Share
Share
I don’t love everything about the agreement. But I’ve read it and
studied it and I support it because it really is the best thing for us and the City.
Under the agreement, we’ll all be paying 4% more toward our pensions.
The way I see it, pension reform is going to be a reality whether we
take the lead or not
. Irregardless of the recession, there has to be
pension reform. That’s because people are living longer and costs are
going up. Paying more into my retirement plan is hard for me to do. But
the agreement keeps our pension funds solvent. It also adds vested
protections to our retiree health coverage
.
Last year I got hit hard by furloughs and nearly lost my home because of them. The way I look at it,
I’d rather put money away toward my retirement than lose it to furlough days. That way, we’re getting something for our money.
I understand the frustration of my co-workers. We keep coming back to
the table. We keep negotiating this contract. I don’t want to trust the
City to do the right thing anymore than they do. But we also have to
understand that the City’s financial situation keeps getting worse.
Which is why we need this agreement. It ties the city’s hands for three
years and locks it into an iron-clad contract.
Sometimes you just have to be smart and not let your
emotions get the best of you. This is a smart agreement. It protects our
jobs, ends the furloughs, preserves our retirement plans and keeps us
all working.
What happens if we don’t ratify it? Just look at Wisconsin, New Jersey,
New Hampshire and other states where workers’ rights are being stripped
away from them. Let’s not become the next Wisconsin. Let’s not stand by
while our rights get stripped away from us. Instead, let’s all vote yes
on the agreement and give a little bit instead of a whole lot.
Why I Support the Coalition Agreement
Categories: Uncategorized
Why I Reject the Coalition Agreement
For over a decade we have made large and generous concessions to the City in the form of significantly lower raises than the regional cost of living, deferral of raises, and an increase in our contributions to our retirement
Make no mistake, a raise that does not match the cost of living is money out of our wallets. A deferred raise is salary permanently lost. An increase in contributions is a loss in pay.
What did we receive in exchange? First, the City broke its’ promise of no lay offs and no furloughs. Then it issued a terrorist threat that if we did not sacrifice more, they would punish us severely!
What negotiation was there? Where any ideas or alternatives presented for discussion? We have a contract in force now, yet, like a bolt from the blue, the City makes demands in the form of a pistol to our heads!
Personally, this demand will not drive me to poverty, nor will it provide me any benefit.
How about those who earn significantly less than I? Those that have wives and children, rent and car payments, who have years to go before retirement, if retirement is even a possibility for them?
This plan has an extreme negative impact on those who earn the least! Certainly, if you make well over one hundred thousand a year, increased contributions of less than ten percent should not threaten your survival. Not so if you earn thirty thousand or less.
As a Union, aren’t we supposed tom supportm ALL members? Is it moral to make those who are paid the least pay an amount that guarantees financial hardship? Is it beneficial to anyone to turn City jobs into McJobs in order to give multi-billion dollar corporations a three year tax holiday?
We have already witnessed the City break its’ word, abjectly refuse to “share the sacrifice”, and issue threats, rather than enter into good faith negotiations. Does anyone truly believe that this time they will honor an agreement we capitulate to?
I don’t agree with this contract proposal at all. We are asked to give back,
in other words raises, and other things like my sick leave overage is to be banked like vacation time. Does that mean I can take it when I want? Or, will I be put onto the SLP program.
Lets get the police and fire dept. to start putting money towards their retirement program…..just like we do. STARTING NOW. NOT JUST FOR NEW HIRES, BUT ALL COPS & FIRE PERSONELL. Mr Mayor, Mr. Santana, City Council, Don’t try to balance the budget on our backs. If you need to make cuts, then START CUTTING AT THE TOP FIRST. How about leading by example.
We all know the union does not want lay-offs. It is not due to their caring about our welfare. Not in the least. It’s because if there are lay-offs, then they loose union DUES. Maybe we need lay-offs. . . .we need to get rid of all the part timers who have basically replaced us.
It’s time the union starts to represent us, not the city. Not only do I smell conspiracy, but possibly “Conflict of Interest”.
Maybe it’s time for a Federal Arbitrator to step in.
Below is the body of a message I sent yesterday to a good friend at Sanitation who is in 501 regarding IBEW turning down the LOA. My question to him – what is the alternative?
We already know that in the EAA decision with the Court of Appeals, the City can impose furloughs as a remedy to the budget crisis. Absent this deal, the City will declare a crisis against COCU units. The Mayor’s budget to be released tomorrow will include 36 furlough days for all city employees, including Special Funded. (We know that happened today.) Whether he can do that or not will take at least two years to litigate, and it will be against the precedent of a decision allowing the City to impose furloughs, so it’s not very likely we will ever see that money come back.
Secondly, the City has already moved to freeze the retirement medical subsidy at today’s rate, about $1150 (not sure of the exact amount). This will be on all people retiring after it is enacted and they will be responsible for any future increases in their Kaiser medical going forward from their retirement date as well. So if they freeze today, and you retire in 5 years, you are on the hook for any increase in the Kaiser rate up to then and increases going forward. The question has come up if this is already a vested benefit and if it is something they can unilaterally do. The fact is they will do it and make us sue to find out. And at best, it will be a coin flip. If you have not noticed, this is not the most labor-friendly environment to litigate in.
So, an electrician today makes $35.89 an hour flat rated, and we know litigation on these matters is at least two years (and still ongoing in the EAA case as it will go to higher appeal), so it’s going to cost your IBEW electricians over $20,000 to find out if the City can impose these budget measures on us for voting no on the LOA, vs. the 4% pre-tax (about 2.8 net) they would have spent to secure the retirement medical. If the City wins and the Kaiser two-party rate increases at 10% pear year (which is about right), that electrician will have to come up with over $700 a month out of his retirement money in just 5 years and still be responsible for any increases in the medical rate after he retires. How long until the City subsidy is all but meaningless?
Look, the City has screwed us over and that is why it is hard to find any trust for them now. They have been bad stewards of our budget, and none of us are happy to have to be here yet again asking for another LOA. But we have to face the reality of the situation we are in. If we say screw them and say no, were are basically screwing ourselves, because the alternative is disaster. This LOA has kept the main framework of the original 5 year contract and protected the four main things we set out to keep the City from touching; base raises, benefits, retirement benefits, and retirement health. I can tell you having sat in the meetings myself that the CAO wanted these things from us, and the few things we gave up were nothing compared to what they wanted.
You are hearing a lot of negativity regarding this LOA, but what the naysayers are not telling you is what is going to happen if the vote is no. In today’s political and budgetary climate, a legal fight has the consequence of producing bad law for the Coalition and for labor in general going forward.
Are you willing to gamble with your retirement medical?
Protect your benefits now and into the future – VOTE YES
I voting NO!!! I rather accept furloughs!!
I don’t trust the City. What will stop them from taking more? They broke EAA’s contract. The Coalition tends to advertise the 11% increase but neglect to say that 4% more will be taken out of our checks permanently. Also 1.5% pay cut.
BAD DEAL!!!!
This has to be a no vote. Simply put, there are no guarantees against layoffs and furloughs. Read the 2nd page of the loa. The City can do, in a financial crisis what it deems necessary to reduce the workforce. Hello! furloughs and layoffs. Your all forgetting a couple of things. Their is no contract from the City with the Mayors signature or the CAO’s . This is aproposal from COCU.. They have sent out more than one, and in each one the language is differant. They have added words and phrases to make it sound like we’re getting something when we’re not. Like the 4 UNPAID days off during the holidays. They added the word PAID days off to make it sound like we’re getting paid. Another giveback. The majority of our raise will be defered to 2014. They can come back and negotiate them away then and they are gone for good. The most important thing. Once you allow our Retirement and Medical contracts to be negotiated the way the City wants to negotiate them, they will eventually negotiate them gone. The Union doesn’t care. They get their dues off the top of our paychecks. Think your getting 2.25% this july? Think again. If this passes we have to give back, $$ July 1st to cover those 4 days during the holidays. Not counting the 1% we all have to pay back for ERIP for 15 more years. Also the 4% we will have to donate to pension. Those 4 days at xmas this year and next? In my book, those are furlough days any way you write ’em up. The union gets a dues increase becuse their dues come off the 2.25% , not whats left. We get whats left.
Why I don`t agree whith this proposal: first of all there is no guarantee that we are not going to suffer more layoffs and furloughs : and doing a mathematical calculation my salary will be cut $.85 CENTS . per hour my exesive sick leave payments will be “banked ” untill retirement for two years new hirees wont recive their step raises every six monts like they should . If we want to make a difference in the City`s Budget just PERFORM YOUR DUTIES . MAKE A DIFFERENCE !!!!!! DON`T LET PRIVATE CONTRACTORS TAKE YOUR JOB!!!!
I hear many opinions about this new proposal. Has anyone heard of or seen an actual study done on this to better understand the impact that vested medical will have?
I have calculated the changes and see that the hourly salary at the end of FY 2013, will be less than it is today. I also have seen that monitarily at 36 days of furlough, voting No will give more cash at the end of the day.
I’m curious about expert opinions on vested medical.. has any expert been called in to better explain what this means?
Why is 721 supporting this, what convinced 721 that this is the best deal to propose it, anyone know of the reasons they have for its support?
Well the “Vote” was “Yes” The “Vote” will always be in the “Councils” benefit there will never be a “NO” Vote. this voting deal is just a dog and pony show.It was a yes vote even before the ballots went out.
And if they wanted to contract work out and fire all city workers they would of done so many years ago.
The way I see it is “WORK” till they say “See Ya Later” !
Have A Nice Day !!!!
It is the lack of intelligence and lack of study of members that we are in this mess. The union is working against its members. They are not an ally for the worker continually going backwards. It is time there be a recall vote of all the staff.
Paying 4% more to your pensions? Wrong. You are paying the cost of present retiree healthcare – nothing towards your own future benefits. The City will no longer pay for retiree healthcare – the employees will now pay for presently retired employees and negotiate to increase the percentage in each successor MOU .