San Diego city lifeguards will cast their votes via secret ballot Aug. 1 to determine whether a majority wants to stay with the San Diego Municipal Employees Association (MEA) union or join the local 911 Teamsters. But some lifeguards said MEA members sent letters threatening dissenters with loss of contracts. “In the [e-mail, the attorney says] we would absolutely lose our contract that we are in, but there’s no law supporting that,” Lifeguard Sgt. Ed Harris said. “In fact, there are laws to the opposite of that.” Harris and other lifeguards began lobbying months ago for the opportunity to leave the MEA — the union that represents lifeguards in addition to other city workers — in order to join the local 911 Teamsters. According to Harrris, joining the Teamsters would allow lifeguards more individual representation. So lifeguards asked city council members to approve an election. “The council gave us the right to choose,” Harris said. “We’re really confident the council wouldn’t penalize us for choosing in either direction.” MEA acting general manager Michael Zucchet sent a July 21 letter to full-time and seasonal lifeguards and MEA union members with an attached memorandum from the organization’s attorney, Ann Smith, titled “What happens to MEA’s two-year MOU if the teamsters become the new union for lifeguards?” Though lifeguards will begin voting Aug. 1, Smith’s letter said the “MEA’s new 2-year MOU [contract] just took effect on July 1, 2009… this 2-year protection will be gone, however, if the Teamsters become the new union for either or both of the new lifeguard units.” Smith continues to write, “Under the law… the current MOU between the city and the MEA will no longer be in effect for [the lifeguards] who vote MEA ‘out’ and the Teamsters ‘in.’” Zucchet said in an interview that Smith’s letter was not threatening individual lifeguards. “Every piece of information we have sent to the lifeguards has been unemotional,” Zucchet said. “The documents speak for themselves.” MEA negotiated a 6 percent pay cut for union members — including lifeguards — according to Harris. But, Zucchet said, the lifeguards were fighting to keep the new contract, adding that certain facets were better than for other city workers, such as police and firefighters. “MEA has negotiated provisions specifically dedicated to lifeguards…,” MEA supervising labor relations representative Nancy Roberts reported in a July 22 letter. In a written response to lifeguards, Zucchet said, “Any fear regarding the prospect of losing the protections of MEA’s two-year binding labor contract are not being generated by MEA. They are being driven by the economic and political realities of our time.” “The MEA is using this to put doubt in the minds of lifeguards,” Harris said. “What they haven’t done in the 10-month process is tell us what they would do better or how they would represent us better. What they have done is try to stop the vote from taking place.” According to Zucchet, MEA representatives asked Teamsters on several occasions to meet for a debate, but the Teamsters declined. “A lot of the issues have been this ‘he said, she said’ stuff, and so our attorney puts out a memo and then their attorney puts out a memo,” Zucchet said. “We thought the best way would be to put both sides in a room and let the lifeguards hear both sides to see who was more credible, but obviously the Teamsters weren’t as confident because they refused to do it.” City officials — mainly the city attorney — were slated to weigh in on the issue, Zucchet said. “I guess the ironic thing about this is the Teamsters come to town and say they can do better than the MEA, and then they promise that they can keep their MEA contract,” Zucchet said “What the Teamsters have done is keep a solid timeline in place,” Harris said. “To me, it’s like an alcoholic under the MEA — nothing is going to get better because they won’t admit there’s anything wrong.”