While Austin Medics Negotiate a Labor Contract, Hays County’s Fight to Unionize

The Hays County EMS Association organizing committee (Courtesy of paramedic and organizer Tomás Maia)

The front-line medics who provide emergency medical care to Hays County residents had hoped the board of directors at their nonprofit agency, San Marcos Hays County Emergency Medical Services, would voluntarily recognize their employees union. Like most health care workers, those at SMHCEMS are emerging from the height of a pandemic with a changed perspective on their work, and like workers across a multitude of industries, they are eager to harness the power a union could offer.

Conversations about forming a union began among a few employees in late December. Those conversations morphed into broad support among the agency's employees who would be eligible to join the union; in March, when the Hays County EMS Association's organizing committee went public, they produced a survey showing that 75% of the agency's employees were in favor of unionization.

"We are struggling across the entire industry with chronic burnout and employee turnover," said Tomás Maia, a member of the union's organizing committee and a paramedic at the agency for the past year. "There is not a lot of incentive for employees to stay in this kind of public service role when they can get a better quality of life in non-911 response jobs by leveraging their experience and credentials to work jobs with lower stakes and less stress."

A union, Maia told us, would give employees a stronger voice in board decisions, which they could use to advocate for better labor conditions. The organizing committee had hoped for voluntary recognition because it would save time and money, show that management was ready to work productively with the future union, and most importantly, it would allow employees working in field supervisor positions to participate in the union. But SMHCEMS management and its board has not only refused voluntary recognition, they have actively tried to bust the union effort. Maia struggles to comprehend the board's resistance. "A union effort in this industry, with this level of support, should not be considered fruitless," Maia said. "It is inevitable."

Still, just one week after employees asked management for voluntary recognition, the agency's board authorized SMHCEMS Chief David Smith to hire legal counsel to engage with the union's organizing committee on behalf of the agency. The chief, who declined to talk with us for this story, then hired Ted Smith, who formerly practiced at the notorious anti-union law firm Littler Mendelson (the firm Apple and Starbucks both hired to bust union efforts at their companies) before moving on to the firm Cornell Smith Mierl Brutocao Burton. Smith then tried to stymie the SMHCEMS unionization effort. To do that, he argued before Region 16 office of the National Labor Relations Board that SMHCEMS medics could not unionize under the National Labor Relations Act because they were public employees working for the government, like Austin-Travis County EMS (which, based on funding streams, is much more a city agency than a county one). That argument came as a surprise to SMHCEMS medics, who had always been told they were not government employees – they worked at a nonprofit. Financially, they knew this to be true, because while SMHCEMS offers a 401(k) plan to employees, individuals do not pay into any kind of public pension fund the way other government employees do.

SMHCEMS incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in 1983 (prior to that, Hays Memorial Hospital provided emergency care to the region). It is governed by an 11-member board of directors, six of whom are appointed by public officials (one each by Kyle and San Marcos city councils, one by Hays County Commissioners Court, and three by directors of surrounding emer­gency services districts). Two directors are appointed by hospitals in the region and the remaining three are approved by the other members of the SMHCEMS Board.

NLRB Regional Director Timothy Wat­son signed a ruling April 25 affirming that SMHCEMS is not an arm of local government, because the ESD appointees do not meet the "public official" requirement established in prior court rulings. Now, employees are campaigning in an NLRB-sanctioned union election. Ballots went out to employees Friday, May 4, and they are due May 26. A counting of the vote will be conducted by videoconference June 2.

Maia is confident the union effort will be successful, which makes the board's unwillingness to voluntarily recognize all the more frustrating. "We want to develop a fruitful relationship with management, partners, and patient community," Maia told us. "I'm disappointed we were not able to include all field staff in this effort," he continued, referencing provisions in the National Labor Relations Act that prevent workers in supervisory positions from joining an employees union. "I'm also disappointed that needless time, money, and legal resources have been spent trying to prevent what will be an inevitable outcome."

Meanwhile, in the city limits, the Austin EMS Association has begun bargaining with the city of Austin over a long-term contract. In August, the two parties agreed to a one-year contract that increased pay for entry-level medics from $19.25 per hour to $22 per hour, but that wage was a long way off from the $27 per hour the association wanted. This time, they're going for an even bigger prize – pay parity with the Austin Police Department.

In a letter to interim City Manager Jesús Garza announcing the union's intent to bargain, AEMSA President Selena Xie argued that pay parity among all three public safety agencies was the best way to reduce staffing vacancies (currently 20% among EMS field staff and 80% among EMS 911 call takers). "Our highest priorities include stabilizing the attrition at this department through pay parity, reducing additional work obligations, and creating benefit changes that enhance retention," Xie wrote.

AEMSA negotiations with the city are still in the early stages. The two parties met for the first time on April 20, when they established negotiation ground rules and agreed to future meeting dates. The next is set for May 12, but bargaining over pay is not expected to begin until June.