Reardon wastes money yet again

Since 2004, the Superior Court clerks have been pursuing, but working without a contract with the county. In January 2006, exasperated clerks filed a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) accusing the county of violating collective bargaining laws.

PERC found, among other things, that the county’s tactics constituted unlawful delay and frustration of negotiations and a failure to bargain in good faith, constituting “an egregious interference with the rights of employees guaranteed under” the law.

Mr. Reardon appealed this decision, which a three member panel from PERC upheld. Again, Mr. Reardon appeals.

Perplexingly, Mr. Reardon concludes “that (the clerks) do not want to settle the contract.” However, two PERC decisions show that the county has obstructed any meaningful opportunity for settlement.

Mr. Reardon’s failure to draw conclusions consistent with the facts doesn’t end there.

Friday, vetoing a $500,000 budget proposal, Reardon stated that “every additional dollar appropriated and spent in 2008 reduces available resources for existing commitments and puts existing employees at risk.”

Meanwhile, Reardon chooses to add to the roughly $250,000 already spent to fight this battle a third time.

Conversely, the clerks have no choice but to fight, which they do without the luxury of the county coffers to fund. A clerk’s yearly salary starts under $30,000, they pay up to $514 a month for health insurance for a family of four, and they, too, must endure stratospheric gas prices (this week’s national average was $3.60/gallon; in January 2004 it was $1.52).

For the clerks, this is not a cause undertaken to advance some private agenda. The clerks simply fight for a modest salary and reasonable medical insurance costs.

To claim that the clerks are seeking more than a fair deal is an absurdity that should be apparent to all by now.

Flint Stebbins

Seattle

Snohomish County Clerk’s Office – Customer Service Division