UAW member makes the case for Workplace Freedom

I wanted to share this email with you so you can attend one of these Workplace Freedom workshops. I had the pleasure of meeting Terry Bowman - and hearing him speak - at a Citizen Watchdog Training. As a union member, he has a unique and compelling perspective on right-to-work positions and can tell how Michigan became a RTW state.

For more information on Bowman, his website is Union Conservatives.

Here is the email:

UAW member and Union Conservative founder Terry Bowman will be the guest speaker at two Toledo area Workplace Freedom workshops

Wednesday, July 17th
6 p.m.
West Branch Library
1320 W. Sylvania Ave.
(between Lewis and Jackman)

Tuesday, July 23th
6 p.m.
Point Place Library
2727 117th St.
Point Place


Bowman, a current UAW member for Ford Motor Co., was a leading advocate for Michigan's recent successful Freedom to Work legislation, and he will be sharing his story about how it happened in Michigan. He will also be sharing valuable insights on how Ohio can become the next Right to Work state in the nation.

"Now is the time for Ohio to discard compulsory restrictions on workers and allow them to choose for themselves whether they want to pay money to an outside, third-party agency as a condition of employment," said Bowman in an e-mail to Union Conservatives members. "I will use my time in Columbus to not only tell the story about how it happened in Michigan, but to make a simple, yet bold declaration: Ohio union workers deserve the same rights that Michigan workers have been granted, and Ohio Workplace Freedom is now on the table."

Bowman will be there to issue a 'call to action' to grassroots activists and Ohio's legislature and Governor Kasich.

"I am very excited to be talking to so many enthusiastic supporters of the pro-union worker issue that is correctly being called "Workplace Freedom" here in Ohio. With Indiana and Michigan now Right to Work states, Ohio cannot wait any longer to grant their union workers the return of their 1st amendment right of Freedom of Association - or conversely to not associate."

Bowman says their are many economic advantages to becoming a Workplace Freedom state, but granting workers the freedom to choose will always be the single best reason for Ohio to become the 25th Right to Work state in the nation.

The events are co-sponsored by Children of Liberty and Toledo Tea Party.

For event information, please contact Union Conservatives, or:

Toledo Tea Party
Contact: John McAvoy
Mobile: 419-787-9585
E-mail: John@ToledoTeaParty.com

Quote of the Day - auto bailout and drunk drivers

The bolded sections are my own emphasis:

‎Calling the bailouts “successful” is to whitewash the diversion of funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program by two administrations for purposes unauthorized by Congress; the looting and redistribution of claims against GM’s and Chrysler’s assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners; the use of questionable tactics to bully stakeholders into accepting terms to facilitate politically desirable outcomes; the unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch into the finest details of the bankruptcy process to orchestrate what bankruptcy law experts describe as “Sham” sales of Old Chrysler to New Chrysler and Old GM to New GM; the costs of denying Ford and the other more deserving automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the United Autoworkers, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against similar market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about the direction of policy under the current administration that pervades the business environment to this very day.

In addition to the above, there is the fact that taxpayers are still short tens of billions of dollars on account of the GM bailout without serious prospects for ever being made whole. Thus, acceptance of the administration’s pronouncement of auto bailout success demands profound gullibility or willful ignorance. Sure, GM has experienced recent profits and Chrysler has repaid much of its debt to the Treasury. But if proper judgment is to be passed, then all of the bailout’s costs and benefits must be considered. Otherwise, calling the bailout a success is like applauding the recovery of a drunken driver after an accident, while ignoring the condition of the family he severely maimed.' ~ Dan Ikenson's testimony to Congress

What's an 'American-made' vehicle?

I just had to laugh when I read that Lucas County Commissioner and former UAW member Pete Gerken is in hot water over the lease of an Ohio-made Acura TL.

The car was a Christmas gift to his wife and, according to the report, was her choice. But that's just 'an excuse,' according to one UAW member, to get Gerken off the hot seat.

First of all, none of those union people who are so outraged can provide a definition of 'American made' when it comes to cars. I once had a conversation with a UAW leader that went something like this (note the ownership of the various brands was different back then):

ME: Would I be in trouble with the union if I bought a car made entirely at the Honda plant in Marysville? It's an Ohio-made car, so wouldn't that be good to support manufacturing in our state?

UAW leader: No - the plant is owned by Honda and the money goes back to them in Japan - it doesn't stay here in the states.

ME: Well, then. What if I bought a Volvo? They're made in the U.S. and Canada and the brand is owned by Ford - so the money would stay with an American company.

UAW leader: No - it's a foreign vehicle...Vovlo is German.

ME: But I can buy a Jeep made in Toledo by a German company who takes the money back to Germany - that's okay?

UAW leader: Yep - now you've got it.

This really happened! I was dumbfounded - there was no logic whatsoever to the thought process, except, perhaps, that some of the plants are union and some are not, but even that didn't explain the opposition to a Volvo made by UAW members.

The problem is with the thinking - or lack thereof. The UAW has never provided their definition of 'American made' - which makes it very easy for them to pick and choose what they want to support or criticize when it comes to car purchases.

Cars.com actually has an "American-Made Index":

"...rates vehicles built and bought in the U.S. Factors include sales, where the car's parts are made and whether the car is assembled in the U.S. Models that have been discontinued are disqualified, as are those with a domestic-parts content rating below 75 percent."

This seems like a fair way to judge whether or not a car is 'American.'

The #1 rank goes to Toyota Camry - what a surprise!

Only five of the top 10 vehicles are what most people would think of as 'American' because of the name of the company that makes them. According to Cars.com, that's a record low for the Detroit automakers.

Funny, but the Jeep products don't make the list.

In the news article, Bruce Baumhower, president of United Auto Workers Local 12, makes the point very well:

"My wife has always wanted a [Chrysler] PT Cruiser, which is made in Mexico, so there will never be a PT Cruiser in my family."

Rather than purchase a vehicle made by his employer (or the employer of his union members), Baumhower supported the purchase of Jeep products, even when the profits from the sale of those items was going to the German company, Daimler. But if you thought you were 'buying American' by purchasing the Chrysler PT Cruiser, you're wrong, even if it means you're sabotaging the sales of your employer.

How is anyone supposed to know what's 'acceptable' these days? In a global market where companies have plants all over the world, employ workers in markets where they hope to sell their cars, and where everyone is dependent upon trade with everyone else, how is a concerned buyer supposed to make a good decision?

Is it better to purchase a Japanese car made in Ohio by fellow Ohioans or to purchase a Detroit automaker vehicle made in Mexico by your employer? Which is 'better'????

Or is the decision supposed to hinge upon the unionization status of the workers? If so, then why would a unionized plan in Mexico making PT Cruisers be off limits?

What? You didn't know that Mexico had unions? Confederacion de Trabajadores Mexicanos, CTM, is Mexico's largest union and it represents the workers at the PT Cruiser facility in Toluca.

Maybe it's just UAW union plants that count.

This whole thing is just another way for unions to control their members and the politicians. Do you think Gerken will suffer any consequences for this purchase? The UAW did give him tens of thousands of dollars for his first campaign for commissioner. Will he get as much financial support for his next one? Or will the union decide that a Democrat is still better than any Republican opponent, even a Democrat with a Honda in the garage?

***SIDE NOTE:

I couldn't let this story go by with commenting on the decision to even publish a story about what kind of car some politician's wife drives. Does anyone else find it 'selective' that The Blade thinks this is worthy of a 742-word story but they didn't even mention the Commissioners vote to impose Project Labor Agreements for Lucas County bidders?

PLAs will increase the costs of government, force unionization on private employers and their workers and, interestingly, were opposed by The Blade the last time they were tried in Lucas County. Yet the paper never even mentioned the issue, despite covering the meetings at which they were discussed on voted upon.

Yet the paper thinks this is worthy of a front-page story on their second section.

END SIDE NOTE***

Denial is part of the problem

According to an interview in the Wall Street Journal, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said neither unions nor management are to blame for the current condition of the Big 3 automakers.

"This industry is in a crisis situation not of its own making," he said.

Really?

So I supposed that every employee being paid to NOT work (job bank) is not a drain on resources? And huge compensation packages for management don't contribute to the losses? And wages higher than your competitors don't escalate the price of the vehicles beyond what people want to pay? No...those things are irrelevant when you're in denial about your own culpability.

As I've previously reported, General Motors has lost $57 billion since 2005. Ford has lost $24.5 billion since 2006. Despite Gettelfinger's claims, high gas prices and the Wall Street meltdown don't account for losses that go back that far.

So what's going one here? Well, when faced with possible bankruptcy of one of the auto companies, the UAW "is joining forces with the companies in a blitzkrieg public campaign to plead for a federal bail out. Although Mr. Gettelfinger rarely talks to the media aside from local radio stations in Detroit, he has reached out over the weekend to make the union's viewpoint clear."

Of course! We'll join together with our hands out to beg for tax dollars to save us from our mistakes. And we'll deny that we've made any mistakes, blaming everyone but ourselves in order to make it easier for Congress to give us someone else's money.

And what will the union do to help their employers avoid the potential dire consequences? Nothing.

"The union will not make concessions in order to seal a deal for governmental aid, Mr. Gettelfinger said.
...
"It's unfair for people to single out auto workers," he said."

Don't expect us to do anything other than put pressure on Congress to give us money so we can continue doing all the things that brought us to this point in the first place.

Great thinking! And reason only to say NO to the bailout!!!

Facts DO matter and double standards don't make good arguments

Today's Toledo Blade editorial says that a bailout for the auto industry is vital, critical, necessary to avoid extinction, blah, blah, blah... It's the same story coming from everyone who wants a handout of tax dollars to save them from the bad financial decisions they've made, whether it be financial companies, mortgage companies, homeowners or, now, automotive manufacturers.

America has lost automobile companies in the past, so the first question I would ask now is why shouldn't we expect that we will have a change in the automobile companies in the future? Just like global warming alarmists - they assume that the current conditions are the best, and any 'change' will be catastrophic. Perhaps we should remind all of them that their trust in President-elect Barack Obama was that 'change' would be for the good!

But the biggest problem in their editorial is the lack of FACTS - or, rather, the blatant disregard of them in order to support their premise.

"The American auto industry has doubtless made many mistakes in the past, but in recent years has done an admirable job getting its act together. General Motors' current cash flow woes come as a result of no fault of its own. America's once-proud corporation is a victim of the Wall Street panic and the crippling credit crunch, which means consumers cannot get loans to buy vehicles."

As I've previously reported, GM has lost $57 billion since 2005. Ford has lost $24.5 billion since 2006.

Note the dates? There was no credit crunch in 2005 or 2006 nor for most of 2007. So how can the current cash flow woes of GM be 'no fault of its own'? The Blade editorial does not explain this, presumably because addressing these facts would not allow them to place the blame on someone other than the auto companies themselves. And if their problems are not their fault, they don't have to do anything to solve them.

And then there is the double standard.

In 2006, The Blade went through its own financial struggles (though rumors persist that they are still in difficulties). Their solution was to insist on cuts in wages, benefits and even employees. They publicly stated at the time that companies, in order to survive, have to make a profit and that their employee costs have to be such that a profit is possible.

They were right. But while they made such decisions for their own operations, they don't seem to expect that other companies will make similar tough decisions - at least, not when the government can save them from the difficulty of doing so.

So why the double standard? Why is The Blade so keen on giving our tax dollars to the automobile industry instead of insisting that the automakers renegotiate their union contracts as The Blade did?

It's certainly puzzling - and I don't have the answer, but I can speculate.

I think it has to do with politics - imagine that!

The Blade 'loves' the President-elect, so if Obama thinks something must be done, they are highly likely to agree.

Obama and the Democrats are tied so closely to the unions, especially the UAW, that they are falling all over themselves to preserve both those jobs and the pensions. One of the options being considered is this:

"Help Detroit carmakers with health and pension obligations. Under the most controversial idea being floated, the firms would get $25 billion to help pay the rising costs associated with 780,000 retired autoworkers and their families. The United Auto Workers is pushing this idea. The generous health and pension provisions that the UAW won when Detroit was flush are now a big part of what makes them uncompetitive against foreign rivals who don't give their workers such expensive benefits."

So here are the facts:

* The auto makers have been suffering losses since 2005. While their existing financial situation may have been compounded by the credit crunch, it only hastened the inevitable.

* Generous health and pension provisions for their UAW members are a major component of their costs, which make them uncompetitive.

* While some are calling for less remuneration to executives, no one is calling for major revisions to their union contracts, which would have an immediate impact on their bottom line.

But The Blade seems to think that Obama will save us all.

"President Bush should take the lead of President-elect Barack Obama and speed immediate emergency legislation that will enable General Motors, and Ford and Chrysler as well, to survive, at least until a coherent strategy can be agreed upon for our nation's automotive future.

Waiting till the new administration takes over on Jan. 20 would be too late,..."

Um...since when was it anyone's responsibility - other than the car makers - to develop a 'coherent strategy' for their future? I don't seem to recall anywhere in the Constitution where 'saving specific companies' is listed as part of the duties of the federal government.

I could go through this editorial line by line and provide a comprehensive, logical and factual rebuttal, but when their entire premise - that this problem is not because of decisions made by the automakers, themselves - is wrong, their conclusions are also wrong.

That's why fact matter. If you ignore critical facts when facing an issue, you will inevitably end up with 'solutions' that don't actually solve the problem - and, in some cases, make things even worse.

So here's a question: what would be so bad about a 'Big 2'?

Should Ohio unionize court workers?

That's the question that will be before the Ohio legislature, thanks to State Representative Matt Szollosi (D-49th District), who issued the following press release yesterday:

Rep. Szollosi Introduces Bill to Protect Court Workers’ Rights

Legislation Would Allow Collective Bargaining for Court Employees

COLUMBUS – State Representative Matt Szollosi (D-Toledo) introduced legislation today to give specified court employees the ability to enter into collective bargaining.

The legislation would eliminate an exemption from the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Law for “employees and officers of the courts” and “employees of the clerks of courts performing judicial functions.” It was born from a situation at the Lucas County Juvenile Court in which court employees voted to form a bargaining unit, but the Court reversed an initial decision and stopped the employees’ effort to organize.

“We want to enable these court workers to negotiate for better wages, competitive benefits and improved working conditions,” Rep. Szollosi said. “It seems only fair to allow this flexibility for public employees who work so hard to keep the public safe and uphold our laws.”

Rep. Szollosi’s legislation now awaits assignment to a House committee for formal hearings.

SIDE NOTE: As I've said before, if the state law specifically excludes you from collective bargaining, you have no 'right' to it, no matter what Szollosi's press release states. And someone should ask Szollosi about those 'better wages' and 'competitive benefits.' These workers already have wages higher than the private sector in the county, and they are consistent with other courts in the area. Their benefits are the same as all county employees and are extremely generous (including minimal co-pays, coverage of just about all health conditions, prescription drug coverage, vision and dental coverage, and health coaches) and, again, better than what is available in the private sector.
***

Why is this even an issue? Because, for about a year, the United Auto Workers has been trying to organize our Juvenile Court workers. They'd been given a voluntary recognition by the judges, because they are, under Ohio law, specifically excluded from collective bargaining. Several things went awry during the negotiations, from the interference of a county commissioner to damage to a judge's tires, resulting in the withdrawal of the voluntary recognition and the rejection of any further discussions.

The UAW, furious with the withdrawal of the recognition, began a public campaign. They took out a full-page ad in the paper and began radio commercials to urge citizens to tell Presiding Judge Denise Cubbon to change her mind. This resulted in my effort to encourage the public - and my WSPD listeners - to also call and share their opinion.

Obviously, the public campaign wasn't successful because the UAW, with Szollosi's help, had a bunch of state elected officials sign a petition urging Judge Cubbon to reconsider. As I detailed in my linked post, the UAW is certainly getting a return on its campaign donations.

But despite the urging by all those state reps who've never been to Toledo, the UAW saw no success, as Judge Cubbon has stood her ground.

So what's a union to do? Well, it does what it always does: failing to gain support within the community, or with voters, or - in this case - with the court, they want to change the law. And they have a willing participant in Rep. Matt Szollosi and, I expect, the other signers of the petition.

Did I mention that this is an election year for state representatives?

Having been a Clerk of Court, I'm pretty confident that this proposal will generate objections from across the state, although some of it may be behind the scenes so as not to anger the unions in Ohio. But support of unionization for workers aside, this is bad policy in general and, specifically, a bad reaction to a local problem. And Ohio legislators and citizens should reject this change in law.

Blade editorial supports judge in UAW flap

Yes, they do get things right on ocassion:

Standing up to intimidation

"In addition to resisting intimidation, Judge Cubbon is showing good judgment in refusing to be stampeded into accepting a contract with wage increases that could be costly to taxpayers, and which she contends might force her to lay off some workers.

That stance puts her at odds with Commissioner Pete Gerken, who is playing two key roles - one as union advocate and the other as a public official charged with spending taxpayer money wisely. With Mr. Gerken, it is sometimes hard to tell where each of these roles begins and ends, and which side he's on.

In this case, Judge Cubbon cannot be faulted for declining to go along with contract terms she says were agreed to by Mr. Gerken without advance consultation with her.
...
In these tough economic times, however, more attention must be paid to the burden placed on taxpayers by the ever-increasing demands of public-employee unions.

Toledo may be a "union town," but we are confident that a majority of discerning residents support Judge Cubbon for her thoughtful and courageous stand."

32 State reps tell judge to let union into court

The Blade story is here, but I have a copy of the actual letter and find it very interesting that state reps from around Ohio found it necessary to tell a Lucas County juvenile court judge what to do.

Have these representatives even been in Lucas County or met Judge Denise Cubbon? And what makes them qualified to tell the judge what to do?

Local representatives who have their name on the letter include Matt Szollosi, Edna Brown, Peter Ujvagi and Senator Teresa Fedor. Interestingly, only Matt Szollosi's signature is on the letter. Szollosi signed all the other names, including his initials in parentheses after the name. If these state reps were so convinced that this is the right thing to do, don't you think they would have taken the time to actually sign the letter themselves?

State Democratic Party Chairman and representative from Catawba, Chris Redfern, said he was involved "because he believes it affected people outside Lucas County."

"I would encourage [Judge Cubbon] to think beyond the impact that her decision will have in the courtroom and think about the community, and I think regionally," Mr. Redfern said. "Having organized labor members can be very positive for a community."

Perhaps Redfern missed the fine print about the costs of this agreement - an additional $2 million over the three-year term of the proposed contract. I wonder how he justifies this as being 'positive for the community'?

The letter to Judge Cubbon:

It is our collective understanding that the employees of the Lucas County Juvenile Court have voted overwhelmingly to form a bargaining unit with representation by the UAW. It is our further understanding that the Court has since reversed its position which initially allowed these employees to organize, putting an abrupt end to any further negotiations, and any hopes that those working men and women will receive the benefits they are seeking through union membership.

The purpose of this letter is to encourage you to, at the very least, resume good faith negotiations so that Court employees achieve a contract with fair wages, competitive benefits and improved working conditions.

Obviously, having granted your employees the right to organize last year, you respected their desire to bargain for improved terms and conditions of employment. Especially in tough economic times, negotiations can prove difficult. However, we have confidence that with renewed efforts, the parties involved can reach satisfactory compromise.

We urge you to reconsider your decision to rescind the employees' rights to organize, and to once again open the lines of communication so that this issue can be brought to a close. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Let's take the points one at a time:

* the employees didn't 'vote' ... they signed cards. They have no 'right' under Ohio law to organize, as judicial employees are specifically exempted from collective bargaining.

* the court employees have good wages, and as a former county commissioner, I know because I voted on their budget. Their wages are competitive with other courts and are certainly competitive with private sector earnings.

* the court employees have highly competitive benefits. As county employees, they have the county health insurance, the county life insurance, drug cards, health coaches, vision coverage and dental coverage. They have the same vacation and holiday schedule as the rest of the county. These benefits are much more generous than the private sector which pays for these benefits.

* they want 'improved working conditions' and I can only wonder what improvements they might want? Better chairs and desks? More amenities in the break room? Are such 'conditions' attainable without a union?

* they want to open lines of communication so the 'issue can be brought to a close.' In case you missed it, the issue is closed. Judge Cubbon rescinded the permission to organize - it's over. Just because they don't like the outcome, they're trying to put political pressure on the judge to change her mind. (I hope the UAW has as much success as the defendants in her court do after she's banged the gavel.)

The names on the letter:

Matt Szollosi
Edna Brown
Tracey Heard
Clayton Luckie
Brian Williams
John Otterman
Ron Gerberry
Lorraine Fende
Jay Goyal
Steve Driehaus
Fred Strahorn
Steven Dyer
Matt Lundy
Bob Hagan
Tom Letson
Dan Dodd
Linda Bolon
Joyce Beatty
Chris Redfern
Eugene Miller
Michael DeBose
Michael Foley
Jennifer Brady
Kenny Yuko
Peter Ujvagi
Armond Budish
Barbara Boyd
Sandra Williams
Michael Skindell
Timothy DeGeeter
Dan Stewart
Sen. Teresa Fedor

I cannot help but wonder if any of these people talked to Judge Cubbon before making a decision about this letter - or if they just trusted what either the UAW or another state rep told them? It would certainly be interesting to call them all and find out.

I also wonder how much these state reps got in campaign donations from the UAW, as that certainly seems to be a contributing factor. According to the paper, "Mr. Szollosi received $10,000 from the state PAC for his 2008 re-election effort, while Sen. Theresa Fedor received $2,000 in 2006." The three county commissioners, at last count, got about $119,000 combined. In checking the Secretary of State's website, I found the following contributions listed from UAW PAC LA435 in Maumee, OH:

Teresa Fedor: $7,500 in 2006
Linda Bolon: $2,000 in 2006
Michael Foley: $1,500 in 2006
Jennifer Brady: $1,500 in 2006
Kenny Yuko: $1,500 in 2006
Peter Ujvagi $350 in 2006
Armond Budish: $1,500 in 2006
Barbara Boyd: $1,500 in 2006
Sandra Williams: $5,500 in 2006
Michael Skindell: $1,500 in 2006
Timothy DeGeeter: $300 in 2006
Brian Williams: $500 in 2006
John Otterman: $500 in 2006
Jay Goyal: $1,000 in 2006
Steve Driehaus: $2,500 in 2006
Matt Lundy: $2,500 in 2006
Bob Hagan: $11,000 in 2006
Tom Letson: $1,000 in 2006

Perhaps the UAW is resorting to pressue from other elected officials because their campaign to get the public to tell the judge to reconsider went no where? Seems the UAW is getting their money's worth, I just don't know if it will have any impact on Judge Cubbon.

Gerken gets rebuffed by judge in unionization issue

According to today's paper, Commissioner Pete Gerken wanted to meet 'face-to-face' with Judge Denise Navarre Cubbon over her decision to rescind recognition of the UAW in the unionization of Juvenile Court employees ... but he was rebuffed.

It's no wonder! In Judge Cubbon's press release yesterday, she wrote:

Earlier this year, Commissioner Pete Gerken, without Juvenile Court’s authority or knowledge, agreed to a union demand involving wage compression, which would cost the County an estimated $2 million over the course of a 3-year contract with the UAW.

So why in the world would the judge now want to meet with the same commissioner who went behind her back to negotiate with his former union and made promises he couldn't keep?

Interestingly, the paper mentions the projected cost of $2 million over three years but fails to include what I think is the most pertinent of facts: that Gerken, without the Court's authority or knowledge, met with the UAW and agreed to a wage demand.

Kudos to Judge Cubbon for looking out for her statutory responsibility and obligation to the functioning of court rather than catering to a local union. If the past is any indication, she will suffer greatly for daring to disagree with the union. The last time an elected official (former commissioner Harry Barlos) didn't cater to the UAW demands, Pete Gerken challenged him in the primary and ended up as a county commissioner after getting about $77,000 in campaign donations from the union. Hopefully, Cubbon will not suffer the same fate.

Did Gerken interfere in the Juvenile Court/UAW negotiations?

I just received this email press release from Juvenile Court, clarifying some statements in the UAW advertisement regarding the unionization of the court employees. It appears as if the UAW did get some special consideration from at least one commissioner for the wage compression item they couldn't get from the judge:

PRESS RELEASE

The Juvenile Court Administration has engaged in lengthy negotiations with the UAW, beginning in the fall of 2006. These negotiations addressed non-economic issues raised by the UAW.

Earlier this year, Commissioner Pete Gerken, without Juvenile Court’s authority or knowledge, agreed to a union demand involving wage compression, which would cost the County an estimated $2 million over the course of a 3-year contract with the UAW.

Since the Lucas County Commissioners slashed the Juvenile Court’s combined 2008 budget request by over $1,000,000.00 ($765,585 for additional personnel and salaries) the Court was concerned how this could possibly be financed.

Upon learning from the UAW of Commissioner Gerken’s agreement, Judge Cubbon requested a written explanation from the three commissioners confirming that there was such a commitment and outlining its details and how it would be funded so as to avoid future layoffs at Juvenile Court.

The commissioners never responded.

To date, it is the understanding of the Juvenile Court Administration that there never was an agreement involving all of the commissioners. It was baffling to read the “open letter” which states that there was such an agreement reached with the commissioners, and yet these same commissioners refused to document this agreement as requested by Judge Cubbon on numerous occasions.

Under Ohio law, Courts are exempt from mandatory collective bargaining. The Juvenile Court has not only allowed, but welcomed, the union to engage in collective bargaining. The Court acknowledges and appreciates the work and commitment of all Lucas County employees, and particularly the employees of Juvenile Court. To that end, Judge Cubbon will not sign a contract which can only be funded with future layoffs of Juvenile Court employees and programs cuts.

The Court’s first responsibility is to the families and children of Lucas County that it serves. It is crucial that the Court focus on this important work that each of us was elected, appointed or hired to do.


Denise Navarre Cubbon,
Administrative Judge