No clear way forward: Park workers in Minneapolis continue to strike

Normally, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board commissioners do not get involved in collective bargaining until they have been given the final agreement, but never before has failed negotiations led to a strike.

In response to the July 4 picket by park workers, park commissioners held a special meeting Monday to discuss negotiations. Talks centered on the impact of proposed wage increases on property tax increases and controversial language in the park administration’s “last, best and final” offer to LIUNA Local 363 leaders.

No clear path forward has been found. The week-long strike is scheduled to end on Thursday – but union officials said workers could extend their strike if necessary.

More than 100 union members in orange T-shirts crowded into the hall for the meeting on Monday. Although they were not given time to speak, the tensions of the long-running labor dispute were evident in the occasional witty remarks they made in response to the board’s statements.

This included when Superintendent Al Bangoura said striking staff would be invited back to work on Thursday. Bangoura said preventing those who wish to return from work was “not the MPRB’s values.” This statement was met with bitter laughter and the sneer “those are not values, that’s the law.”

The union had previously filed an unfair labor practice lawsuit, accusing the board of threatening striking workers with a discriminatory lockout. The board had said it would not allow striking workers to return to work until a new contract was ratified and the support of their legal counsel was secured. But later that day, before the meeting, the board sent workers an email telling them they could return.

What are the tax implications of wage increases?

Juli Wiseman, the board’s finance director, said management’s wage increase proposal to union members would result in a 1.25 percent property tax increase in 2025, while the union’s proposal calls for a 2.1 percent tax increase.

Wiseman said the union’s proposed wage increase would push the property tax increase for 2025 above 10 percent. Commissioner Becka Thompson, who represents the Second District, said that was a cap that commissioners were unwilling to tell staff to exceed in contract negotiations.

The maximum increase in property taxes for 2025 will be discussed on Wednesday. The board will discuss a corresponding resolution on July 24.

Wiseman explained that the parks department is more dependent on property taxes than the city of Minneapolis, as they make up 79 percent of the general fund. She said 72 percent of the fund’s spending goes toward personnel costs. And property tax revenues have declined this year, she added.

“The tax increase projections for the next three years are well above the MPRB averages for tax increases and would actually be among the four highest property taxes in the last 20 years,” Wiseman said. “We have an uphill battle ahead of us to achieve a property tax of the magnitude that we estimate for our last, best and final proposal or the union proposal.”

“Our workers are the backbone of our parks system … the majority of our funding goes to staff and I think that makes sense,” said Commissioner Becky Alper, who represents the Third District. “We’re facing a very difficult situation. We’re going to have to continue to raise levies, which is not entirely within our discretion at BET, or cut spending. And frankly, we’re probably going to have to do both this year.”

An increase in the levy would require the support of the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET), a body that sets maximum tax levies for the city, the parks department and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority.

Alper said she wants to prioritize worker appreciation through better pay, but is concerned about a high levy. She suggested pausing certain capital projects, cutting jobs to better pay existing employees and making other cuts, such as eliminating the Fourth of July fireworks display next year, stating, “We should let someone else do the fireworks like the Twins.”

Union officials argue that the park authority has reserves to cover costs and has managed to raise senior management salaries in line with inflation, while workers’ wages have not kept pace with inflation.

More than just money

But the ongoing industrial dispute goes beyond financial issues.

Commissioner Billy Menz, who represents the First District and originally pushed for Monday’s special meeting, questioned the proposed contract language that union members say would limit union representation and protections. Menz said his biggest concern about the contract is the new language on the grievance process.

The proposed contract states that complaints should first be made to the employee’s manager or designee, rather than to the employee’s supervisor, as the previous wording said. The union has raised concerns about this, saying it prevents “informal dispute resolution.”

Menz said he wanted to make sure the board supported people making mistakes and “trying new things,” but “sometimes that kind of language in a contract doesn’t necessarily support the goals of our park system.”

Menz also opposed a proposal that would require new employees to undergo a 12-month probationary period before moving up to the next level. The proposed contract eliminates the “first level” — meaning employees start at a higher wage — but the union calls the longer probationary period a “poison pill” and argues that it removes the guarantee of the raises included in the board’s final offer.

Commissioner Elizabeth Shaffer, who represents the Fourth District, said the board should discuss “wiggle room” for a possible further wage increase, but added that the one-year period was necessary for “labor standards” and would otherwise be “disrespectful to the taxpayer.”

Menz also questioned a provision that limits the number of union representatives per shift for a work area to one, but did not issue a ruling on it. Assistant Superintendent Jeremy Barrick argued the provision reduces confusion about who is a representative for pay purposes, saying it is included in some other collective bargaining agreements. The union argued the language serves to limit union representation.

What happens next?

Menz asked Bangoura a specific question and referred to a “stalemate” between the union and the board.

“I’m trying to figure out how this process will continue,” he asked the plant manager. “I’m wondering what this will entail and how long our organization can tolerate striking workers.”

Bangoura did not outline a clear path forward.

“I don’t have an answer right now as to what the next step is, but I do know that we want to get back to the negotiating table and start negotiating and get back to focusing on the treaty to find out where we stand so that we can get this cleared up and get a ratified treaty,” he said.

But Bangoura said anything other than asking the union to vote on the board’s last, best and final offer would be “negotiating against ourselves.”

“We have made our last and final proposal to the union and have received no response,” he said – facing some resistance from union members present, who said the strike was their response.

So far, the union has resisted a vote, arguing that the board’s latest offer is worse than the one that convinced 94 percent of union members to approve a strike, and that the concessions are too offensive to require members to accept.

At a rally outside the union’s headquarters ahead of the meeting, union executive director AJ Lange said “the workers will decide” whether a continuation of the strike beyond Thursday will be necessary.

“If it takes longer because (the board) has not woken up and heard our message, we will continue to strike,” he said.

At the end of the meeting, union members left the room and formed an orange line chanting, as they have done in parks across the city since July 4.

Some commissioners stopped in the parking lot to talk to union members and listened to their concerns that the park administration had spread “misinformation” in public statements.

“I want to stay positive,” said arborist Anthony Smith, who has followed the negotiations for the past seven months. “The commissioners are at least answering some of our questions, talking to us and giving us the opportunity to explain some of our positions.”

He added: “We just need to keep getting that message out so we can get back to the negotiating table and get this thing sorted out.”