|
|
POLICEPAY.NET
NEGOTIATION TRAINING OCTOBER 11-12 –
NOVEMBER 9-10 -
LAS VEGAS (click on link
for information)
Police (Editor’s Note The recommendation by an arbitrator
would add $940,000 to the city's budget this fiscal year. An arbitrator recommended
Monday that "We're cautiously optimistic that
we're going to get it," said "We purposely made the offer
effective Jan. 1 to minimize the cost this year, and it also allows us to get
closer to market (pay rates)," he said. The city had offered a 4.5 percent raise
for the entire fiscal year, which runs from July 1 to June 30. Mayor Kathy Taylor can choose to accept
the recommendation, and the City Council can approve a budget amendment to
fund the raise, Deputy Mayor Tom Baker said. But "The mayor's goal is to find a resolution,"
he said. Budget Director Pat Connelly said that
if Filak
said the FOP would be disappointed if "We feel we presented our case, and
a neutral party looked at the facts and agreed the police deserve the 8
percent, and the city can afford it," he said. Connelly said the city could cover the
$940,000 this year through a budget surplus, but he cautioned that the cost
would be ongoing and the surplus is not. Connelly said that if the city treats
all employees the same, the cost for this fiscal year would increase to $3.2
million. The city still has outstanding contracts with the "The real problem is going to be
next year," when the 8 percent increase applies to the entire year,
Connelly said. "The money just isn't there. Something is going to have
to give. The city has to have a balanced budget." Filak
said that the arbitrator, as well as police, thinks the money will be
available because "City officials are predicting a
record general fund balance this year, and we have all indications that is going to continue through next fiscal year," he
said. "We're optimistic that the general
fund can take the hit, but if it looks like it can't, the contract is just
for one year, and we're more than willing to go back to the table and see
where we can cut costs or what we can do to help the city out." In a worst-case scenario, he said,
"the city can take us to arbitration next year and make the same
arguments we made for a pay reduction." Filak
said the raise would make City police department raises salary
hoping to bring in more recruits From the ANCHORAGE -- The Anchorage Police
Department this week said that it will raise police officers' starting
salaries to entice more new recruits to sign up for the understaffed
department. The police department has 33 vacant
positions, it said. The new entry-level pay for police
officers will be for a two-year trial period to boost the department's
numbers, the police said. New recruits will start at $25.97 an
hour, an increase of 20 percent. The increase makes the Anchorage Police
Department the highest starting recruit pay in the state among police
departments and the The increase in pay does not affect the
department's budget, police said. Police union attempts to force The lawsuit claims the city broke state
law by not engaging in "substantive and meaningful" contract
negotiations and mediation. It requests the court compel the city to bargain
in good faith and submit to arbitration. The current contract runs out Sept. 30.
The city and the union started collective bargaining talks eight months ago
but have been deadlocked since their last meeting April 27. The sticking point had been retirement
benefits for officers, said Sgt. Mike Zellers, president of the "We agreed to raise our
contribution rate to 7 percent for retirement in the second year of the
contract," he said about the last offer the union made to the city. The
city currently contributes the equivalent of 6 percent of an officer’s salary
a year to his or her retirement plan, matching the 6
percent officers contribute each year from their salaries. The city bargaining team rejected that
"last best offer." "They’re the one that’s cut off the
negotiations," City Manager Mike Perez said. "They sent us a letter
saying, ‘This is our last and best offer, and if not, we’re going to see you
at the courthouse." The union said in a July 31 letter to
Perez that it wanted to continue contract negotiations and "never
intended to communicate to the City that we wanted negotiations to
cease." Several days later, Perez responded with
his own letter saying that wouldn’t cut it. Referring to the union
correspondence as a "memo," he said it did not rescind the union’s
notice of impasse, a legal step that allowed it to request the appointment of
an arbitration board. This week, in a letter dated Tuesday,
the city responded to another missive from the union’s general counsel in
which the city finally agreed that the union’s last best offer was withdrawn
and negotiations could resume — but only under certain conditions The union must submit an
alternative offer for the City Commission to consider. The union must agree to take
any final negotiation to its membership for a vote on ratification. The union must withdraw the grievance
it filed relating to the continued negotiations. Zellers says he did not receive the
letter until Thursday, an hour before the union planned to file the suit. "The city can’t legally set
conditions on meeting," Zellers said. "If it is a good deal, I
would take it to the members anyway." Perez defended the demands, saying they
were in taxpayers’ best interest. "We want to see what they're going
to be putting on the table," he said of the union. "If they’re going to start again
where they were last time, there’s no need for anyone to waste anybody’s
time, because there’s no way that we're going to agree to all those things
that they wanted. "We want to treat our employees
fairly. We want to compensate them fairly," he added. "At the same
time, we have a fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers that we don’t create
any long-term unfunded liability for them. And so we have to do the balancing
of those two things." McAllen City Attorney Jim Darling said
shortly after noon Friday that the city had not been served with the lawsuit
yet, but that he had an opportunity to review a copy of it. "We're kind of surprised we got
this lawsuit," he said, noting the Tuesday letter to the union had
opened the door to resuming negotiations. "We don’t know if that’s just a
timing problem or whatever," he said. City officials continue to deny union
claims that they have failed to bargain in good faith. "They alleged in their petition,
for lack of a better term, spotty attendance at the bargaining session on
behalf of the City Commission," Darling said. "But we had staff
members there and we were meeting. "I think one of our things that we
had a problem with is they initially asked for an awful, awful lot," he
added. "And we already had an existing contract, and I think the
commission felt, ‘Gee whiz, they want everything at once, and this is an
ongoing process, because you have contracts renewed every couple years.’ And
I think that was one of the stumbling blocks."
From the Herald News, August 25, 2006 But they have not seen any difference in
their paychecks yet. "It's frustrating when you haven't
had a decision in three years and when the decision comes down and you are
expecting a raise -- and it takes a while to get it," said Detective Lt.
Richard Reyes, president of the Hopes ran high among officers that they
would see their stagnant wages rise soon after a
state arbitrator in May awarded a new five-year retroactive contract that the
city and police unions, the local SOA and the Policemen's Benevolent
Association, must honor. The previous contract between the city
and unions expired Aug. 1, 2003. City officials and attorneys for both
sides say the money has been put aside in the annual budget over the past
three years to cover the retroactive raises in anticipation of a settlement
and final decision but that events beyond their control will probably leave
the officers waiting until mid- to late-September. The chief reasons cited for the delay
were a need for legal clarifications to the state arbitrator's award, the
city's fiscal cycle, the need to calculate modified salaries, and the City
Council's slow summer schedule. Anthony Zambrano,
Paterson Police Director Michael C.
Walker, who is appointed by the mayor, said the city wanted to clarify the
language in the state arbitrator's decision. "We just want to make sure what he
says in writing is what he meant," he said. "Obviously, we would have wanted it
settled three years ago. But it wasn't." The state arbitrator came back to the unions
and city with the clarified language about three weeks ago, he said. "I want the cops to get paid what
they deserve to make," Second Ward Councilman Aslon Goow said Wednesday he
had not yet seen the text of the state arbitrator's award. "The last
thing that I heard was that the language in the contract was not what they
expected," said Goow, who is also the public
safety committee chairman. Most police officers who have joined the
force over the past three years have a base salary of $20,125 for the first
six months, and $22,025 for the following six months, according to the
decision from the state arbitrator. Union officials testified that half the
Paterson Police Department is eligible for food stamps and other public
benefits, and that 40 percent of the department's work force has resigned for
jobs in other police departments, mostly in the suburbs. In contrast, the maximum first year base
pay for a police officer in Newark is $34,286 and $36,616 in Jersey City,
according to PolicePay.net, an Oklahoma-based police collective bargaining
consulting company. The new contract between the The city's Rahway-based labor attorney,
Gerald L. Dorf, called the arbitrator's decision
fair. "He looked over everything," Dorf
said. "Would we have liked it to be a little different? Yes." State arbitrator James W. Mastriani's decision on May 25, contained in a 100-plus
page document, covers a slew of additional subjects, including salary,
retroactive pay, grievance procedures, work schedule and conditions, sick and
injury leave and off-duty employment. Richard D. Loccke,
of Loccke & Correia
in "We would have liked to have been
paid earlier," Loccke said. "But we are
attempting to work with the city to bring this long open matter to a
close." Oakwood police likely to get labor deal Collective bargaining won't go on ballot
From the Plain Dealer, August 30, 2006 The special village council meeting in
Oakwood Tuesday night was on the verge of chaos. But it ended harmoniously,
with the police force likely to get a new labor deal. Oakwood police, with less than 15
full-time officers, have been working without a contract for at least three
years, said Sgt. Sam Bigham, who is also a union
representative. But based on negotiations with the
village at the council meeting, Bigham said police
will probably get a new deal that goes through 2006.
Details in collective bargaining laws
caused a problem in negotiations. Mayor Gary Gottschalk wanted voters to
decide in the upcoming election whether to keep collective bargaining laws in
the village. Gottschalk said the village had spent
more than $170,000 on labor lawyers in the past eight years, which is more
than it can afford. The police union was opposed because
without binding arbitration in collective bargaining, it would be toothless. "There wouldn't be any point in
having a union," Bigham said. The Village Hall was packed Tuesday
night with police union supporters. Gottschalk came under attack from
residents and a member of council. They claimed he was unreasonable in his
negotiations. "I have been disappointed with
misinformation and double talk we've received from the mayor,"
Councilman-at-large Joe Fouche said. As residents increasingly spoke out of
turn, Councilwoman Eloise Hardin interjected "Let's respect each other and keep
it together." In the end, council struck down the
ordinance to place the collective bargaining issue on the ballot. The village
and the police union agreed to hold another meeting on Sept. 5 with the
intention of signing the deal that extends through the end of the year. Deal over hefty retirement payments for
53 officers will save city $16 million, mayor says. From the Morning Call, August 29, 2006
''This is a major step forward for both
sides and the city,'' Pawlowski said. ''We took a
case that could have dragged on for years in court and resolved it in six
months.'' |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright ã POLICEPAY.NET,
Inc. 2006 All Rights Reserved |
||||||||||||||||||
The POLICEPAY Journal
Published
by
POLICEPAY.NET,
Inc.
Oklahoma
City, OK 73102
(405)
234-2235