|
Omaha union contracts being
negotiated
From the WORLD-HERALD, April
17, 2007
It was late 2003, and Omaha
faced a $10 million budget shortfall.
Mayor Mike Fahey persuaded the police and fire unions to take a one-year wage
freeze to help fill the gap. In exchange, the unions received better wages
and benefits in later years that increased costs to the city.
The Omaha City Council signed off on the resulting contracts, but some
councilmen warned that taxpayers would eventually end up footing the bill.
Four years later, those same councilmen say they don't want to end up with
another round of contracts they don't like. They contend that the city budget
is straining under the financial obligations of the last police and fire
contracts and that changes are needed.
Fahey also has called for changes in police and fire benefits,
but the majority of councilmen say they aren't waiting to follow the mayor's
lead this time. Instead, the councilmen say they hope to help guide the
contract negotiations by getting involved sooner and by being more assertive
with their ideas.
"Last time, we sat back and waited to be told what to do," said
Councilman Franklin Thompson. "We're sending our concerns to the
administration earlier."
Historically, the mayor has been responsible for negotiating union contracts,
but the council must sign off on them.
Fahey has just begun negotiating the police and fire contracts, which expire
at the end of the year.
Council President Dan Welch said he plans to give the mayor a list of the
changes he wants to see. Councilmen Jim Vokal,
Chuck Sigerson and Thompson also said they plan to
provide suggestions to the mayor and Human Resources Director Tom Marfisi.
Fahey Chief of Staff Paul Landow said the mayor is open to the suggestions.
"It's not a problem for the council to offer advice, but in the end,
it's the mayor who actually negotiates the contracts," Landow said. "He already has quite a long list of
points he wants to address."
Fahey and the council have already tangled over how to approach the
negotiations.
After Fahey objected to a council-funded efficiency study of the Police and
Fire Departments last year, he launched his own study of the departments. The
dueling studies could become factors in the negotiations.
It's unusual for the council to bring in outside groups to study city
departments before contract negotiations, said Louis Anderson, the council's
chief of staff from 1979 to 2005. Though he can recall council members
initiating in-house reports, he said, he can't recall the council asking
outside firms to do such work.
Anderson said
he is not surprised that the police and fire contracts are under close
scrutiny this year, given the council's criticism during the last round of
negotiations.
"For the most part, the council has been very cautious about not
overstepping their bounds," Anderson
said. "Their involvement usually isn't highly visible."
Not everyone on the
seven-member City Council agrees that councilmen should get involved. Councilman Jim Suttle
said he wants to wait and see what Fahey offers.
"We can't have eight different people trying to negotiate these
contracts," Suttle said. "I don't want to
see us second-guessing the mayor."
The dynamic of this year's union negotiations partly stems from the contract talks in 2003 and 2004.
In the summer of 2003, the city faced a $10 million gap between projected
revenues and planned expenditures in the next year's budget.
To address the shortfall, Fahey proposed a citywide wage freeze in 2004 in
exchange for raises and other compensation in later years. Without a wage freeze, Fahey warned of mass layoffs, drastic cuts in services
and the closure of facilities such as the Swanson
Library. He opposed raising property taxes to address the shortfall.
Fire union members eventually agreed to give up their scheduled pay raises in
2004 as part of a contract extension, a move that would save the city more
than $3 million that year.
Some council members balked at the deferred compensation provisions, saying
that the deal was backloaded with perks for
firefighters and that the city would be weighed down by the costs in later
years.
In a 4-2 vote on Sept. 9, 2003, the City Council rejected the fire contract,
with Welch, Vokal, Sigerson
and Thompson casting votes against it.
After a series of closed-door talks, Thompson ultimately reversed his vote in
late November, and the council approved the fire contract 4-3 after minor
adjustments. "It was a real pressure cooker," Thompson said.
The police union then also
agreed to forgo raises in 2004, and the council approved a similar police
contract in May 2004 without a fight.
In response to the contentious fire union negotiations, the council passed an
ordinance in March 2004 that requires the mayor to do more to keep council
members informed about the negotiations. The mayor now must provide status
reports every 35 days and inform council members within one day when a
tentative contract has been negotiated.
The council also must be given 14
days to review tentative contracts before the mayor submits the contracts for
formal approval.
Sigerson said he would like to see Fahey submit a
proposal by Oct. 1, giving the council three months to look over the new
contracts before the current contracts expire. "That would give us some
time to debate it and see if things should be changed," Sigerson said.
Landow said that date isn't realistic, but the
council will have ample time to think over the new contracts.
For all the council's talk of offering negotiation suggestions, Landow said Fahey hasn't heard much yet from council
members. Still, the mayor is anticipating that the contracts he offers will
be acceptable to all parties.
"The mayor and council seem to be on the same page and recognize that
it's necessary to make health care and pension changes," Landow said.
Changes in contracts
Several key changes were made in the Omaha police and fire contracts approved in
2003 and 2004.
Wages
Firefighters: No raise in 2004; 3.22 percent raise in 2005; 4.37 percent in
2006; 4.57 percent in 2007.
Police: No raise in 2004; 3 percent raise in 2005; 4.38 percent
in 2006; 4.81 percent in 2007.
Pensions
Pension payments were boosted. The maximum payout had been 69
percent of annual pay. That percentage increased with the new contracts.
Fire: 2004, 69 percent of pay; 2005, 71 percent; 2006, 73
percent; and 2007, 75 percent.
Police: 2004 and 2005, 69 percent of pay; 2006: 72 percent;
2007,
75 percent.
Employee and city contributions to the pension fund also
increased during those years.
Holidays
Police officers agreed to delay their compensation for 11
holidays in 2004 and 2005. That time was banked to be paid in later years.
Firefighters agreed to delay their compensation for seven
holidays in 2004. That time was banked to be paid in later years.
City, police
union reach deal
From the Wichita
Eagle, April 18, 2007
After four months of working without a contract, the Wichita police union has
reached a tentative agreement with the city on a three-year contract, the
city announced Tuesday.
Neither the city nor the union president would release details
of the agreement because the union's members have not been briefed.
"We want our membership to be the first to know on
this," said Sgt. Chester Pinkston, the union president.
At its core, the disagreement was over how large of a raise
roughly 650 police union members should receive.
Starting salary for a police recruit is $16.95 an hour,
according to the city.
Police were asking for a 6 percent raise; the city had offered 2
percent in addition to the 2.5 percent merit increases police may get.
According to the city, a 6 percent increase would cost $14.7
million over the three-year contract. A 2 percent raise, it said, would cost
$4.1 million.
Within a few days, members of the Fraternal Order of Police
Lodge 5 will be briefed on the agreement and vote on whether to accept it.
If accepted, the contract will be sent to the City Council for
ratification.
In addition to raises, the union and the city have also
disagreed over longevity pay, holiday pay, and cell phone allowances.
The tentative agreement follows complaints by both sides to the
state's Public Employee Relations Board claiming the other was not
negotiating fairly.
The dispute, which started in October, was recently mediated in Topeka. Both sides
agreed not to talk to the media.
The conflict over raises set off protests by police officers in
front of City Hall and a news conference where city officials said they may
have to cut back on services or raise taxes to meet police demands.
Mayor Carl Brewer declined to give any details, but said the
tentative agreement would not have a major impact on the city's budget, as
previously thought.
"It's not going to be any tax raises
or anything like that," he said.
Police union
seeks 16% raise
From The Arizona
Republic, April 16,
2007
The Scottsdale
police union is asking for a 16 percent pay raise, which could cost taxpayers
$5.6 million and create tensions with other city workers, city officials
said.
The Police Officers of Scottsdale Association contends that city estimates of
the pay raise are inflated by adding pay for special skills, such as
translating and training, which apply to few officers.
The increase is needed to offset the high cost of housing in Scottsdale and to attract
top quality officers from across the nation, union officials said.
"Most of our officers can't afford to live in Scottsdale," said Detective Jim Hill,
the union president. "We are competing with everybody. We want the best
be best, and to get paid at least what the top guys are getting."
The high cost of housing, Hill said, means there are few "neighborhood
cops" who used to live in the area they patrolled.
The city manager's proposed police pay package calls for an 8 percent
increase for "topped out" employees, those who already are at the
top of the pay range for their positions.
Otherwise, the city is offering most officers the same 6 percent
cost-of-living rise being offered all other city workers.
The union wants an additional 10 percent increase for all sworn officers, in
addition to the 6 percent the city is offering all employees, or a total
raise of 16 percent.
In a memo, the city manager's office said a "10 percent
across-the-board" increase "will create pay inequities"
between police and other employees.
Over the next five years, the union plan would cost taxpayers $19.5 million,
officials said.
But Hill countered that, "We have a much more hazardous job than any
other city employees, with the exception of firefighters."
Although there have been a flurry of figures, a city manager's memo said
Scottsdale officers in 2008 could earn between $50,884 and $76,976, making
them the best paid of eight Valley cities. That is an increase from the
current range of $46,342 to $67,184.
Those salaries don't include additional pay for interpreting, training other
officers or becoming a master police officer.
Officers who qualify for those bonuses would earn as much as $85,952 a year,
according to Scottsdale
figures.
Hill said those top salaries are not realistic because they are based on an
officer making an additional $7,902 a year, which would be the maximum bonus
for each special pay category.
"That's inflated," Hill said, suggesting that few officers would
qualify for all special pay categories.
A police interpreter, for example, could earn an extra $1,200 a year, but
that "does not reflect a majority of the workforce," Hill said.
Union accepts contract
From the Citizen, April 13, 2007
LACONIA, NH - The city has come to terms on a
new contract with another municipal union.
On Thursday, Bob Cunningham, who is president of the Laconia Administrative
and Technical Employees, Chapter 69 of the State Employees' Association of
New Hampshire, SEIU Local 1984, announced that his
union had finalized a three-year pact with the city.
Effective July 1, the contract, which is identical to one between the Laconia
Police Commission and the Laconia Police Officers Association, provides for a
cumulative 8 percent raise while raising the percentage of the employee's
insurance premium contribution from the current 5 percent to 7.5 percent in
the first year and 10 percent in the second.
Cunningham, who is a public works foreman and has led his union for 19 years,
said the administrative and technical employee's union ratified the contract
last week; the agreement, like the police officer's agreement, must also be
signed off on by the city council.
The administrative and technical employee's union has 28 members who work at
City Hall and in the public works, youth services, fire and parks and
recreation departments.
"I'm fine with what we have for a contract," Cunningham said
shortly after he met with City Manager Eileen Cabanel
to review some last-minute details.
"We're actually going to get a 3, 3 and 2 percent raise and you know,
like Jeff Stiegler said, with the economy the way
it is and the tax cap and the little money we have to work with, we should be
grateful we got that," he said.
Prior to his union's settlement on April 4, Stiegler,
who is president of the police officer's association, cited the realities of
the current contract season, including an underperforming economy, increased
payments into the state retirement system and the municipal spending cap that
limits how much new annual spending the city can do.
Following the council's ratification of the police pact, Cabanel
explained that she had previously met with representatives of all the city
unions as well as of the Laconia Education Association, which negotiates with
the Laconia School Board, to explain the city's constraints and possible
contract options.
With permission from all of the unions, she said the city went out to bid for
a new health insurance provider with the understanding that any savings
between the current and new policies would be given back to the unions as
cost-of-living increases.
All the unions also had to agree to switch to the new health insurance plan.
Cunningham said the police officers' contract "more or less set the
tone" for his union.
He characterized the administrative and technical employees' negotiations
with the city as "very cordial but I'm glad they're over and I'm looking
forward to just doing my job the next three years."
As to the health insurance, "it's still a good plan. We have to pay more
but the cost of health insurance is crazy worldwide and we need to face that
reality to give the taxpayers a break," said Cunningham, who added that
most of his union's members are themselves Laconia taxpayers.
He asked that Laconia
taxpayers and residents "know that city employees work hard for them and
we are appreciative of our benefit packages but we also work hard to get
them."
The city is continuing its negotiations with two other unions representing
public works employees and firefighters; the Laconia Education Association
and the Laconia School Board are currently at an impasse.
BACK ISSUES OF THE
JOURNAL
|