The Citywide Division’s negotiating team gained ground in the third round of contract talks held Aug. 2. After tense exchanges, the city agreed to provide the numbers Local 237 has been demanding to analyze the real value of the city’s one-size-fits-all proposal.

Local 237 President Carl Haynes opened the session stating Citywide’s position that it wants the ability to do collective bargaining. “I’m not willing to take DC 37’s contract word for word,” said Haynes. “I need numbers,” he added, repeating the demand he made in previous contract talks May 24.

“We didn’t give out numbers on DC 37” until after the contract was ratified June 1, countered Labor Relations Commissioner James F. Hanley, adding that “other unions use the data for malicious purposes.”

Haynes vigorously defended Local 237’s record, making Hanley back down. “That’s right, this union never did that,” Hanley conceded.

Haynes also invoked the Taylor Law, which stresses the right to collective bargaining.

Union Attorney Barry Peek weighed in: “Unless we see numbers, we’re not on equal footing.” Then Financial Analyst Allen Brawer called for manpower data to help determine the value of vacation days. For example, he said, if the attrition rate at Local 237 is double that of DC 37’s, “that would mean the value of vacation days would be double.” At that point Hanley was adamant. “We’re not cherry-picking,” he said, expressing a take-it-or-leave-it attitude.

Following a brief break, however, Hanley changed his tune. “We’ll give you the manpower model and give you the numbers,” he said, but “with bargaining it’s a clean slate.”

The concession is a step forward for Local 237 and breaks the city’s pattern-bargaining mold, in which unions that have already settled agreed to givebacks for new hires effective July 1.

“The clock is ticking and savings will be lost,” said Hanley, pressuring Citywide to cut its potential losses by settling soon. Hanley overlooked the fact that the city negotiated with DC 37 first, although Local 237’s contract expired earlier, on April 1. “We should not be penalized,” said Peek. “We’re being placed in a corner for each day we don’t agree.”

Haynes asked that a committee be set up to discuss issues and see where one issue can substitute for another. “We want to do something where we don’t punish the unborn,” said Haynes, noting that with the proposed 15 percent less pay for beginning workers, “we’re pitting the unborn against the incumbents.”

In addition, the city wants to reduce holidays, vacation and sick time. “We think that’s wrong,” Haynes emphasized. Peek explained: “We’re willing to negotiate, but there’s a pattern we need to understand, or the time we spend at the table may not be productive.”

The session closed abruptly with Hanley agreeing to provide the numbers and set up a committee to deal with quality of life issues.

Following the talks, Haynes discussed options with the negotiating team. Whether it’s arbitration or a lawsuit over the right to bargain collectively, it’s going to be “a hard road,” he said. “We owe them retroactivity. It could break the whole deal.”

Members expressed commitment to seeking a contract that meets Local 237’s needs, while being braced for battle. “I think we’ve got a tough fight ahead,” said one member, “but we have to unite and stay together.”

Haynes said he expected another session shortly and assured members “We’re going to win something. Local 237 stands on its own.”