July 24, 2008
Parity Word of the Day; Council Members Have Grave Concerns About AFSCME Contract
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Let’s put one word of praise on the table first. Listening to the answers to questions by council members at the special work session concerning the proposed AFSCME (non-uniformed) contract, the administration and union have negotiated a document that seeks to grant these workers parity with inequitable provisions of the recently expired IAFF and FOP contracts.
“We took a lot of slugging,” said Local President 598 Danny Plybon regarding the huge health insurance cost increases. Of the city’s unions, AFSCME workers average $26-$28,000 per employee per year, while police and firefighters average $52-$54,000. Their members handle labor intensive tasks through public works, sanitation and trash.
However, the City of Huntington admittedly already has significant financial concerns across the board. Brandi Jacobs-Jones, Director of Administration and Finance, stated in the affirmative when asked if the police and firefighters would be offered comparable wage increases. That suggests that the cost to the city of the AFSCME contract would likely be at least times three. In fact, after the meeting, council member Dr. Calvin Kent recalled that both of those unions tend to “trump” AFSCME.
Bottom line: Bob Wilhelm, director of finance, provided a “total contract [five years] best estimate” of $3.1 million dollars. (You can download a one page pdf of Wilhelm’s estimates by clicking here.) The pay raises of $1.00 per year for 09-10 and 10-11 and fifty cents per year for 11-12 and 12-13 represent about $2.2 million of the cost.
During the session, Garry Black asked for an estimated annual budget incorporating AFSCME, police and fire and non-union personnel on parity with the AFSCME contract.
James Insco clarified by phone after the meeting that “our personnel costs right now are $28 million. Add $9 million to that to get $37 million. 72% of our budget right now goes to personnel costs. At the same rate we have now, what would the total budget have to be to continue 72% personnel costs?” A $50 million dollars annual budget would be necessary.
“Where’s the money going to come from,” asked James Ritter during the session, adding that he’s “not so sure I’m going to vote for home rule.” Although two members missed the special session (P.D. Adkins, Paul Farrell), Black, Insco, Kent and Neely appeared on record as votes against ratification.
Following the work session, Insco calculated that the AFSCME contract for the first year (without pay raises) would require “over $315,000 the first year cost to the city. We could not find money to provide basic services now. Plus, $100,000 for retirees health insurance that’s over $400,000, where you going to find that?”
Insco “will not vote for the contract. The two main reasons are the length of the contract, which I think should be two years instead of four or five, and I can’t support the minimum staffing clause. It bound our hands in 2002 decisions and we are now reaping the benefit of that decision. It has not worked out well.”
Dr. Kent told reporters too that “what you are going to wind up with is a budget that would have to be over $50 million dollar [per year].” He explained that the cries for parity lead to “for us to be equal to them , we have to get something else too. Everybody looks at everybody else’s contract and we have to get at least as good a deal as they have… you don’t expect the police or fire unions to say we’re going to accept a lesser deal. Due to the numerous extra perks tied to wages and benefits, Kent said, “We ought to start with a blank piece of paper. Everything ought to be renegotiated. Start assuming everything is to be negotiated with all the unions.”
Recalling back to the last round of union contract renewals, Kent said, “I’m the only person who voted against these contracts the last time they came up. I saw the financial train coming down the pike. That’s where we are going to end up again. My huge concern is with what this will burden the city in the future.”
With the fixed staffing clauses, “we can’t cut employees, where are we going to get all of this extra money? The only way you can do it is increase the service fee, the square footage fee, you’re going to have to come up with a whole pot full of money. That’s where the $12 million came from. The difference between the $38 and the $50 [million] and that’s almost a 30% increase in your budget over these five years.”
One of the usual supporters of union contracts, council member Frances Jackson, told a group of union members in the hallway after the session “that I believe it’s going to down. They do not like the minimum staffing. I don’t think they like the wage [increases].”
The clause would fix the current level of workers as the minimum. Plybon told council, “We do a good job for the amount of people [we have but] we do not have enough people. The workload has been doubled, tripled and quadrupled. We have to start somewhere to protect services.” He asked that council “quit cutting us every time you get in [financial] trouble.”
Jacobs-Jones agreed with the dedication of these employees, indicating that administrators receive “thank you’s for the [level of] sanitation services.”
Jackson said after the meeting, “I think [the administration’s] hands were tied when they went to the bargaining table… that’s why I did not vote for the cap [on health insurance expenditures].” Acknowledging these are the lowest paid workers in the city, Jackson stated, “they should be getting better than what they are getting.” Asked if she thought the AFSCME were fairly treated by council, Jackson said, “In some instances no. I don’t think there is anything wrong with them asking for parity. If they can get it, more power to them. I hope they do.”
Plybon strongly hinted that if council turns down the contract, continued negotiations will bring stronger demands. “We’re got parity now [in the proposed contract]; we’re going to keep it,” praising the administration for bargaining in good faith with them.
He defended the contracts increased life insurance benefit from $15,000 to $35,000. “ We have a lot of people that do not have nothing to fall back on. With the[health] insurance package, we have people who can’t afford extra life insurance or prescription medicine.” The increase would ensure that workers “get a proper burial.”
However, council members seemed occasionally clueless regarding potential excesses or abuses of incentives. After discussion of the value of employees having a commercial driver’s license, council appeared overly concerned that employees would run out and get the license in order to receive the bonus. Plybon explained the costs of maintaining a license each year, whether or not it is used, and rebuffed the concern with employee’s obtaining one simply to gain the miniscule per hour increase. “It’s not that easy to pass. A lot of people cannot drive a car, let alone a dump truck” or other large vehicle, Plybon said, likening having the license as potentially expanding the jobs that a worker can undertake. “If I can do ten jobs, that’s a benefit to you guys,” such as additional qualified employees to clear streets in a snow emergency.
He also defended the incentives for “showing up everyday” since the public works and sanitation employees often work as teams. If someone is absent, the entire crew is slowed and must perform more physical intensive labor. Plus, the increase from a three to four hour Overtime minimum is directly influenced by the rise in gasoline from $1.99 (at the time of the previous contract) to the $4.00 plus now. In other words, workers lose money to drive in to work for less than four hours.
Plybon stressed that AFSCME workers would make more money in the private sector, suggesting their pay be compared to heavy equipment operator or mechanics who make $40 per hour elsewhere.
One issue appeared in stone according to Plybon: “We don’t have trouble with a four year term. But anything less than that we are not going to accept it. We can tell you that upfront.“
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Parity Word of the Day; Council Members Have Grave Concerns About AFSCME Contract
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Let’s put one word of praise on the table first. Listening to the answers to questions by council members at the special work session concerning the proposed AFSCME (non-uniformed) contract, the administration and union have negotiated a document that seeks to grant these workers parity with inequitable provisions of the recently expired IAFF and FOP contracts.
“We took a lot of slugging,” said Local President 598 Danny Plybon regarding the huge health insurance cost increases. Of the city’s unions, AFSCME workers average $26-$28,000 per employee per year, while police and firefighters average $52-$54,000. Their members handle labor intensive tasks through public works, sanitation and trash.
However, the City of Huntington admittedly already has significant financial concerns across the board. Brandi Jacobs-Jones, Director of Administration and Finance, stated in the affirmative when asked if the police and firefighters would be offered comparable wage increases. That suggests that the cost to the city of the AFSCME contract would likely be at least times three. In fact, after the meeting, council member Dr. Calvin Kent recalled that both of those unions tend to “trump” AFSCME.
Bottom line: Bob Wilhelm, director of finance, provided a “total contract [five years] best estimate” of $3.1 million dollars. (You can download a one page pdf of Wilhelm’s estimates by clicking here.) The pay raises of $1.00 per year for 09-10 and 10-11 and fifty cents per year for 11-12 and 12-13 represent about $2.2 million of the cost.
During the session, Garry Black asked for an estimated annual budget incorporating AFSCME, police and fire and non-union personnel on parity with the AFSCME contract.
James Insco clarified by phone after the meeting that “our personnel costs right now are $28 million. Add $9 million to that to get $37 million. 72% of our budget right now goes to personnel costs. At the same rate we have now, what would the total budget have to be to continue 72% personnel costs?” A $50 million dollars annual budget would be necessary.
“Where’s the money going to come from,” asked James Ritter during the session, adding that he’s “not so sure I’m going to vote for home rule.” Although two members missed the special session (P.D. Adkins, Paul Farrell), Black, Insco, Kent and Neely appeared on record as votes against ratification.
Following the work session, Insco calculated that the AFSCME contract for the first year (without pay raises) would require “over $315,000 the first year cost to the city. We could not find money to provide basic services now. Plus, $100,000 for retirees health insurance that’s over $400,000, where you going to find that?”
Insco “will not vote for the contract. The two main reasons are the length of the contract, which I think should be two years instead of four or five, and I can’t support the minimum staffing clause. It bound our hands in 2002 decisions and we are now reaping the benefit of that decision. It has not worked out well.”
Dr. Kent told reporters too that “what you are going to wind up with is a budget that would have to be over $50 million dollar [per year].” He explained that the cries for parity lead to “for us to be equal to them , we have to get something else too. Everybody looks at everybody else’s contract and we have to get at least as good a deal as they have… you don’t expect the police or fire unions to say we’re going to accept a lesser deal. Due to the numerous extra perks tied to wages and benefits, Kent said, “We ought to start with a blank piece of paper. Everything ought to be renegotiated. Start assuming everything is to be negotiated with all the unions.”
Recalling back to the last round of union contract renewals, Kent said, “I’m the only person who voted against these contracts the last time they came up. I saw the financial train coming down the pike. That’s where we are going to end up again. My huge concern is with what this will burden the city in the future.”
With the fixed staffing clauses, “we can’t cut employees, where are we going to get all of this extra money? The only way you can do it is increase the service fee, the square footage fee, you’re going to have to come up with a whole pot full of money. That’s where the $12 million came from. The difference between the $38 and the $50 [million] and that’s almost a 30% increase in your budget over these five years.”
One of the usual supporters of union contracts, council member Frances Jackson, told a group of union members in the hallway after the session “that I believe it’s going to down. They do not like the minimum staffing. I don’t think they like the wage [increases].”
The clause would fix the current level of workers as the minimum. Plybon told council, “We do a good job for the amount of people [we have but] we do not have enough people. The workload has been doubled, tripled and quadrupled. We have to start somewhere to protect services.” He asked that council “quit cutting us every time you get in [financial] trouble.”
Jacobs-Jones agreed with the dedication of these employees, indicating that administrators receive “thank you’s for the [level of] sanitation services.”
Jackson said after the meeting, “I think [the administration’s] hands were tied when they went to the bargaining table… that’s why I did not vote for the cap [on health insurance expenditures].” Acknowledging these are the lowest paid workers in the city, Jackson stated, “they should be getting better than what they are getting.” Asked if she thought the AFSCME were fairly treated by council, Jackson said, “In some instances no. I don’t think there is anything wrong with them asking for parity. If they can get it, more power to them. I hope they do.”
Plybon strongly hinted that if council turns down the contract, continued negotiations will bring stronger demands. “We’re got parity now [in the proposed contract]; we’re going to keep it,” praising the administration for bargaining in good faith with them.
He defended the contracts increased life insurance benefit from $15,000 to $35,000. “ We have a lot of people that do not have nothing to fall back on. With the[health] insurance package, we have people who can’t afford extra life insurance or prescription medicine.” The increase would ensure that workers “get a proper burial.”
However, council members seemed occasionally clueless regarding potential excesses or abuses of incentives. After discussion of the value of employees having a commercial driver’s license, council appeared overly concerned that employees would run out and get the license in order to receive the bonus. Plybon explained the costs of maintaining a license each year, whether or not it is used, and rebuffed the concern with employee’s obtaining one simply to gain the miniscule per hour increase. “It’s not that easy to pass. A lot of people cannot drive a car, let alone a dump truck” or other large vehicle, Plybon said, likening having the license as potentially expanding the jobs that a worker can undertake. “If I can do ten jobs, that’s a benefit to you guys,” such as additional qualified employees to clear streets in a snow emergency.
He also defended the incentives for “showing up everyday” since the public works and sanitation employees often work as teams. If someone is absent, the entire crew is slowed and must perform more physical intensive labor. Plus, the increase from a three to four hour Overtime minimum is directly influenced by the rise in gasoline from $1.99 (at the time of the previous contract) to the $4.00 plus now. In other words, workers lose money to drive in to work for less than four hours.
Plybon stressed that AFSCME workers would make more money in the private sector, suggesting their pay be compared to heavy equipment operator or mechanics who make $40 per hour elsewhere.
One issue appeared in stone according to Plybon: “We don’t have trouble with a four year term. But anything less than that we are not going to accept it. We can tell you that upfront.“
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
