The proposed deal between the city and Local 233 of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees includes a couple of provisions that clearly aim to reduce the city's cost for post-retirement health benefits.
Most obviously, it would give new hires only five years of benefits rather than the 10 currently offered to city retirees. Right off the bat that saves a lot of money... eventually.
The other thing the contract provides is that union members will pay 6 of their salary, pre-tax, for pensions and retiree health benefits.
I'm not sure, but I think they only pay 5 percent now.
Here's the key section, though: "Effective upon the city's creation of a retiree health account in the pension trust as soon as is practical, one and one-half percent (1.5 percent) of the employee's contribution shall be applied to such retiree health account."
That would only happen, though, if the pensions are fully funded and the city itself continues to have to pay nothing into the pension funds.
That means for the first time that employees will be paying into a health benefits trust -- but they're paying at least some money that would, under the current contract, flow into the pension fund.
The wording is a little awkward, however.
Strictly speaking, paying 1.5 percent of the employee's contribution -- as opposed to 1.5 percent of the employee's salary -- would mean that all that would flow into the health fund is a tiny amount of money, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of salary. I assume everyone understands what's really intended so maybe that doesn't matter.
Anyway, that's the relevant section. Make of it what you will.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
35 comments:
Steve,
Keep reading. As I understand it they lowered the amount payed into retirement plan, took that amount and put it into the heath retirement. So please dont make it sound like they are paying additional money. Same amount just moving money around.
Sounds to me that the unions are trying to help the city. sounds good for the taxpayer what do you think Steve.
So now it all makes sense - Artie the one man party is trying to slip this through so he can take credit on an issue for which he did absolutely nothing to "move forward" or take a position on.
7:59 -- Well, yes. They are clearly taking money that would have gone into the pension fund and putting it into the health benefits fund instead. If they've been paying 5 percent, as I thought, then one tenth of what they have been paying would begin flowing to the health count. If they've been paying in 6 percent, then a quarter of the cash they've been paying is going into the new trust fund for post-retirement health care. Either way, though, there is clearly a shift of some money.
If the issue on retirement was put out in the open, clearly, how many other issues have not been made public?
Obamadom in Bristol
What a great idea! As a private sector worker I'm more than happy to help pay for the generous pensions of the municipal employees. It's only money...mine that I earned.
I'll try to scan the four page agreement later. After that, all of it will be out there.
If this is so good, why did Art not be willing to put it out in the open?
Something is fishy here!
i think what i heard is that they put 5.7% in now and 6% on the new contract with 1.5% going for health care
7:59 your wrong the unions are helping the city and all you do is try to make it sound like the unions are doing nothing, grow up
"What a great idea! As a private sector worker I'm more than happy to help pay for the generous pensions of the municipal employees. It's only money...mine that I earned."
You haven't paid a dime into that fund in over ten years, city workers continue to pay 6 % of their salary, in addition to paying the same taxes you paid when the city was contributing and contine to pay now, assuming they live in Bristol.
Too bad we don't get an objective report for all to review and hopefully understand!
Obama strikes again.
12:33 - What does that mean?
Steve,
We count on you, we know you are objective.
Now we need to be informed of all the changes in the new contract, and then maybe the impact can be ascertained.
At least then meaningful questions can be asked.
Thank You
I think this contract is a step in the right direction, but far short of "helping" the City. I say they still suck the life blood out of taxpayers in the name of entitlement. Give them the right to strike so we can fire those who do and hire people who will not join these silly thug groups that hold taxpayers all over this country hostage.
Steve,
Correct me if I am wrong, but right now the workers pay nothing for their retirement benefits and the tax payers pay it all- with this new contract the workers will start to help offset the cost of retirement benefits and the tax payers pay less- and this is bad how for the tax payers how?
7:36 -- That's not quite right. Local 233 has been paying 5. 5.7 or 6 percent of pay into the pension fund for a long time (I'm sure, I haven't had the chance to check yet on what exactly the percentage has been, but I will!).
The difference in the new contract is that some of the employee money will go to a new post-retirement health benefits fund that has existed only on paper so far. If approved, it would mark the first time that workers were helping pay for that benefit.
Steve, please set the record straight: Isn't it true that because of the status of some of the funds that neither party is currenbtly contributing?
Is so, which ones?
they are negotiating GASB which is what some people have been telling the mayor and Klocko all along - it HAS TO BE negotiated.
11:40 -- The city hasn't been putting money in for years, but I think union members have been kicking in 5 or 6 percent of their salary all along.
Steve,
How is it possible that one bargaining unit can be changed without the approval of others?
Or are they each separate and individual funds?
And are ALL of the units contributing? The same amount?
Seems like there should be a clearer picture portrayed, or is it that the city doesn't want the public to know.
Why doesn't Ward put out an official white paper?
have been kicking in 5 or 6 percent of their salary all along.
September 7, 2010 12:58 PM
```````````````````````````
Doesn't all that money come out of the taxpayers pocket first ?
You really want to read a "white paper" from the mayor? Wow.
Steve,
I can say YES, with confidence, because I know it will never happen.
Once again the unions have been trying to work this deal out for years but the city never wanted to do it and now they want to take all the gloy. Bull you don`t need to make 100,000 dollars ayear to come up with good plan and as soon as the city understands that it will be a better place.
September 7, 2010 2:23 PM:
Exactly!
Oh it's so tough contributing 5-7% of ones exorbitant salary especially when they pay virtually nothing for their gold plated health care package.
I find it interesting to read all these comments, when it is clear that there is a complete lack of clarity on this topic.
Would be nice if we all had the proper information.
They know it all. Let ken and his mary men spend all the money in the pension fund and lets see how all the taxpayers start to cry when there is nothing left and the taxpayer have to flip the whole bill because it will happen Dave, Cliff, Ken and your names will go into the screw up HALL OF FAME.AND WATCH THE TAXES SKYROCKET.THANK GOD I DON`T LIVE IN THIS TOWN JUST WORK THERE.
What city in connecticut doesn`t pay for the workers pension Bristol until Ken, Dave, Cliff, and Glenn get there hands on it and then the taxpayer will be paying triple of what they pay now so next election you now who not to vote for.
8:08 and 8:17 poster
How dare someone question the all mighty union. Oh..did Ward tell you just get me elected you'll get everything!
We all can tell your the same union scumbag person. I'm sure one of the thugs at city hall last week. Go crawl under your rock were you belong!
WRONG AGAIN, IF I COULD HAVE VOTED IN THIS TOWN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR ELLEN, GOOD TRY IT`S NOT ABOUT THE ALL MIGHTY UNION IT`S ABOUT HOW DAVE , KEN DON`T KNOW WHAT THE CITY WANTS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR DIMES AND NICKLES WHEN THE MRGS IN THIS town WASTE MORE MONEY BECAUSE THEY DON`T KNOW HOW TO DO THERE JOB AND COST TAX PAYERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR. SO THE MIGHTY UNION HAS TO TAKE THE HIT SOUNDS LIKE bad republican economics don`t you think
September 8, 2010 6:04 AM:
How about we put you over-compensated city workers on the same scale as the average private sector worker for starts?
"How is it possible that one bargaining unit can be changed without the approval of others?"
Read the agreement carefully. No pension language has been changed yet. All 233 agreed to was to allow the city to use 25% of contributions to the pension (the maximum allowed by federal law) if a sub account is ever agreed to. This hasn't been done yet and won't be done at least until the next contract is negotiated. I quote from the agreement:
"The terms of the pension plan shall not be subject to renegotiation for the duration of this agreement. "
to 6:04 you don`t have common sense
this must be ken and his mary men.learn how the town operates before you make judgements you guys don`t even know what goes on a daily work schedule for the depts you guys have NO CLUE AND I CAN`T SPEAK FOR EVERY BUDDY IN THE UNION BUT I KNOW ALOT OF THE GUYS WORK HARDER THEN ANY PRIVATE WORKER
DOES.
I see Klokos heavy hand in this.
Post a Comment