Say aloha to Chuck Foy, this state’s lobbyist for the Communication Workers of America. A native Hawaiian, Foy took on a new role this year after spending much of his professional career as a police officer and lobbying for public safety entities.
He has also garnered a certain amount of respect among lawmakers and Capitol observers for being at the Legislature every day during the session. Even a couple of large — and, needless to say, painful — kidney stones near the end of the session couldn’t keep him away.
Foy spoke with Arizona Capitol Times on July 17 about his union’s work during the session, his constant Capitol presence and what CWA hopes to accomplish next year.
You are the “man on the bench” during session, always sitting outside the House or Senate, watching what’s going on. Why≠ You are there even on days when the Legislature isn’t doing anything.
I’m there because, for so very long, state workers have been forgotten by members of the Legislature. This is my way of showing them that not only are they not to be forgotten, but there’s someone keeping an eye on things and is there on their behalf.
That has to give the Communication Workers one of the largest presences at the Capitol during the session, if not the most persistent.
I think this session, yes, I was probably the most persistent, and was there, I would venture a guess, all but one or two days, when it just was impossible for me to get there because of other commitments.
Does it work≠ Does it capture the lawmakers’ attention on your issues≠
It kept some things focused this year. In particular, there were some retirement issues for the Arizona State Retirement System that we focused heavily on.
In particular, one right toward the end — in fact, it was the last bill that passed — was H2147 [Laws 2007, Chapter 270], which had to do with the ability of the State Retirement System to begin exploring more into foreign equities and investments. Essentially, that bill was dead that Wednesday afternoon [June 20, the final day of session] and, along with the Retirement System lobbyist, we were able to not only resurrect it, but get it passed out of the House. Unfortunately, when it got to the Senate, it died on the floor, primarily because we don’t think there had been enough work done on telling [senators] exactly what it did. Well, by about 10:45 that night, we had the votes. Not only did we have it brought back on reconsideration, it passed out 16-6.
You’ve been at the Capitol for a while now, but this was a new role for you, plus you were simultaneously lobbying for state workers and private industry. Did it affect the way lawmakers interacted with you≠
A lot of the freshmen didn’t know me. A lot of the old-timers do from my law enforcement days, when I was there on behalf of either the City of Peoria Police Officers Association or the Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs. They got to see me in a different light. It was a little challenging because, all of the sudden, he’s not a cop, he’s just a labor guy, so it made it a little bit more difficult.
But also, we watched a couple of telecommunication bills start to move through. One was the Voice Over Internet Protocol tax, the 911 tax, and the other was the 911 installation system bill [S1545] to hold harmless techs that do work on the 911 system so they can’t be sued if it fails, as long as they followed all the guidelines. That one did get through; Voice Over Internet Protocol ended up being a striker. It was difficult to blend public sector and private sector issues a couple of times, but it got easier as the session went along.
Where does Arizona stand on state employee pay≠
There are studies that are out there that say that the private sector folks are making anywhere from 20- to 30-percent more than those in the public sector. Then the opposite side of that argument is that the private sector doesn’t have the enhanced benefits that the state workers have — the pension system, better health care and so on.
What I’m looking for when we’re looking at total compensation is for the single mom that’s working for the state that qualifies for food stamps because she’s a state employee working full time. There’s something wrong with that picture. We need to pay our state workers a decent living wage. That’s, essentially, one of our goals.
We want to see competitive wages. I don’t think there’s anybody in state government that’s there because they want to get rich. They want to put food on the table, maybe go to Disneyland once every couple years, go to the Grand Canyon, buy the son the new G.I. Joe with the kung fu grip or something like that. They just want to have a comfort level.
One of the top priorities for CWA was employee pay. The final budget included a 3.25-percent increase for state workers, but is that adequate≠
It was better than nothing and, quite frankly, it is better than 3 percent, it is better than the 2.5 percent that was originally in the House budget. However, if you look at how that plays out, that single mom making $10 or $11 an hour sees a net increase of $10 a week in her paycheck. The folks on the lower end of the scale did not see any meaningful help.
On the upper end of the scale, the folks that are pulling down $80,000 or $90,000 a year, yeah, they’re going to pick up $3,000 or $4,000 a year, and that’s going to make a difference.
It’s all in where the scale is. Quite frankly, we were looking for a flat amount and then building from there. In the state of Arizona, 79 percent of the state employees are under the $24 an hour pay range. You figure there’s 40,000 state employees. That would have been the minimum we were looking at [to set a baseline for a flat raise] and go from there.
We are hoping to bring back a comprehensive compensation plan for the next session, even though the tax revenues — the predictions are they’re going to be a little short. Don’t put that on the backs of the employees. They’re still there every day doing their job. They still have bills to pay, too. They still have kids they want to send to college or trade school or wherever. Let’s not balance it on the back of the employees, the way the state has done for years.
We get people [in the Legislature] who say it’s taxpayer money we’re spending and we have to be very careful with it. The taxpayer gave that money up as soon as they paid their taxes. That’s now the state’s money for them to spend, essentially, to do good for the people that they represent.
But what happens if we don’t have the people to do the things that folks want≠ People want potholes fixed. When they turn on the tap, they want clean water to come out. Without all those things and all those tax dollars, that stuff doesn’t get done. So, decide where your priorities are.
Could the $69 million for pay increases have been distributed differently≠
The $69 million could have been used to give a $1,700 across-the-board increase to every state employee, which would have taken care of up to about the $20 an hour folks. They would have seen a greater — that $10 an hour person I’m talking about would have seen an 11.5-percent increase. That $81,000 employee would have seen 1.5- or 2 percent. It’s a balance.
The state has
done flat amounts in the past. There was a year they did $1,500. There was a year they did $1,450. I think the last one was $1,600.
In the Senate side, I found more support for the flat increase as opposed to the percentage. When you just do a percentage, the [salary] gap tends to widen.
I imagine the argument against a flat-rate raise you received in the House was that it’s not fair — the higher-paid employees work just as hard as the lower-wage employees and deserve the same raise.
I did hear that. The folks that we are representing — CWA Arizona State Employees Association — quite frankly are not those $80,000 to $100,000 a year employees. Not that they don’t deserve that they get if they perform the job they were hired to do and that’s the wage. Just remember that, for one of them, you get three more over here that are doing what some people will refer to as the grunt work. They’re the hands-on people. They’re the folks that the public deals with day after day after day.
You don’t see those folks in the offices and the nice cubicles, but you do see the road crews. If you need to get a document at the Vital Records office, you’re going to deal with a clerk. And that clerk’s making $12 or $15 an hour. They’re the ones that are dealing with the public. If the state’s going to get a bad image, they’re going to get a bad image because those people didn’t treat the citizens right.
How many state employees does CWA represent≠
Right now, it has grown to just over 400, and we’ve been working to recruit more for about eight months. Well, let me rephrase that. If we include the Department of Corrections — the sworn officers — along with Capitol PD and the parole folks, it’s probably close to 4,000.
The CWA has some membership among legislators, correct≠
Yes. Rep. Jackie Thrasher, Rep. Ben Miranda and Rep. Andy Tobin.
How much does it help the union to have members having a hand in crafting policy and guiding spending≠
The access there is a little bit easier. We’re not asking them to do anything that wouldn’t be right for their constituents, but they have a tendency to spend a little more time listening to what we’re saying and we make it a point to make sure they understand.
We’re not the only ones with members at the Legislature. AFSCME has a couple, too.
What’s the benefit for those legislators≠ How did you even approach them to join≠
CWA was instrumental in helping Rep. Thrasher [D-10] win her election.
Rep. Tobin [R-1] asked about membership in a conversation early in the session, because I believe he’s also an AFSCME member, so he has dual membership.
And Rep. Miranda [D-16] approached me mid-session and asked about membership.
It gives them a sense of belonging, it gives them a sense of brotherhood or sisterhood, a connection with the state workers.
Was their familiarity with you because of your presence at the Capitol a factor in their joining≠
I’m sure it did, especially with Rep. Miranda. I’ve known him for years.
Rep. Tobin is brand new, but there’s a link there, because I know his brother. In fact, his brother, Brian, with the firefighters and I, did commercials for Rick L. Murphy when he ran for Congress in District 2 [in 2004]. And he has strong feelings about public safety and, as much as I come out of the public safety family, there’s more of a connection.
There are certain people I connected with better than others. There are some where their agendas are 180 degrees from where we are. However, we were still able to have a conversation, and at the end of the day, we could go have a cold beverage some place.
The longer some folks are there, the better the relationship. And for the freshmen that were there this year, I think, for the most part, they did a great job on both sides of the aisle. They represented their constituents well. It got contentious at times, but I don’t think it ever got personal. There may have been personality clashes, but it didn’t get personal. That’s comforting, seeing that they really did want to work together.
Besides employee pay raises, what is CWA going to be focusing on next year≠
Fixing the retirement system, and making it completely solvent again and bringing it back to pre-9-11 levels.
This year, there was a bill passed that brought volunteers with public safety agencies into the fold with regards to communicable disease testing if they are injured by someone who may or may not have a communicable disease. That’s a hot topic with our membership at the Arizona State Hospital, in particular in the Forensic Unit and dealing with the criminally insane because they are subject to routine assaults, but they don’t have the ability to find out whether or not these folks are communicable disease carriers. We’re looking at getting them added in to that portion of the law.
We are looking at a meet-and-confer bill coming back again. I don’t know what form it’s going to take, but it’s not going to be the standard bill that one of the other labor organizations runs with a Democrat sponsor every year. We’re looking at something a little more comprehensive and easier to understand — kind of like what the Department of Public Safety got through a couple of years ago that only deals with working conditions.
The climate in the state changing to a more liberal agenda, but now is not the time to go in and beat your fist on the table and say, “We want collective bargaining.” That’s not going to happen. We’re realists. But we might see meet-and-confer over working conditions, and then legislators will see that it can work and we’ll fix it over time. We know what it can do, we know it can help with recruiting.