A

Why Thrive LA supports A

Measure A would amend the Los Angeles County Charter to create binding arbitration for labor disputes between the County and its public safety unions, including firefighters, sheriff's deputies, lifeguards, district attorney investigators, and medical examiners. When contract negotiations reach impasse, instead of the County imposing its final offer, both sides would submit competing proposals to a three-member arbitration panel that picks a winner on each disputed issue. The measure also formally bans strikes by these employees and codifies good-faith negotiation obligations. Thrive LA supports Measure A, but with clear eyes about the fiscal risks it carries. The case for voting yes rests on a single, decisive fact: Los Angeles County cannot protect its residents without firefighters and deputies, and it cannot recruit or retain firefighters and deputies without competitive compensation. The current system, where the County can simply impose terms when talks break down, gives management an asymmetric advantage that has contributed to chronic staffing shortages in the Sheriff's Department and dangerously low recruitment pipelines at County Fire. A structured, impartial arbitration process gives public safety workers a fair mechanism to resolve disputes without the disruption of slowdowns or political standoffs. The formal strike prohibition, while largely redundant under existing California law, codifies an important principle in the Charter. The support behind this measure is broad and serious. ALADS, LA County Firefighters Local 1014, the LA County Professional Peace Officers Association, Sheriff Robert Luna, District Attorney Nathan Hochman, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, and four of five County Supervisors have all endorsed it. That coalition reflects a shared recognition that the County's public safety workforce is under strain and needs institutional reform. We are not blind to the fiscal concerns. Acting County Executive Officer Joseph Nicchitta warned that arbitrator-imposed compensation increases could raise operating costs, balloon unfunded pension liabilities, and pressure the County's credit ratings. Those warnings are legitimate. Binding arbitration does shift leverage toward unions, and research confirms it tends to produce higher compensation outcomes than direct negotiation. There is no spending cap, no sunset clause, and no requirement that arbitrators weigh competing budget priorities like homelessness programs or infrastructure. Embedding this process in the Charter makes it exceptionally difficult to reverse. Voters should understand they are making a structural, long-term choice about how the County allocates resources. On balance, the calculus is straightforward: public safety is the foundational obligation of county government, and the people who perform that work deserve a fair process for resolving disputes. The fiscal risks are real but manageable if elected officials exercise discipline in other areas of the budget. Vote yes on Measure A.