benefit of unions that seemed satisfied with their original deals.

“We’re going to reopen something that’s already signed, sealed and voted on by council,” said Vice Mayor David Mann. “That’s beyond comprehension. Some days, I think I’m in the Twilight Zone over here.”

Why is the mayor doing this?

Cranley said he wants workers to get raises because they deserve them.

After the recession, thousands of city employees went years without pay increases, or with small ones that didn’t keep up with the rising cost of living. Cranley said it’s time for them to catch up.

He’s right about the minimal pay raises. Police have had one 1.5 percent raise since 2010. Firefighters have had one 1.5 percent raise since 2009.

Critics of the plan point out that wages have been stagnant nationwide in many professions and say the mayor is spending tax dollars unnecessarily.

Are Cincy cops underpaid? Survey says no

Cranley, though, said he felt compelled to make his proposal when negotiations with police stalled. He said police officers do a dangerous job and deserve credit for maintaining good relationships in the community at a time when other departments have struggled.

Once he decided to push for a raise for police, Cranley said, he couldn’t leave out other workers who’d also gone without significant raises.

“It sends the right message about our values. I didn’t want a protracted labor dispute,” Cranley said. “It was only fair to treat the other unions the same.”

What role do politics play?

Cranley says none, but some of his opponents say his plan is a brazen ploy to win over powerful public employee unions that could help him win re-election next year.

“The mayor’s willingness to pander and do anything for a vote … is absolutely transparent,” said Councilman Wendell Young, a fellow Democrat.

The unions are key allies because of their ability to raise money and campaign door-to-door. At his press conference on the steps of City Hall last week, Cranley stood with dozens of union members and supporters behind him.

“They either want to stand with these workers or they don’t,” Cranley said of his critics.

Dan Hils, the police union president, said politics influences everything, but he doesn’t believe that’s why Cranley made his pitch for higher pay. He said he’d spoken to Cranley in recent weeks about the difficult contract negotiations and the mayor wanted to help.

“I think he just thought that this is a bit of a crisis and maybe I ought to intercede,” Hils said. “John Cranley didn’t wake up one day and decide he’s going to make this political.”

Why is the city manager so unhappy?

Because he’s the leader of the city’s negotiating team and he fears the mayor’s move undercuts the traditional role of collective bargaining, which is supposed to minimize interference from elected officials.

Black warned in a memo to council that old-fashioned bargaining will “become a meaningless exercise” if unions know they can bypass the talks and run to the mayor or council members when they’re dissatisfied.

Why are some council members upset?

For one thing, Cranley has put them in a tough spot. They may not like the way the mayor did this, but now they must decide if they dislike it so much that they will vote against pay raises for police and firefighters and risk the wrath of public employee unions.

Some on council also think the plan is just bad policy. Councilman Chris Seelbach, a Democrat who often butts heads with the mayor, said he wants police and firefighters to get a raise, but he also wants to respect the negotiating process.

“We don’t want to derail collective bargaining in the future,” he said.

He and others also worry about how the city will pay for the raises, given that council just approved a budget a month ago. The time to bring up raises, they say, was before that vote.

“If we do this, it’s the most irresponsible thing I can ever remember council doing in the area of labor relations,” Mann said.

Is the mayor allowed to get involved?

There’s some debate over this.

The city solicitor says yes, and it’s clear elected officials have stuck their noses into labor issues in the past.

Cranley notes that council worked with unions to change city contracts in 2009, during the recession, to include unpaid furloughs. And he says Seelbach and others backed a paid parental leave policy for city workers that the city manager said would best be negotiated during collective bargaining.

“For them to make an issue of it now is totally hypocritical,” Cranley said.

But those examples aren’t exactly the same as Cranley’s plan. The furloughs were an alternative to layoffs during a financial crisis, and the parental leave change is a benefit rather than a wage negotiation. "Paid parental leave isn't something our employees should have to bargain, or give something up for," Seelbach said. "That's why it's very different from wage negotiations."

The scope and timing of Cranley’s proposal is greater, his critics say. He jumped into the fray in the middle of contract talks and after two unions already had signed deals.

His opponents also have cited a 2004 case from northern Ohio in which the State Employment Relations Board warned against unions dealing directly with elected officials. “Bypassing the authorized representative,” the board wrote, “creates chaos in an otherwise orderly, if difficult, process.”

Can the city afford the raises?

Yes, but not without taking money from something else.

In the short term, Cranley wants to tap into a city surplus that’s estimated at more than $15 million. More than $6 million was supposed to go into a reserve fund the city has been trying to rebuild since the recession.

Under Cranley’s plan, $3.1 million would instead go to cover the first round of raises that take effect in December. But that alone won’t plug the budget hole, because the raises would cost another $16 million over the next two years.

Cranley said he’s working on a budget amendment that would find enough money for the raises, but he’s not ready to say where he wants to cut.

Who pays for these raises?

Anyone who lives or works in Cincinnati. The city relies heavily on an earnings tax, so anyone who gets a paycheck in the city contributes.

About two-thirds of those who pay the tax live outside the city.

TOP STORIES TODAY