Los Angeles County voters will decide on Measure A in the upcoming election, a ballot initiative that could fundamentally alter labor negotiations for public safety employees by establishing a system of binding arbitration. The measure, strongly supported by unions representing firefighters, sheriff's deputies, and other public safety personnel, aims to create a more balanced negotiation process, particularly for workers legally prohibited from striking.
Under binding arbitration, an independent arbitrator would step in to resolve disputes over wages, benefits, and working conditions if negotiators reach an impasse. This would shift the final decision-making authority from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to the arbitrator. Proponents argue this system provides a necessary counterbalance to the supervisors' unilateral authority and allows decisions to be based on factual analysis of resources rather than political considerations.
However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential fiscal implications. Supervisor Holly Mitchell voiced apprehension, noting that arbitrators are not elected officials and are not obligated to consider the broader countywide trade-offs affecting services like homeless care, healthcare, and capital improvements. A cautionary example cited is Vallejo, a Northern California city that adopted binding arbitration over 50 years ago but later disavowed it after experiencing financial difficulties, including a bankruptcy filing that followed a ruling to maintain fire department staffing levels amid fiscal strain.
Supporters of Measure A contend that existing safeguards and the nature of arbitration in other jurisdictions mitigate these risks. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, a proponent of the measure, stated that only a small fraction of California jurisdictions with binding arbitration have faced significant financial distress. She emphasized that arbitrators are expected to consider the county’s fiscal health when making decisions. The measure, if approved, would affect 14 bargaining units representing approximately 16,500 county workers, excluding those who can legally strike.
The current system allows supervisors to impose final contract terms if agreements cannot be reached, a power that has been rarely exercised. Measure A proposes a process where, after good-faith bargaining, a three-member arbitration panel would be convened if an impasse is declared. Each party would select one arbitrator, and the two would jointly choose a neutral third member to chair the panel. This panel would then hold hearings and issue a binding ruling.
The initiative arose from a union-led signature-gathering drive. Labor leaders, including Derek Hsieh of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and Dave Gillotte of the International Assn. of Firefighters Local 1014, believe binding arbitration incentivizes both sides to negotiate more effectively and reach mutually agreeable contracts before escalating to arbitration. Academic research, such as a Cornell University study on New York labor disputes, suggests that binding arbitration does not consistently favor one party and can lead to improved collaboration over time.
Despite broad union support, some progressive groups have declared opposition. Organizations like L.A. Forward and La Defensa have urged a "no" vote, citing concerns about empowering law enforcement unions and the potential for increased funding for the Sheriff’s Department. Proponents have raised substantial campaign funds, reporting $7.7 million through mid-October, while no organized opposition funding has been reported.
