When we read in the newspaper here that
The mayor has the authority under the city charter to reduce workweeks after consulting with union leaders, and the plan doesn't need approval from the Board of Supervisors. Layoffs, though largely a formality, would be required because 40-hour workweeks are inscribed in union contracts with the city.
while its always debatable, we had to consider that the meetings which would be taking place would be done so pursuant to the state labor code (ie. meet & confer,) rather than via the normal collective bargaining process. (Note: contract changes require ratification while, "meet & confer" is simply an obligation the employer has to its employees prior to making such changes.)
When "labor officials" from all affected unions (Vince Courtney, Adrian Field, Theresa Foglio, and Nikki Mixon for 261,) met with the Mayor at City hall that same afternoon, the Mayor indicated that the 37.5 hr work week was a "possible proposal," (we have since learned through the very public discussion of the issue related to the deficit that it is an overwhelmingly popular position with the citizens of San Francisco.)
While the Newsom administration has always indicated a willingness to talk with representatives of Local 261, we have been meeting regularly along with the SF Labor Council Public Employee Coalition on the issue (see powerpoint related to City's $522,200,000 deficit,) because it is City-wide problem and likely requires a city-wide solution.
Last week, the layoff/37.5hr work week became an official proposal across the board. Upon receiving the notice from Martin Gran, the coalition met again. It was decided by the coalition there that there would be no occasion to meet this Tuesday or Wednesday. By law, we must deal with the City in "good faith," therefore, on behalf of Local 261 we sent the following to Martin Gran: