L.A. County ballot measure shifts labor power to independent arbitrators

Los Angeles County voters will decide on Nov. 3 whether to grant public safety unions a final say in labor disputes through a process known as binding arbitration. Measure A, which lacks formal opposition on the ballot, would alter the current system where the Board of Supervisors holds the authority to impose final contract terms.

The measure covers 14 bargaining units representing approximately 16,500 county employees, including firefighters, sheriff’s deputies, lifeguards, and deputy medical examiners. It applies only to workers who are legally barred from striking. If voters approve the amendment, an independent panel would resolve impasses between the county and these unions.

Under the proposed rules, negotiations would proceed as they do today, with both parties bargaining in good faith. If an impasse is declared, a three-member arbitration panel takes over. The county and the union each select one member, and the two sides jointly choose a third person to serve as chair. This panel reviews evidence regarding wages, hours, and other conditions, then issues a binding ruling that becomes public.

Unions supporting the measure argue the current system gives the employer near-unilateral control. Derek Hsieh, executive director of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, stated that the employer currently has near unilateral control over contract provisions. He said the prospect of arbitration would force both sides to reach a deal rather than let an outside panel decide.

Dave Gillotte, president of the International Assn. of Firefighters Local 1014, echoed this view. Gillotte represented more than 3,000 county firefighters and said that binding arbitration provides the leverage needed to push both parties toward a contract. He noted that without this mechanism, neither side has strong enough incentives to compromise quickly.

Supporters point to historical data to show that arbitration rarely leads to financial crisis. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who helped draft the measure, noted that only six of the 21 California jurisdictions with binding arbitration have ever had to use it. She argued that the process requires arbitrators to consider the county’s fiscal situation when making decisions.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who abstained from the board vote that placed the measure on the ballot, raised concerns about the lack of elected oversight. Mitchell stated that arbitrators are not elected officials and are not required to weigh countywide trade-offs such as homeless services, healthcare, or capital improvements. She worried that the measure removes these decisions from elected hands.

The county’s experience with this model is not unique to Los Angeles. Vallejo, California, was the first municipality in the state to adopt binding arbitration over 50 years ago following a police strike. In 2007, a mediator ruled that the city could not reduce its fire department despite financial struggles. Eight months later, Vallejo declared bankruptcy. Voters in Vallejo voted to remove the arbitration clause in 2010.

Despite the Vallejo precedent, labor unions have raised $7.7 million through mid-October to promote Measure A. Financial disclosure reports show no campaign funds have been reported in opposition. While no formal opponents appear on the ballot, some progressive groups have urged a no vote. La Defensa, a prison abolition group, argued that bundling sheriff’s deputies with other workers gives law enforcement special leverage.

Justin McBride, a researcher at the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, said academic studies do not show that binding arbitration consistently favors one side. He cited a 2010 Cornell University study of New York negotiations, which found that the number of cases reaching arbitration declined after a few years as parties learned to work together. McBride described the process as a routine part of the labor relations framework where both parties typically reach a deal.