Without shouting or even much posturing, city councilors Wednesday approved a new union contract for many City Hall workers that increases their pay slightly but opens the door to major cost-cutting down the road.
Only the two Republican councilors, Ken Cockayne and David Mills, voted against the pact with Local 233 of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which generally includes most of City Hall’s “inside” workers.
They said with the economy in the dumps, state and federal aid likely to sink and more financial troubles ahead, the city should have taken a harder line. Click here for the full story.
******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
Showing posts with label Local 233. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local 233. Show all posts
September 9, 2010
September 7, 2010
Union pact likely to be approved Wednesday
The proposed union contract at the center of a spat that erupted last week between Mayor Art Ward and the City Council is likely to win approval Wednesday.
In a showdown with the mayor last week, the Democrat-controlled council postponed consideration of the pact in order to have more time to study its details and to give first-term Republican David Mills a chance to participate.
Ward, who is also a Democrat, opposed the delay, calling the agreement a good one for the city and its taxpayers.
It appears that a majority of the council is ready to support the tentative deal with Local 233 of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which generally includes most of City Hall’s “inside” workers. Click here for the story.
Contract changes health care provisions
A proposed union contract between the city and its biggest union would require for the first time that employees funnel money into a fund to pay for post-retirement health care.
The proposed deal between the city and Local 233 of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees also includes a provision aimed at lowering the long-term cost of providing health care to retirees. Click here for the story.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
In a showdown with the mayor last week, the Democrat-controlled council postponed consideration of the pact in order to have more time to study its details and to give first-term Republican David Mills a chance to participate.
Ward, who is also a Democrat, opposed the delay, calling the agreement a good one for the city and its taxpayers.
It appears that a majority of the council is ready to support the tentative deal with Local 233 of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which generally includes most of City Hall’s “inside” workers. Click here for the story.
Contract changes health care provisions
A proposed union contract between the city and its biggest union would require for the first time that employees funnel money into a fund to pay for post-retirement health care.
The proposed deal between the city and Local 233 of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees also includes a provision aimed at lowering the long-term cost of providing health care to retirees. Click here for the story.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
Copy of the city's tentative labor agreement with Local 233
To read a copy of the tentative deal for yourself, here is a PDF of it. Have fun.
******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
September 4, 2010
Paying for post-retirement health care mentioned in new contract proposal
I was going to plow into this Tuesday but someone commented about it in an oblique way so I think it's best to get the facts out.
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
September 3, 2010
Union intimidation or just guys who don't like each other?
City Councilor Ken Cockayne said Friday that Ward allowed an atmosphere of intimidation at the special council meeting last night.
He said that union leaders put a poster on the wall of the council chambers headlined something akin to “For or Against Labor Wages” and then listing the four Democratic councilors, with boxes beside them marked YES or NO.
When city Councilor Kevin McCauley spoke of the need to delay a decision on a proposed contract, someone got up and marked a big X through the NO box next to McCauley’s name, Cockayne said.
When city Councilor Kate Matthews indicated her support for McCauley’s position, an X was marked in the NO box beside her name, too, according to Cockayne.
As the meeting proceeded, getting ever more heated, union officials began screaming at McCauley, Cockayne said. They yelled “you’re all done” and “you’re through,” said Cockayne and a number of others.
“It got really out of control,” Cockayne said.
Cockayne said Ward “would never have let any other group or person do what was being done last night. Ward would have thrown them out or called the police.”
“Instead, he sat there doing nothing,” Cockayne said.
“It was thug mentality and union intimidation at its finest,” Cockayne said. “We have a lot of great people working at the city. It’s a shame the union leadership is making them look bad.”
The head of Local 233 of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said the confrontation between the mayor and McCauley should never happened at the meeting.
“They stuck us in the middle. They stuck our contract in the middle,” said Mayra Sampson, the union chief and a former city Democratic Party chair who has worked on Ward’s campaigns.
“They need to settle their respect issues outside” and not in public , she said.
Sampson said that some union people were angry last night.
“When you mess with peoples’ livelihoods, they tend to get upset,” she said.
Cockayne said that he can’t help wondering if Ward got so angry because he had negotiated the deal with Sampson, his last campaign treasurer.
“If this isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what it,” Cockayne said.
But Sampson said the contract terms show that her union “considered the economic times and the city’s financial status.”
She said Local 233 gave up a 3 percent pay hike last year to help out the city – money she doubts the union will ever see again – and is getting just 3.3 percent more over two years now, along with paying more for health care and other measures that will save the city money.
Sampson said the bottom line for the union is that “we’re thankful we have jobs” in these hard times so even though her members are the lowest paid city workers, they didn’t push for more.
She said the proposed deal is “more than fair” for taxpayers and a great deal for the city.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
He said that union leaders put a poster on the wall of the council chambers headlined something akin to “For or Against Labor Wages” and then listing the four Democratic councilors, with boxes beside them marked YES or NO.
When city Councilor Kevin McCauley spoke of the need to delay a decision on a proposed contract, someone got up and marked a big X through the NO box next to McCauley’s name, Cockayne said.
When city Councilor Kate Matthews indicated her support for McCauley’s position, an X was marked in the NO box beside her name, too, according to Cockayne.
As the meeting proceeded, getting ever more heated, union officials began screaming at McCauley, Cockayne said. They yelled “you’re all done” and “you’re through,” said Cockayne and a number of others.
“It got really out of control,” Cockayne said.
Cockayne said Ward “would never have let any other group or person do what was being done last night. Ward would have thrown them out or called the police.”
“Instead, he sat there doing nothing,” Cockayne said.
“It was thug mentality and union intimidation at its finest,” Cockayne said. “We have a lot of great people working at the city. It’s a shame the union leadership is making them look bad.”
The head of Local 233 of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said the confrontation between the mayor and McCauley should never happened at the meeting.
“They stuck us in the middle. They stuck our contract in the middle,” said Mayra Sampson, the union chief and a former city Democratic Party chair who has worked on Ward’s campaigns.
“They need to settle their respect issues outside” and not in public , she said.
Sampson said that some union people were angry last night.
“When you mess with peoples’ livelihoods, they tend to get upset,” she said.
Cockayne said that he can’t help wondering if Ward got so angry because he had negotiated the deal with Sampson, his last campaign treasurer.
“If this isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what it,” Cockayne said.
But Sampson said the contract terms show that her union “considered the economic times and the city’s financial status.”
She said Local 233 gave up a 3 percent pay hike last year to help out the city – money she doubts the union will ever see again – and is getting just 3.3 percent more over two years now, along with paying more for health care and other measures that will save the city money.
Sampson said the bottom line for the union is that “we’re thankful we have jobs” in these hard times so even though her members are the lowest paid city workers, they didn’t push for more.
She said the proposed deal is “more than fair” for taxpayers and a great deal for the city.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
Local 233 contract terms outlined
In the tentative contract between the city and Local 233 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’ Council 4, which Mayor Art Ward and union representatives signed on August 2, the union appears to have made significant concessions.
In terms of wages, union members agreed to a 1.5 wage hike backdated to July 1 and to a 1.8 percent increase next July.
That comes after accepting a pay freeze a year ago.
In addition, the union agreed that anyone hired after the contract takes effect will receive only 5 years of post-employment health care for themselves and a spouse instead of the 10 years that existing employees will get.
They'll also be able to accumulate only 175 sick days before retirement instead of the 200 now allowed. The city shells out for unused time at the end of someone's employment -- payments that swell pension checks.
In addition, union members will see a hike in the percentage of their health care premium that they must cover. Instead of paying 5 percent, as it is now, they’ll pay 6 percent this year and 7.5 percent next year.
That’s still much less than firefighters, however, who are now paying 9.75 percent following an arbitration ruling that generally favored the city.
Union members assigned to work second and third shifts will get less money after the contract takes effect. Instead of receiving a 12 percent shift differential payment, they’ll get 6 percent more for working early or late shifts.
If I get a chance later, I’ll scan the paperwork so that all of the terms are available.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
In terms of wages, union members agreed to a 1.5 wage hike backdated to July 1 and to a 1.8 percent increase next July.
That comes after accepting a pay freeze a year ago.
In addition, the union agreed that anyone hired after the contract takes effect will receive only 5 years of post-employment health care for themselves and a spouse instead of the 10 years that existing employees will get.
They'll also be able to accumulate only 175 sick days before retirement instead of the 200 now allowed. The city shells out for unused time at the end of someone's employment -- payments that swell pension checks.
In addition, union members will see a hike in the percentage of their health care premium that they must cover. Instead of paying 5 percent, as it is now, they’ll pay 6 percent this year and 7.5 percent next year.
That’s still much less than firefighters, however, who are now paying 9.75 percent following an arbitration ruling that generally favored the city.
Union members assigned to work second and third shifts will get less money after the contract takes effect. Instead of receiving a 12 percent shift differential payment, they’ll get 6 percent more for working early or late shifts.
If I get a chance later, I’ll scan the paperwork so that all of the terms are available.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
December 3, 2008
Union pact approved for City Hall workers
City councilors approved a new two-year contract for the union that represents most City Hall workers that provides 3 percent annual raises and introduces employee cost-sharing on health insurance for the first time.
The council voted 6-1 in favor of the deal with Local 233 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, with the sole opposition coming from freshman Republican Ken Cockayne.
The pact, which is retroactive to July 2007, requires workers to pay 4 percent of their health insurance premiums until next July, when they’ll be required to cover 5 percent of the tab.
That’s less than the police union agreed to pay in a deal approved a year ago that hiked the percentage officers have to pay to 8.5 percent of the total by 2010, the highest figure that any city union outside the school system has to shell out.
Cockayne said that he couldn’t support the new agreement with City Hall workers because they got a better deal than the police, a pact he also opposed because he wanted officers to pay at least 10 percent of their health care tab.
The city’s police and firefighters should have best contracts “since they’re putting their lives on the line,” Cockayne said, but instead the city’s office workers are making out best.
The head of Local 233, Mayra Sampson, is a former city Democratic Party chair and a longtime supporter of Mayor Art Ward.
Ward said that he’s pleased that the union is going to pay a portion of its health care bill for the first time.
The mayor said, too, that the deal amounts to about $300 to $400 extra a year for the average employee. He said it represents “no great gains on either side” when compared to what government employees in neighboring towns are getting.
“It’s within reason,” said Ward.
Cockayne said, however, that Bristol’s health care costs haring for employees “is way under our neighboring towns and it’s my duty as a councilman to do the best that I can for the taxpayers of this city” so he voted against the pact.
Cockayne said supporters of the contract terms said the city made inroads by getting the union to pay anything for health care. He said that it should have been more and that it’s not his fault that earlier deals were so generous to the union.
“Past administrations have not given away the kitchen sink. They’ve given away the whole kitchen,” Cockayne said.
He said that in today’s struggling economy, when so many families in Bristol are living paycheck to paycheck at best, it’s not fair to ask them for more tax money to provide such generous contracts.
“How can we expect them to keep picking up the tab?” Cockayne asked.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)