By Jim Cline and Kate Kremer
In the past two newsletter issues, we reported on and discussed the annual OFM population numbers. As indicated, all the details of those numbers are posted on the Cline and Associates Premium Website. While the Cline and Associates Database tracks a wide range of demographic factors, Population remains the most important factor for the selection of negotiation “comparables.”
Not only is there a tradition in public sector contract bargaining to compare the population of cities and counties, the statute seems to require it. RCW 41.56.465, requires that interest arbitrators compare compensation and working conditions among agencies “of like personnel of like employers of similar size.” While size might be argued (and has been argued) to compare the number of Department personnel, typically arbitrators apply population as the criterion for size.
The application of population in interest arbitrations is in Chapter 4 of our Representatives Manual. The Premium Website also contains published arbitration cases with detailed headnotes addressing this issue.
One of the important issues in selecting comparables is proper application of the range. We’ve noted that some unions have erred by adopting management arguments that the proper range is only +50%/-50%. We have argued and the majority of arbitrators agree that a “2 to 1” range, or +100%/-50% is truer to the similar size requirement. Reducing the scope of comparables to the management preferred 50/50 standard almost invariably results in tilting the list of comparables to a set of smaller population jurisdictions.
While residential nighttime population numbers are reflected in the OFM numbers, other population questions sometimes arise in negotiations and arbitration. For example, some have argued that daytime population is relevant. And questions concerning the scope of the “service area” also get raised.
