Use of city employment and facilities for private gain

“Persons in the public service shall not use, for private gain or advantage, their city time or the city’s facilities, equipment or supplies, nor shall they use or attempt to use their position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for themselves or others.”
~ Adopted by City Council Resolution, August 23, 1979

Thank you Jeffrey Anderson of LA Weekly for saying the things that must be said about the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and by placing Assistant General Manager Mahmud Chaudhry’s letter into the hands of the public.

On one hand, you may think that the situation of which Chaudhry speaks is mere folly. On the other hand, you may want to look a little more closely to the goings on at the Department of Water and Power (DWP).

The public should be aware the extent of IBEW influence on the DWP, its revenue streams and the employees we entrust to protect this resource. It used to be that the extent of union influence was limited to a management permitted bulletin board on which to post union business, employees which elected to belong to a union, and there was no question that employees considered their public service a priority in decision making and in seeking advancement within the company. How things have changed.

IBEW influence in company decisions since deregulation is everywhere. IBEW membership is not mandatory but the dues now are. Dues for all but about 4 percent of DWP employees are collected automatically for IBEW. In rough numbers, estimate that the average employee pays $80 per two-week pay period or about $2,080 per year to IBEW. With 8,000 employees, membership dues amount to about $16 million.

In most companies management is responsible for the training of its employees. Not so at the DWP. DWP has transferred about $6 million to IBEW for development of the Joint Training Institute (JTI).

In most companies management is responsible for employee safety, too. Again, DWP management has entered into an agreement with IBEW to provide safety training the arrangement is obfuscated in legal and political terms. Essentially, the arrangement is DWP puts lots of money under the control of IBEW. The training facility is provided by DWP. Food is provided by DWP. Employees are provided by DWP. Training is contracted out. And DWP employees generally find that being involved and supporting the JSI is a career engendering move.

In general, the JSI is a marketing dream. It is not so much for safety since the accident and injury rate has not changed. The accident and injury rate is still double the national average for multiple utilities. But, consider that the benefit (the money and access to employees) far outweighs the risk which the DWP still owns. Like other companies, DWP, not the union, is responsible for on-the-job accidents and injuries. If an employee is hurt on the job, a worker’s compensation claim is levied against the firm not the union. Consequently DWP management has given the union a risk free benefit and touted it as a good deal. The conflict does not stop there however. If the training received is substandard or insufficient, does the union honor its fiduciary duty to represent its membership or does it stand with management and blame the employee? Considering the closed shop environment, dues are not an issue. Management does not want to admit it entered into a conflicted arrangement. The union does not want to jeopardize control of substantial flows of DWP funds, employee access, and another promotional path into management. The union sides with management against the employee to protect the arrangement. Consequently, the safety lesson subject matter, that accidents are a result of the underlying procedures and practices which management controls, must be overlooked to protect the labor-management arrangement.

These things are the tip of the iceberg and quite the dilemma at DWP. To improve the numbers, training classes now emphasize injury and illness recording techniques. Instructors teach supervisors how to record accidents so they reflect “better” numbers. The same DWP management in charge of the Worker’s Compensation office is also in charge of Corporate Safety and a partner at JSI. Consequently, the Worker’s Compensation arm of DWP is litigating the majority of cases through its offices and the City Attorney. This reduces the number of employees making worker’s compensation claims but it increases the number of disability claims against the employee’s retirement plan. The number of claims remains constant but the significant difference here is that disability claims do not reflect management performance as do increases in worker’s compensation claims.

Now that this discussion of union influence has led to the door step of the $6 billion employee retirement plan, consider that the retirement board members used to be comprised of accountants and financial who-saids of the greatest magnitude who actually knew what they were doing. Now, after using their access to DWP employees and mail and call campaigns, union stalwarts now sit on the board in control of employee funds. This is maybe in conflict with the number one rule of financial strategists and long-term investors – never put all of your eggs in one basket.

Now these influences may cause you some stress but not to worry. DWP management has opened the Employee Assistance Program up for competitive bid. The major contender against the existing EAP provider is none other than, you guessed it, a subsidiary of the IBEW medical plan. Do you suppose that all these claims have become a liability? One way that DWP management has found to make them go away is to contract away from the only establishment that really has an understanding of the true psychological toll on DWP employees.

Now, if you don’t mind, review the first paragraph out of the DWP Code of Ethics and tell me – Is DWP management in violation?