Category Archives: MCGEO

Acevero Claims MCGEO Fired Him Over Police Reform Legislation

By Adam Pagnucco.

Delegate Gabriel Acevero (D-39) has told the New York Times that he was fired from his position at MCGEO, the union that represents most non-MCPS county employees, because of his legislative work on reforming police departments. According to the Times:

When Gabriel Acevero, a Maryland state legislator employed by a union local, introduced a bill last year to roll back protections for police accused of misconduct, he was stepping on a potential fault line. His union, Local 1994 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, represents thousands of Black and Latino workers in food services and at a variety of government agencies. It also includes a small portion of workers in law enforcement.

That fault line turned out to be a chasm that could swallow him up. In mid-June, Mr. Acevero filed a formal charge with the National Labor Relations Board accusing the union of illegally firing him because of his reform advocacy.

“The reason why I was terminated,” Mr. Acevero said, “was about legislation.”

MCGEO President Gino Renne was also interviewed by the Times. Read the entire article here.

Share

MCGEO Protests at Riemer’s House

By Adam Pagnucco.

Angry at the county council’s rejection of its revised collective bargaining agreement, MCGEO – the largest county employee union outside MCPS – protested at Council Member Hans Riemer’s house today.

Every council member except Tom Hucker and Will Jawando voted to reject the agreements, so why did the union target Riemer alone? MCGEO’s spokeswoman told WJLA-7, “Hans was the most vehement against the contract. He really led the charge.” MCGEO is also upset at Riemer for voting to reject both its original contract (which provided a peak raise of 9.4%) and its revised contract last year. Council Member Andrew Friedson was the only other council member to vote against both of those agreements along with Riemer.

MCGEO doesn’t like Hans Riemer.

This isn’t just about the contracts. Riemer’s repeated strong criticisms of County Executive Marc Elrich have led many to believe that Riemer is considering a challenge to Elrich in the next election. Riemer is in his third term on the council and term limits prevent him from running again for his current seat. None of this is lost on MCGEO, which claimed credit for Elrich’s election. By targeting Riemer, MCGEO accomplishes two objectives – defending its contract and punishing a potential rival to Elrich. Given MCGEO’s long history of tough tactics against politicians who vote against its contracts, this is likely just the opening move of a larger campaign against Riemer.

The union has published more than 30 photos of its protest at Riemer’s home. Some of them show Riemer’s house itself. I won’t be reposting actual images of the house, but here are a few of the protestors.

Share

Elrich Agrees to Give Unions COVID-19 Differential Pay

By Adam Pagnucco.

County Executive Marc Elrich has reached agreement with the three county employee unions (MCGEO, the fire fighters and the police) to provide additional pay related to the COVID-19 crisis to their members. The additional pay will range up to $10 per hour, is retroactive to March 29 and will last for at least six pay periods. Elrich’s press release appears below.

*****

County and Labor Representatives Reach Agreement on Recognizing the Risks of On-site Employees

For Immediate Release: Friday, April 10, 2020

County Executive Marc Elrich is pleased to announce that the County has completed its negotiations with all three County unions and agreed upon COVID-19 differential pay to recognize the unusual risks employees now face in leaving their homes and delivering vital services to the public. These agreements are significant because the union representatives worked with management during this crisis time to achieve an agreement that ensures that critical services are maintained, employees are taken care of and fiscal realities are addressed. The three unions are the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1664; the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 35; and, the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1994 (MCGEO).

“I appreciate the work and the willingness of our union representatives to join with us in a collaborative approach to bargaining, to achieve an agreement that respects the increased risk for our workers who are continuing to do their jobs and respects our budgetary obligations,” County Executive Elrich said.

This agreement recognizes the increased risk of the work done by our first responders – firefighters and police officers during this pandemic. It also recognizes that other employees are doing work that requires public interaction – and therefore increased risk, including work by corrections officers, bus drivers, nurses, and social workers.

The County Executive noted that under provisions of existing county bargaining agreements (which were negotiated years ago), the unions could have insisted on much larger benefits, but they understood the importance of the ongoing fiscal health of the county. The County Executive also noted the progressive nature of the agreement, which gave dollar, rather than percentage, differential payments.

The County Executive acknowledged that the County has nonprofit partners serving on the front lines of the Corona-19 response and will work with them to find possible ways to help them maintain necessary staffing.

After teams of management, in close coordination with union representatives, identified the critical core services that would need to continue for the next eight weeks, the likely minimum duration of the COVID-19 crisis. This COVID-19 differential pay would apply to those front-facing and back-office onsite employees who are required to come to work to respond to COVID-19 or provide County’s selected critical core services. Those who must work onsite are in the following two categories:

Front Facing Onsite: work that cannot be performed by telework, involves physical interaction with the public and cannot be performed with appropriate social distancing.

Back Office Onsite: work that cannot be performed by telework and does not involve regular physical interaction with the public.
The broad details of the COVID-19 pay differential are as follows:

The differential pay will be uniform for FOP and IAFF members. For MCGEO-represented and GSS employees, the differential will distinguish between front-facing onsite and back office onsite work. The differential pay for all impacted employees are retroactive to March 29, the beginning of the current pay period.

The front-facing onsite employees will receive an additional $10/hr and the back-office onsite will receive $3/hr.

Additionally, this week masks will be distributed to employees who do not have them, and administrative leave will be given to high risk employees who cannot telework and do not feel safe working on site.

The agreements cover six pay periods, which started on March 29, or until the Maryland State of Emergency is lifted. If the State of Emergency is still in effect at the end of the six pay periods, the agreements will be revisited.

Share

Labor Pumps Money Into Anti-Blair Super PAC

By Adam Pagnucco.

Four labor unions and an immigrant advocacy organization have contributed a combined $90,000 to a Super PAC which opposes the election of David Blair as Montgomery County Executive.

The Progressive Maryland Liberation Alliance PAC is a Super PAC affiliated with Progressive Maryland.  The Super PAC’s Chair, Larry Stafford, is Progressive Maryland’s Executive Director.  The group has previously distributed anti-Blair flyers but now has the money to do a lot more than that.

The Super PAC’s campaign finance filings indicate that it was organized for the purpose of supporting gubernatorial candidate Ben Jealous, State Senate candidates Jill Carter, Antonio Hayes and Mary Washington, State’s Attorney candidate Victor Ramirez and Delegate candidate Melissa Wells and opposing State Senator Bobby Zirkin, State’s Attorney candidate Ivan Bates and Blair.  But the labor contributions to the Super PAC were explicitly designated to opposing Blair.  Those contributions included $35,000 from MCGEO, $35,000 from the Laborers, $10,000 from UNITE HERE Local 25, $5,000 from SEIU Local 500 and $5,000 from immigrant advocacy group Casa in Action.  All of these organizations except for UNITE HERE Local 25 have endorsed Marc Elrich for Executive, as has Progressive Maryland.

Of these contributions, $10,000 has been spent on a video opposing Blair.  We imagine MoCo voters will be seeing that video soon.

With $80,000 remaining, the Super PAC has enough money to finance mailers and more.  What’s unclear is how much more money it can raise with labor spending almost a million dollars to elect Ben Jealous as Governor and more than $600,000 to elect Donna Edwards as Prince George’s County Executive.  Still, they are playing in MoCo and we expect them to play hard.

Share

Gino Threatens Reznik

By Adam Pagnucco.

In a statement on the Facebook page of political blogger Ryan Miner, MCGEO President Gino Renne has vowed to defeat Delegate Kirill Reznik (D-39) in next year’s election.  In response to a post about Reznik’s decision not to run for Congress, Renne wrote to Reznik:

Thanks for your unproductive representation. I’m one of your constituents who believes you bring no value to our district’s representation in Annapolis. You were appointed to the seat which gave you the advantage of incumbency. This time around there are several quality candidates running for delegate in our district. I and many others intend to do whatever is necessary to unseat you. District 39 can do better and deserves better than you.

You now have the benefit of more unsolicited intel.

MCGEO once supported Reznik, giving him five contributions totaling $4,100 between 2007 and 2011.  What is their problem with him now?  Renne is not shy so we will probably find out!  Perhaps his casus belli includes Reznik’s support for Delegate Bill Frick’s End the Monopoly bill, a piece of legislation so objectionable to Renne that he famously promised to investigate the lifestyles of its supporters.

Few interest group leaders make such open threats against incumbents.  That’s because defeating incumbents is difficult and MCGEO is no better at it than anyone else.  In recent years, the incumbents MCGEO has tried to defeat include Council Member Phil Andrews (D-3) in 2006, Delegate Al Carr (D-18) in 2010, Senator Nancy King (D-39) in 2010, Board of Education member Mike Durso in 2010, Council Member Roger Berliner (D-1) in 2014 and Senator Rich Madaleno (D18) in 2014.  All of these candidates won by double digits except Carr and King.  Berliner won by 57 points even though his opponent’s campaign was managed by MCGEO’s former Executive Director.  MCGEO has supported two recent successful challengers to incumbents: Delegate Roger Manno (D-19) over Senator Mike Lenett and Hans Riemer over Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg (At-Large), both in 2010.  Lenett lost in part because he blew himself up with horrible mailers such as this one about the Holocaust.  Trachtenberg lost in part because she inexplicably hoarded $146,000 which could have been spent on campaign activity.

Here’s the problem with making threats of this kind: you have to follow through and win or you look weak.  Reznik has none of the weaknesses that sometimes result in incumbent losses in Montgomery County: he’s not a Republican, he’s not lazy and he doesn’t have legions of enemies at home.  It’s also not clear that there are enough strong open seat candidates in District 39 to seriously threaten him.  In fact, the smart move for the challengers is to court him and the other incumbents in hope of inclusion on their slate.  All of this is good for Kirill Reznik and not so good for Gino Renne.

Share

Gino Stands by His Man

By Adam Pagnucco.

Council Member Marc Elrich held his kickoff event for the County Executive race in Bethesda this past Sunday.  One of his guests was Gino Renne, President of the Municipal and County Government Employees Organization (MCGEO), the largest of MoCo’s non-education county employee unions.  The picture below says it all.

Photo by Kevin Gillogly.  More pictures available on Kevin’s Flickr account.

Elrich is a beloved figure by many in the local labor movement.  He has had support from almost all of the area’s major labor organizations in his recent runs for office.  His lead sponsorship of two minimum wage bills has strengthened those relationships.  Of specific importance to MCGEO, Elrich was the only Council Member to vote against cutting the union’s negotiated 8 percent raise in the last budget, which also included a 9 percent property tax hike.  Additionally, Elrich is a strong defender of the county liquor monopoly, famously accusing anti-monopoly restaurant owners of stealing and whining and then getting banned by one of them.  Protecting the monopoly is one of MCGEO’s highest priorities.

Gino’s thumbs-up is not an official endorsement.  The union has to go through its process, including candidate interviews and questionnaires.  But the symbolism of the picture above is hard to miss.  Elrich could very well be labor’s pick for Executive.

Share

MCGEO Gets Ready to Rumble

By Adam Pagnucco.

On Monday night, July 11, some MoCo residents received the following robocall.

I’m Tara Huber. I live in Montgomery County and I’m a county worker in child protective services. My job is to protect the vulnerable children in the county and can be very stressful. My job is made even more stressful by the fact that the County under the leadership of Council President Nancy Floreen has failed time and again to give me and my co-workers the right tools to effectively do our jobs. Floreen has mismanaged the county budget to such an extreme that we don’t have enough staff or tools to manage the high case loads. Protect your Montgomery. Call President Floreen at 240-777-7959 and tell her you expect better management of our tax dollars. Paid for by UFCW Local 1994, 600 South Frederick Avenue Gaithersburg Maryland 20877.

This is a new shot fired by MCGEO, the county employee union, in its on-again, off-again conflict with the County Council.  But it’s a risky one that could backfire.

First, some background.  MCGEO has a number of problems with the council, including:

  1. The council’s trimming of employee benefits during the Great Recession.
  1. The council’s vote to end effects bargaining for the police union, which was later upheld by voters.
  1. The council’s vote to cut MCGEO’s raise in half as part of its recently passed budget.
  1. The introduction of legislation by Council President Nancy Floreen that would change collective bargaining procedures in ways that the union claims would weaken its ability to negotiate.

These events and more have caused MCGEO President Gino Renne to tell the Post that his union might support Robin Ficker’s term limits amendment.  And on the night before the hearing on Floreen’s collective bargaining bill, the above robocall went out.  None of this is a coincidence.  Indeed, the union is gearing up for battle.  And no one, whether friend or foe of MCGEO and its fearsome President, has ever claimed that the union backs down when it is under threat.

The problem is that the robocall has little merit and such tactics may provoke the council to do even more against the union’s interest.

Montgomery County has a gigantic Health and Human Services (HHS) budget.  In FY16, HHS had an approved budget of $289 million, with 1,359 full-time positions and 327 part-time positions.  Children, Youth and Family Services, for which the robocall speaker (a MCGEO Vice-President) works, had an FY16 approved budget of $79 million with 525 full-time equivalent positions.

Using FY09 data, your author found that Montgomery County had the biggest HHS budget (along with housing) of any local jurisdiction in Maryland.  On a per capita basis, MoCo spent more than double the state average and lagged only the City of Baltimore.  MoCo spent more than 8 times on HHS and housing than did Prince George’s County.  From FY10 (the peak year prior to the recession) through FY16, MoCo’s HHS budget grew by 13%.  And as for the County Council specifically, it adds millions of dollars on top of the Executive’s recommended budget for HHS every year.  Below is a list of the HHS items added by the council to the Executive’s budget this year, financed with a nine percent increase in property taxes.

HHS Rec List FY17

It’s hard to argue that the council pinches pennies on HHS.  MCGEO has pooh-poohed the tax hike on its website.  What would the union like to see?  Does the council need to raise property taxes by 20% to get its approval?

There is more.  MCGEO is considering supporting term limits for county elected officials.  Fair enough.  The union has some legitimate grievances and any union would fight against a breaking of its collective bargaining agreement.  But let’s remember that the collective bargaining bill detested by MCGEO only had two sponsors at introduction, Nancy Floreen and Craig Rice.  That doesn’t speak well of the bill’s chances under normal circumstances.  But if MCGEO amps up its tactics and really does come out for term limits, could it actually help to recruit votes for Floreen’s bill?  After all, what do term-limited Council Members have to lose?  And let’s not forget that this council will decide on funding two more MCGEO annual compensation packages before the next council is seated.

In May 2011, when the County Council met to pass a budget that included cuts to employee benefits, a group of nine clowns appeared in the audience.  One of them wore a name tag with the first name of the Council President.  The police union refused to admit responsibility but was widely blamed.  Less than two months later, the council voted unanimously to repeal the police union’s right to bargain the effects of management decisions.

What goes around comes around.  Is MCGEO next?

Share

MoCo’s Giant Tax Hike, Part Six

By Adam Pagnucco.

Montgomery County’s giant tax hike will have consequences.  Here are a few of them.

1.  Term limits are more likely to pass.

There are several reasons why Robin Ficker’s newest term limits amendment will probably pass if he gathers enough signatures to place it on the ballot, but the tax hike is one of the biggest.  The last time the council broke the charter limit in 2008, voters responded by passing Ficker’s charter amendment to make tax hikes harder.  With a new tax hike in place, voters may be tempted to respond with term limits.

Ficker has taken notice.  He regularly runs Facebook ads linking term limits, the tax hike and the council’s 2013 salary increase like the one below.  Commenters respond predictably.

Ficker vs Elrich

Ficker may have a new ally in his quest to evict the council: MCGEO President Gino Renne.  After the council voted to abrogate his union’s collective bargaining agreement, Renne told the Post, “I’m tired of these clowns,” and said his union might support term limits.  An alliance between Gino Renne and Robin Ficker would be one of the strangest events in the history of MoCo politics.  Whoever can produce a picture of these two smiling and shaking hands will be awarded a gift certificate from Gino’s beloved Department of Liquor Control.

2. Outsider candidates could be encouraged to run for county office.

If term limits pass, two things will happen.  First, the County Executive’s seat and five seats on the County Council will be open in 2018.  Second, the tax increase will be blamed for the success of term limits.  Both factors could lead to the entry of outsider candidates with a message like this: “We need new leadership.  We need to do things differently.”  Translation: we need to run the government without giant tax hikes.

Some of these outsiders may use the county’s new public financing system to run.  But the strong performance of David Trone, who started with zero name recognition and won many parts of CD8, will encourage self-funders.  This being Montgomery County, there are a LOT of potential self-funders, including those who have previously run for office.  Candidates in public financing can raise as many individual contributions of up to $150 each as they are able to collect, but the system caps public match amounts at $750,000 for Executive candidates, $250,000 for at-large council candidates and $125,000 for district council candidates.  A wealthy self-funder could easily overwhelm candidates who are subject to these caps and make a mockery of public financing.

3.  More charter amendments on taxes are possible.

Ficker’s 2008 property tax charter amendment, which instituted the requirement that all nine Council Members must vote to override the charter limit on property taxes, was a mild version of his previous ballot questions on the subject.  His 2004 Question A, which would have abolished the override provision entirely, failed by a 59-41 percent margin.  Now that the 2008 amendment has been proven ineffective, Ficker could be encouraged to bring back his more draconian version soon.  In the wake of this new tax hike, would voters support it?

Passage of a hard tax cap would have very grave consequences for the ability of county government to deal with downturns.  In 2010, the County Council responded to the Great Recession by passing a tough budget combining cuts, furloughs, an energy tax increase and layoffs of 90 employees.  When the next recession comes, if the county has no taxation flexibility, it might have to pass a budget laying off hundreds of people and gutting entire departments.  If the levying of giant tax hikes in non-emergencies causes the voters to abolish the possibility of levying them in true emergencies in the future, it would be a serious calamity.

4.  Governor Larry Hogan is a big winner.

One of Governor Hogan’s favorite political tactics is to play the Big Three Democratic jurisdictions against the rest of the state, with the City of Baltimore being his prime target.  But he can also point to Prince George’s County, where the County Executive (and a potential election opponent) proposed a 15% property tax hike, and also to Montgomery County, where the council passed a 9% increase.  His message to the voters will be a simple one.

“Look, folks.  This is what you get when you allow liberal Democrats to have one-party rule: giant tax hikes.  That’s why you need people like me in office to stop them.”

How many MoCo Democrats will ask themselves this question: “What is easier for me to live with? Larry Hogan or nine percent tax hikes?” What do you think their answer will be?

Hogan received 37% of the vote in Montgomery County in 2014.  He had a 55% approval rating in MoCo according to a Washington Post poll last October.  A Gonzales poll taken in March found that registered voters in the Washington suburbs (defined as MoCo, Prince George’s and Charles) gave Hogan a 62.6% job approval rating, with 35% strongly approving.  If Hogan can use the tax issue to run in the low 40s, or even as high as 45% in MoCo, he will be very difficult to beat for reelection.

Reelecting himself is not Hogan’s only priority.  He would also like to elect enough Republicans to the General Assembly to uphold his vetoes.  That task is easier in the House of Delegates, where Democrats hold 91 seats, six more than the 85 votes required to override vetoes.  If the GOP can pick up seven seats, as they did in 2014, they can uphold the Governor’s vetoes on party line votes.  That would cause serious change in how Annapolis operates.  Could big tax hikes in Democratic jurisdictions like Montgomery help the GOP get there?

5.  It will be harder to get more aid from Annapolis.

In 2007, former Baltimore State Senator Barbara Hoffman commented to the Gazette on Montgomery County’s ultra-wealthy reputation in Annapolis.  “They have to overcome the view that they’re rich and trouble-free. … That’s not true anymore.”  She was right then, and she is even more right now.  The county has massive needs for transportation projects and both operating and construction funds for the public schools.  But when the county levies giant tax hikes on itself to pay for these needs, is it letting the state off the hook?  State legislators from other cash-strapped jurisdictions that lack wealthy tax bases like Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac are perfectly happy to let MoCo tax itself while they ask the state to tax MoCo even more to pay for their needs.  (Remember the 2012 state income tax hike, of which MoCo residents paid 41% of the new revenue?)  As a result, the next time the Lords of Annapolis are asked to help Montgomery County, they could very well reply, “Tax yourselves to pay for it. You always do.”

6.  A major argument in favor of the liquor monopoly has been proven hollow.

County officials predicted that if the liquor monopoly was lost, annual property taxes would have to rise by an average $100 per household.  Instead, the monopoly was preserved and the council passed a property tax hike that will cost an average $326 per household.  The tax hike was in the works since at least January 2015, long before small businesses and consumers launched their campaign to End the Monopoly.  And the $25 million in new spending added by the council to this year’s budget actually exceeds the $20.7 million that the liquor monopoly is projected to return to the general fund.  This proves once and for all that liquor monopoly revenues do not prevent tax hikes!

7.  There will be pressure in the future for another tax hike.

As we discussed in Part Three of this series, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wynne decision, which requires counties to refund taxes paid on out-of-state income, was one reason for the current property tax hike.  Senator Rich Madaleno’s state legislation extended the time that counties had to pay for refunds from Fiscal Year 2019 to 2024.  Below is a table showing the fiscal impact on all Maryland counties combined, of which Montgomery accounts for roughly half.  While the legislation enables counties to spend less in FY 2017-2018, it requires them to spend more in FY 2020-2024.  MoCo will have to spend around $20 million a year in most of the out years.

Madaleno Wynne Bill Fiscal Impact

Given its $5 billion-plus annual budget, Montgomery could easily afford the out-year payments by slightly slowing the growth rate in its annual spending.  But instead, the council added $25 million in new spending on top of the Executive’s FY 2017 budget, and unless it is cut, that spending will continue in future budgets.  The cumulative impact of that new spending plus future Wynne refund payments will start to be felt in three years.  At that point, the council could very well face a choice between trimming back their added spending or raising taxes.  What do you think they will do?

8.  Economic development will now be harder.

Despite the wealth in some of its communities, Montgomery County struggles with the perception that it is not business-friendly.  While its unemployment rate is low by national standards, its real per capita income fell steeply during the recession, much of its office space is obsolete and it lacks Northern Virginia’s two major airports and its new Metro line.  The chart below shows the county’s private sector employment from 2001 through 2014.  Despite recent sluggish growth, the county had fewer private sector jobs in 2014 than it did in 2001.

MoCo Private Employment 2001-2014

And while the county lost private sector jobs, the Washington region as a whole grew by 9.5% over this period.

Washington Private Employment 2001-2014

There may be a variety of factors explaining MoCo’s weak economic performance, but consider this: in the last 15 fiscal years, the county has seen six major tax increases.  The county broke its charter limit on property taxes in FY 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009 and 2017 and it doubled the energy tax in FY 2011.  (Most of the latter increase is still on the books.)

Good government is an exercise in balancing needs.  Education, transportation, public safety and public services are valuable and require resources, at times necessitating tax increases.  But all of that is impossible without a vigorous private sector that creates jobs and incomes and pays the government’s bills.  Those priorities must be balanced, and when they are, progressive policies can be afforded.  But if they are not, economic growth will fail, government services will be harder to sustain, taxes will fall increasingly on a shrinking base and a downward spiral could begin.

In the wake of its long-term stagnant economy and its Giant Tax Hike, how close is Montgomery County to that tipping point?

Share

MoCo’s Giant Tax Hike, Part Four

By Adam Pagnucco.

The tax hike is the part of the budget that is getting the most attention, but the County Council took another unusual step: it refused to fund part of the county employees’ collective bargaining agreements.  Labor has taken notice.

Salary increases in the county’s collective bargaining agreements are comprised of three main components.  First, there is a general wage adjustment that all employees receive.  Second, there is a service increment, also called a step increase, that employees who are not at the top of the salary scale for their classification receive.  Third, there is a longevity increment that is received only by employees who are at the top of their scale and have completed twenty years of service.  All of these items, along with many others, are negotiated by the three county employee unions (MCGEO, the Fire Fighters and the Police) and the Executive and codified in collective bargaining agreements.  The agreements then go to the council, which can decide to fund all, some, or no items that create economic costs.

During the Great Recession, the employees received no raises of any kind in Fiscal Years 2011, 2012 and 2013.  Afterwards, the unions negotiated for and received general wage adjustments, steps and longevity increments as well as “make-up steps.”  The latter were intended to compensate the employees for steps they did not receive during the recession.  The unions won make-up steps in Fiscal Years 2014, 2015 and 2017 (this year’s budget) with the exception of the Fire Fighters this year.  During these years, the combined general wage adjustments, steps and make-up steps ranged from 6.8% to 9.8% per year.

This year, the council approved MCPS’s funding increase on the condition that some of the money scheduled to fund MCPS employees’ raises be instead redirected to hire teachers and other staff.  The school board agreed.  In order to maintain equity between MCPS employees and county employees, the council insisted that the county unions give up some of their raises and primarily targeted their make-up steps.  The council refused to fund eight items in the collective bargaining agreements which together totaled $4.1 million in savings in Fiscal Year 2017, leaving the unions with raises of 4.5 percent.  Only Council Member Marc Elrich voted with the unions.

The county unions were outraged.  MCGEO, the largest of them, published a scathing response on its website, blasting the council as “hypocrites” who engage in “public manipulation in order to achieve what looks like sound fiscal management while achieving nothing.”  The council had approved make-up steps and total salary increases of 6.8-9.8% in both 2014 and 2015, so what had changed now?  The difference is that few people were paying attention in those two years because a tax hike was not on the table.  Now that a large tax hike was being considered, big raises were not politically feasible.  Hence MCGEO’s anger.

Justified or not, the council had achieved $4.1 million in savings by trimming employee salary increases.  That money could have been used to reduce the property tax increase, but that’s not what happened.  Why not?  We will have more in Part Five.

Share

Adam Replies to Gino on Liquor Control, Part III

Guest Blogger Adam Pagnucco replies to MCGEO’s Gino Renne

My reply to MCGEO President Gino Renne’s response to my post on the county’s Department of Liquor Control (DLC) concludes.

  1. The union says that if DLC were eliminated, union jobs would be replaced by non-union jobs.

MCGEO: “Mr. Pagnucco claims that privatization would not result in the loss of high paying union jobs. This is his most egregious of claims, especially for a former union employee. Where’s the evidence that ‘many private wholesalers’ are represented by IBT? Or even evidence that union membership will not suffer a net loss? Mr. Pagnucco needs to explain himself on this one.”

I’m happy to do so. As MCGEO states, I am a former union employee. I spent sixteen years working as a strategic researcher on organizing campaigns in the building trades. When President Renne writes, “It’s extremely difficult to organize a union in your workplace these days,” he’s absolutely correct. I have seen the extreme tactics that some employers use to keep their workers from unionizing. If I thought that the only alternative to DLC was a group of exclusively non-union employers, I would have misgivings about that.

Fortunately, that is not the case here. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has been organizing beverage manufacturers and distributors for more than a century and has a Brewery and Soft Drink Conference to represent their workers. The union is also active in our local area. Washington Wholesale LLC, a distributor in D.C., is organized by Teamsters Local 639. Republic National Distributing Company, the second-largest distributor in the nation, is organized in Maryland by Teamsters Local 355. Reliable Churchill LLLP, the largest distributor in Maryland, is organized by Teamsters Local 570. If DLC loses market share to the private sector, it’s likely that unionized firms like these will pick up at least part of it.

This is deeply troubling to President Renne because non-union workers and Teamsters members have one thing in common: neither group pays dues to MCGEO. And that’s the real issue here.

So here’s a question for President Renne: what would happen if private distributors were allowed to compete with DLC? Restaurants and retailers who are happy with DLC could stay with them. Those who are unhappy could buy from the private sector. If DLC has lower prices as MCGEO claims and if their customer service is improving, they should hold on to most of their market share. If not, why should they be protected by a state-mandated monopoly? What do you say, President Renne? Can your members compete with the Teamsters?

  1. The union defends the County Council’s proposed “do-nothing fee” for DLC.

MCGEO: “The ‘fee’ Mr. Pagnucco complains about is paid by the distributor to allow for its participation in the Montgomery County market. Its structure has not yet been determined, just that there will be a fee.”

A quick briefer on the do-nothing fee. DLC has many commonly consumed beverages in its regular stock, but it often has trouble filling orders for specialty items it does not usually carry. These are known as special orders. Here’s a typical complaint:

Mike Hill, general manager of Adega Wine Cellars & Café in Silver Spring, said they have problems getting specialty wines and craft beer.

“If we like a beer or wine and we want to bring that into our store, the turnaround time can be eight days if we’re lucky or two to three months to not at all in some cases,” Hill said.

The County Council has recommended that restaurants and retailers be allowed to go directly to private distributors for special orders, but there are two big caveats. First, DLC determines what is in its regular stock and what is a special order. Second, the council wants to allow DLC to collect a fee on any direct sale by a distributor to “replace DLC estimated revenue lost by allowing the sale of special order beer and wines by private wholesalers.”

DLC loves this because it will get paid without having to do any work. Distributors aren’t so crazy about it. They would have to incur the costs of direct delivery to customers (of shipments that in some cases would be very small) and pay the extra fee on top to DLC because… well, the county just wants the money. Multiple distributors predicted in a hearing before the council that the economics would prevent them from participating in such a “reform.”

But the attitude behind the do-nothing fee is itself even worse. Whoever came up with this idea must believe that our county is soooooo much better than all of our neighbors that we can get away with imposing ridiculous impediments to doing business that no one else in our area would dare to do. Well guess what, folks? Residents and businesses have options. MoCo is a great place to live, shop and work, but so are the District, Frederick, Howard, Northern Virginia and most places near here. If you put enough measures in place to punish employers and consumers, they can and will go elsewhere. That’s the problem with the do-nothing fee and, indeed, DLC itself.

Comptroller Peter Franchot, the state’s top enforcer of alcohol laws and a MoCo resident, says of DLC, “Montgomery County is the last bastion of a medieval state system where the county, if you can believe it, sells all the spirits, alcohol, and we’re not just talking retail, we’re talking wholesale… This is a system that is incredibly slanted against the consumer and the ordinary citizen.”

He’s right. Why are we putting up with this? No one else in the Washington metro area has to deal with anything like this. We are the only ones.

It’s time for a revolt. It’s time to End the Monopoly.

Share