Los Angeles County considers labor measure for public safety

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) – Los Angeles County voters are weighing Measure A, a ballot initiative that would fundamentally alter labor negotiations for thousands of public safety workers by replacing the county’s current final-offer system with binding arbitration.

If approved on Nov. 3, Measure A would cover bargaining units representing deputy sheriffs, firefighters, lifeguards and medical examiners. These are public employees who are legally prohibited from striking. Under the current process, if contract negotiations reach a standstill, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors holds the ultimate authority to unilaterally impose a final offer on unions.

Measure A would end that practice. Instead, stalled negotiations would go before a three-member arbitration panel composed of one representative chosen by the county, one by the union and a neutral chairperson. The panel would issue a legally binding decision on wages, benefits and working conditions.

Proponents argue the change creates a level playing field and ensures essential services remain protected from political maneuvers.

“I support Measure A because public safety is a core responsibility of government and must never be compromised by political agendas,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger told The Center Square in an email. “This measure helps ensure that funding for essential public safety services remains in place and that the services residents depend on are not discontinued or interrupted because of shifting political priorities.”

Barger added that public safety is not negotiable.

“The safety of our communities should never become collateral in debates over defunding law enforcement,” said Barger.

Public safety labor groups have backed the measure heavily, reportedly pouring millions of dollars into supporting the campaign. Advocates maintain that the prospect of third-party arbitration incentivizes both sides to negotiate in good faith and settle disputes before losing control of the outcome.

Still, critics warn that taking the final decision out of the hands of elected officials threatens fiscal stability and public accountability, especially during tightening budgetary times.

“It takes away accountability from elected officials,” said Steven Greenhut, director of the Free Cities Center at Pasadena-based Pacific Research Institute.

 “An elected official, a county supervisor, has to consider many things," Greenhut told The Center Square. "If a bargaining unit wants a huge raise, and we're seeing all sorts of budget problems facing not just L.A. County, but municipalities, counties, and cities across the state ... they have to make the hard choices."

Greenhut disputed claims that binding arbitration is necessary to prevent labor unrest among workers who cannot legally strike.

“The unions claim that it'll create labor peace, but that's nonsense. They can't strike anyway,” Greenhut said. “It just gives them more leverage in negotiations to the detriment of the public who pays the taxes.”

Opponents also point to past cautionary examples elsewhere in California. In 2007, an arbitrator’s decision prevented the city of Vallejo from making fire department spending cuts during severe fiscal distress, a move widely cited as a contributing factor when Vallejo filed for bankruptcy eight months later.

Vallejo voters repealed the San Francisco Bay Area city's binding arbitration rule in 2010.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell abstained from the vote to place Measure A on the ballot. Mitchell cited concerns that non-elected arbitrators are not required to balance wage increases against other core county services like healthcare and homelessness programs. Additionally, progressive criminal justice reform groups such as La Defensa oppose the measure, arguing law enforcement unions should not gain additional bargaining power or budgetary leverage.

Mitchell’s office did not respond to The Center Square’s request for an interview.