by MacKenzie Elmer / Voice of San Diego / April 22, 2024
The ongoing war between public power proponents and San Diego Gas & Electric looked more like a battle between the municipalization advocates and union labor Thursday [April 18].
Each team’s respective poster-bearing players – with signs that read either “fire SG&E” or “municipalization is union busting” — took turns encumbering the live feed webcast of the City Council Rules Committee’s public comment period. But almost no one from a labor union spoke in favor of the proposed government takeover of the energy grid. Proponents had hoped the City Council would consider putting up a ballot measure and spare them the burden of collecting signatures.
Nate Fairman, who represents electrical workers of IBEW Local Union 465, which holds a contract with SDG&E, told the City Council to reject the ballot measure, calling it a “direct threat” on union jobs.
Dorrie Bruggemann, campaign manager for Power San Diego, argued their proposal is pro-union and that state law requires new public utilities honor the union contracts of their previous private employer. But it wasn’t enough.
It was clear the lack of union support was the death knell for public power this round.
“This is not one of those things you just throw on the ballot and let voters decide,” said Council President Sean Elo-Rivera. “You can’t just tell workers they’re going to be OK. That’s not how it works.”
Elo-Rivera said he had told public power advocates they needed to work with labor and make sure they felt comfortable with the proposal.
“Not only are they not comfortable today, it sounds like those conversations haven’t happened,” he said.
The committee’s councilmembers – who decide what potential laws get put before voters with city support in November – basically balled up public power proponent’s proposal and tossed it in the trash. Now Power San Diego must make a mad dash for the thousands of signatures they need to independently get the measure on the ballot. Without major funding, it will be a monumental volunteer undertaking.
The actual issue: Is the public power movement union busting or not? SDG&E reps were quick to notify me I posted the wrong state law on X pertaining to this alleged required honoring of union contracts. But I found the right code eventually. In 2020, unions got the legislature to guarantee their contracts would be honored for at least three years when a utility transitions to new ownership.
Labor secured that change as Pacific Gas and Electric slipped into bankruptcy following the wildfire sparked by their equipment which destroyed Paradise, California, in 2019. A movement to municipalize PG&E gained momentum, and unions worried about their contracts.
“We were terrified those contracts were going to get ripped and shredded,” Fairman told me. “So we advocated for language that, in case there’s a change in ownership… contracts would be honored.”
But the legislation didn’t go far enough, Fairman said, and it’s so new it’s never been tested. The legislation doesn’t dictate how the new owners of a labor contract would honor pensions workers saved up under their previous employer, Fairman said.
“They can’t just copy-paste the working conditions … of a very old, complex 100-year-old collective bargaining agreement (with SDG&E),” he said.
Barry Moline of the Municipal Utilities Association says he worked on that new law amid advocating for a potential public takeover of PG&E. He said there was never a doubt union contracts wouldn’t be honored.
“That argument is B.S. Every public power utility in California is unionized and there’s no effort to circumvent any union,” Moline said.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Incredible.
Instead of researching that Union contracts would be honored, this silly council president threw away a proposal that would save ALL citizens money. Instead they used this weak excuse of protecting union contracts.
First, someone has to run the municipal power company. Secondly, the board of directors would be motivated to keep the union in order to provide the best service as the mission would be to provide service rather than give a profit, as we have seen with Sempra. We pay the highest costs in the country.
I would guess that the elected officials are terrified to oppose Sempra and are using the excuse of union contracts.
For example, Sean could have set up a group to explore the best way to mesh the public municipal power company with protection for unions. If we can spend millions on a consultant to look at how to charge residents for garbage, maybe we can spend a few bucks to help ALL residents with our electricity bills.
Again, our officials are giving the impression they just want Sempra bucks.
By the way, I support unions…my family were all union members.
Unions are one discussion, but the hard, cold, facts on the City of SD taking over the power company is insanity, and scary. The mayor and City clowncil have proven more than once and twice, they don’t have ANY financial common sense. They can’t seem to figure infrastructure NEEDS over WANTS, so they go with what the special interest groups WANT, and dig a deeper debt in a very deep debt hole. Based on the foolish mistakes the mayor and council have made for the duration they’ve sat there, they are not capable of figuring out a way to get out of a wet paper bag.