More on SB County "TAP" in Press Enterprise

The Press Enterprise is running a story today about the TAP program that is designed to stave off layoffs and keep San Bernardino County workers employed by moving them around and transferring out of their present classification.

The gist of it, as I kind of understand it, is that an employee working in expertise "A" would be given the opportnity to fill a spot doing different duties in another department where funding for a position is available. 

While it doesn't seem that anyone is proclaiming that this is a guarantee to avoid nasty layoffs, it would seem like a great example of partnership and collaboration between the Board of Supervisors and the San Bernardino Public Employees' Association.

Here is a segment from the article:

In a move to avoid layoffs, San Bernardino County officials are considering temporarily reassigning employees from departments facing job losses to those with available positions.

If county budget cuts result in the need to shed employees in a given department, the Temporary Assignment Program, if approved by the county Board of Supervisors today, would allow the displaced workers to move to other jobs.

I stated previously that all employers, public and private, are dealing with the tough economy and etiher laying off scores of workers or are considering it.  I interpret this article as suggesting that San Bernardino County is in better shape than most other government agencies.  So, kudos to everyone involved.

Bob Blough, general manager for the union that represents 12,646 county employees, supports the reassignment program. He said layoffs and furloughs should not be an option as the county attempts to plug a $60 million budget shortfall, he said.

"I don't think layoffs are on the horizon for this fiscal year," said Blough, of the San Bernardino Public Employees Association. "I know... the county wants (furloughs) available for this year but I don't think it's necessary."

Comments

[Little Stevie Wonder]

The article didn't mention that the procedure for furloughs has just recently been removed from the represented employees MOUs. There is substantial mistrust between the employees/ SBPEA and County officials, and eliminating the option of furloughs seems to put the employees at a greater risk for lay-offs in the future. I can appreciate Sharon's frustration with the current representation and the ineffective GM "the Chicken" running the SBPEA, who is in the back pocket of the BOS.

[Pat]

Little Stevie - The "procedure for furloughs" has not "just been removed from the represented employees MOUs". The furlough language was negotiated out of the MOUs by Chris Prato at least three contracts ago - around 1997 or 1998. I wouldn't call that "just been removed." Hopefully you can understand the frustration some county employees, myself included, have with Sharon, who lets this kind of misinformation permeate her blog. She knows that the furlough language was removed years ago but doesn't bother to correct or inform those on her blog with that fact because it doesn't suit her purpose.

But thanks for sharing.

[Little Stevie Wonder]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess SBPEA hasn't been representing the best interests of their members for at least the last 10 years. And someone tried to tell me over on Sharon's blog that Prato had done a good job for the employees. SBPEA just gave away the farm in Redlands in the form of voluntary furloughs that the Redlands CM has already said "are not enough". What kind of strategy is that for your membership. The Chicken obviously couldn't play a good game of poker even if he could see everybody else's cards. I think you guy's should give Sharon a break. Sure she's far from perfect (aren't we all), but she's got a right to let her feelings be known even if she is a County employee.

[Pat]

Little Stevie - if you really were an SBPEA member for 20 years, then you would have known Chris Prato and the kind of job he did for all employees.
Blough was not involved with the furloughs in Redlands. SBPEA members in Redlands decided whether or not they would take furloughs. And unless you are now currently a Redlands city employee, it doesn't really matter what you think about their decision because you aren't the one who has to live with it.
As for Sharon, I have no problem with her letting her "feelings be known". What I do have a problem with is the way in which she deliberately posts misinformation, half-truths, and venom.
But again, thanks for sharing.

[Bob Blough, SBPEA General Manager]

As usual, Little Stevie is just trying to divide the membership with his baseless attack on SBPEA since he has no knowledge of the discussions that occurred in Redlands.

Little Stevie needs to get his parents to read him the headlines about the recession before he goes to bed and then maybe he will have a clue about what our members and all public employees face for the near future.

The Redlands SBPEA members in both units voted to take the furloughs. In fact, in every meeting of the County Employee Advisory Committee, the members are asking for furloughs, so it appears Little Stevie is, as usual, out of touch with the wishes of SBPEA members and just trying to stir the pot.

As the impacts of the State budget and other revenue deficits are clearly defined in each jurisdiction, every option to keep SBPEA members employed is being considered. The wishes of SBPEA members are the determining factor each case.

[Little Stevie Wonder]

Dear Mr. Chicken (Bob)- My stake in Redlands is as a resident, businessperson and taxpayer. I find it very unfortunate for all parties involved that the SBPEA party line is always the same as that of the majority politico. If you are not involved with Redlands as "Pat" indicates, how do you even know anything about the particulars and/or why the voluntary furloughs would be offered to the City by SBPEA employees, from a strategic perspective. I deplore the lack of tactic utilized in caving into the City's negotiating team without a request even being made by management for the furloughs. I'm not sure why you are questioning my intent with my comments when I apparently know more about the situation with the Redlands negotiations than you do. If SBPEA is not willing to "take a stand" for its members, then why are the dues being collected? The public pays the employees and therefore SBPEA staff salaries, that's why I care. Don't be so exclusive, be inclusive (with your future thinking and actions). I'm only here to help with a brick up side your head. Bricks is love.

[Bob Blough, SBPEA General Manager]

Little Stevie - As a "resident, businessperson, and taxpayer," you have no role in SBPEA's business. To be clear, as the General Manager of SBPEA I have knowledge of the member's situation in each of the 29 agencies that SBPEA represents, including the County of San Bernardino. I personally negotiated the 2004-2009 contract for our Redland's members in the RCSEA unit, and they were quite pleased with the salary and benefits improvements, voting overwhelmingly to ratify. The City Council approved the contract for the City based on anticipated revenue and if you read the newspaper, you will see that anticipated revenue did not materialize across the nation, leaving hundreds of local government agencies short of expected money. When the City of Redlands notified SBPEA of its financial shortfalls, SBPEA staff and employees met with the city, reviewed the budget information, and the members in the two SBPEA units were informed of the situation and the alternatives. The members then voted to accept the furloughs to avoid layoffs. As the economy continues to erode, the members will be updated as factual information developes and they will be involved in future decisions that are made to protect their jobs and their families to the greatest extent possible from this recession - depression that we are in. So, take your brick and build a wall for your friend Sharon, because your masonry skills are lacking in this forum and you don't have a dog in this fight.

[Little Stevie Wonder]

"Bob", now this blog is City business? See, here's the problem with your way of thinking. It's too narrow. All the communities and the residents of those communities are IN THIS THING TOGETHER. You just don't want to hear anybody else's opinion about these issues because that's how the good old boys work. I may not have a dog (are you calling Sharon a dog?) in the fight, but I sure ain't The Chicken. You might want to think of me more like the "Little Engine that Could" instead of belittling my relationship with your concerned member Sharon.

[Bob Blough, SBPEA General Manager]

Little Stevie -
What "City Business?" You claim to not be a member of SBPEA. You have no interest in SBPEA's business and your only purpose in posting, obviously, is to attack the organization and myself with false accusations and lies. I owe you no explanation. Your "little engine that could" needs an oil change and a smog check. Your prior post on the other blog that you would meet with me and assist me in leaving SBPEA, or meet with SBPEA's board if I wouldn't leave, is more B.S. I have news for you. I'm not going anywhere, so post on with your lies and misleading information. You aren't impressing anyone but yourself and your friend. SBPEA members are smart enough to see through those that are "circling the bowl," as one of our members recently said at an EAC meeting. It is good to hear that you have a relationship with Sharon, but she is NOT a member of this organization and her only demonstrated concern is for herself and her agenda of attacking SBPEA's Board of Directors and I.

[well said]

Way to go Mr. Blough. You need not take crap from non-members. Especially those doing the bidding of EX members such as the aforementioned dog. hey, I call em like I see en.

[Little Stevie Wonder]

Mr. Blough, I made no such post about you leaving SBPEA. Sounds like paranoid accusations that bear no resemblance to fact. I was not aware that the ex-member that you continue to bash was no longer in SBPEA. Maybe someone that is still a member is trying to give you a hint that you are no longer effective in representing the interests of a majority of the membership and should resign.

[Dakota]

Dear Bob: Have you missed all the ecomonic reports over the last year? Do you know the unemployment numbers? Stop trying to get more - there is no money! Repeat - no money! Because of you, we have lost our flexible schedules. Do you have any idea what means for those of us with kids? I personally think that all union members should unite and demand your resignation. If I lose my schedule and it puts my childcare at risk, I will personally lead to charge asking for your resignation.

[Dahlia]

I for one am behind the union and Bob Blough's dedication. We seemed so close to getting a reasonable response by the County, then this hogwash about losing flex and $. I know the union is not done with negotiating. They are aware of the members needs and frequently ask our concerns.

[Dakota]

Dahlia: Can every one of the people that lost their jobs because of the union come live at your house? It's time for you to support your union-brother! As for my needs, I need a pay check. The union had a huge responsibility to getting it taken away from over three dozen employees and their families. The union specifically states that they will be providing no assistance. They are responsible only on "collective bargaining issues" and will not bear responsiblity for individual members. In your next posting, please leave your full name, address and telephone number. I want laid-off union members to be able to contact you directly for financial aid and emotional support in these hard financial times. I am sure that you are willing to do your part for the brotherhood. I, like you, will support union activity in three very specific areas - 1) Removal of Bob & the GM from office. 2) Decertification of the union it's self. 3) Holding all pro-union members accountable for how they contributed to the lost of jobs and the hardships of these families. Shame on you all for your greed.