The town's management and supervisory personnel have asked the state to be allowed to form a collective bargaining unit. The positions covered by the new union would be Town Collector, Town Accountant, Veterans Agent, Planning Director, Youth Advocate, Director of Inspection Services, Harbormaster,...
...Director of Assessing, Municipal Paralegal, Conservation Agent, Park Director, IT Manager, Director of Public Health, Council on Aging, Office Manager Conf. Secretary, two police captains and three DPW supervisors. The filing lists the United Steel Workers as the petitioner.
The Massachusetts General Law(MGL) regarding collective bargaining can be found here, MGL Chapter 150E. The town has asked Mr. Greenspan, who was hired as a labor negotiator, for an opinion on the application.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Town supervisory employees seek union
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Are these the same people who previously had personnel contracts? If so that not really a surprise. No real savings cutting personnel contracts they just unionize then your still paying everyone about what they were getting you just have one contract instead of 20. negotiations are somewhat faster and everything is uniform for the group but you dont save much.
It seems odd because some of these positions are one year positions and life time appointments. I have no problem with people forming a union. However, union or not, the town employees work for the good of the town. The town's best interest is the priority here. The town and union can only contract for what is available. The town does not operate for a profit.
Unions are about give and take. These people have to remember they will have to give up things in order to get things. And they will be paying union dues.
The town's main function is to provide services to its residents. The town is not responsible to provide jobs to town employees. If the town can deliver services more efficiently, it is their responsibility to do so. As was stated earlier, the town does not operate for profit.Anon 9:14 am
These positions are those which were previously covered by personal contracts. I don't see the move to form a collective bargaining unit as necessarily a bad thing for the town. The Select Board had a goal of eliminating most personal contracts and standardizing benefits across the board, as recommended by the DOR in their report. A collective bargaining agreement with these employees would accomplish that.
but where are all the promised savings from eliminating the personel contracts? ID heard in the past that this would save the town tens of thousands . this sounds like it will save 10's instead if that. Plus if the new union members hold a grudge or dont like the zero increase and claim " bad faith negotiations" this could be a problem.
I have not felt revising personal contracts is the solution to our fiscal problems. But the cost of employees, both represented and not, must be part of that solution. Either we are going to provide less in pay and benefits or we are going to have fewer employees. That is the reality that the town faces. We are not allowed to run deficits. Next year the town budget is projected to be more than a half million dollars in the red. Cuts will be made. I don't see how one can argue that the town has the resources to pay more. Do you?
The high costs that were linked so effectively last year to the numerous 'personal contracts' never existed so the savings don't exist either when they get eliminated. I agree the number of contracts was too high but the argument that many used to eliminate them was false and raised the hopes of many that savings would follow. It was never true.
Positions and services will be eliminated to make up the reality of no savings in employee salaries.
Some of the employees seeking a union were the same ones who had 'sweetheart' contracts. These employees should be evaluated by their supervisors and be held accountable if they are not meeting benchmarks. I don't think they were ever accountable to anyone.
If they want a union, no problem. The language in their contract should include yearly evaluations and meeting certain criterion set by their supervisors/town admin.
But where are the vast savings we were led to believe existed?
All well and good anon 7:47 but where are the savings promised? They did not exist in the first place-the argument that the town employees were making money hand over fist and the elimiination of these contracts would get rid of the fat cat salaries was all fabricated to incite anger and mis-trust throughout the town. More evidence of bad information spread without benefit of any facts to back it up. So now the fall back position is well - we had too many of these contracts full of their 'sweetheart deals' Where are they? Where is the money we were going to save?
It was also put forth to get people elected and overrides defeated. Where are we now? the former personel contract people are unionizing, we finally realize there is no real savings with the DOR recommendations(personel contracts, bi-weekly payroll etc..)shame on us for believing the CFRG. They were out for themselves not dartmouth
The savings are not short term. By reducing the number of sick days, vacation and other leave, the town can have the same employees but get 12% more time at work per year. Applied across the workforce, that is significant savings. Another cost avoided is the time spent negotiating 20 individual contracts. Health care options can also save as the town has seen last year (1/2 million returned from health care account). If we don't offer the most expensive plan to this new bargaining unit, the town saves.
The goal to limit the quantity of personal contracts was/is a worthy one but it was sold on the premis that we would reap large savings which is simply not the case.
Yes, if, and its a big if, sick/vacation days are reduced savings will be realized but that has yet to occur and is an independant issue which would need to have been addressed one way or another. The formation of another bargaining unit gives some indication that give backs on these items or others is not a given.
The health plan savings from last year were realized under the old system which tells me they were not tied to the personal contract issue either.
As I said, the goal of reducing the personal contracts is worthy but the idea that this would save large sums of money was a false premise form day one. Revelations of huge salaries and sweet heart deals simply have not materialized and promises that these things existed in the first place only served to poison the atmosphere throughout the town.
All those items have to be negotiated. Until then their wishful thinking. By the way how much $$$ do you save with 12% more time at work? you have to pay them either way. the same with time saved negotiating 20 seperate contracts .where's the money that the CFRG promised?????
Health care can be tied to a collective bargaining agreement. The town can negotiate which health care plans will be offered. 12% is a lot more time at work and the employees can do more or fewer employees may be needed. That's were the savings come from. And as I recall, several contracts did have some sweetheart deals. That's what is good about this union. In one swoop, the town is rid of the contracts and can negotiate favorable terms with the new union. Given the town's bad financial shape, the possibility of a charge of unfair practice should be reduced.
Any time the zero increase has been spoken of in public or in the media you open yourself up to bad faith negotiations charges and the towns fiscal condition matters little to the officials whom decide judgements. your arguement is full of can's and maybe's . These need to be negotiated. The employees and their union arent going to accept less than what they had. they will not give up their benefits without some form of compensation. give and take must exist. Cut their vacation, sick days etc and what are you going to give them in return? and where are the big savings????
Please explain why the town's financial condition does not matter. If the town has no money, how are they to give out raises? What the employees gain by making concessions on benefits is continued employment. This will be a new collective bargaining agreement, what the employees had before were personal contracts. What do their previous, and mostly expired contracts, have to to with a new union agreement?
Many of our contracts would be considered irresponsible if they had been negotiated in the private sector. Yes, there are still contracts with sweetheart deals such as buy-backs and carry-over days that would (and have already) cost the town money in the future when these individuals leave the town's employ.
The savings are not concretely in our hands. They are long-term savings which we will realize when we put an end to the provisions in the contracts that allow so much money to come out of our pockets. With no regard to the town's financial future, someone gave his/her blessing to contracts that are out-of-line in terms of benefits and provisions.
One such provision is clause b under "Compensation" in eight non-union town employee contracts. That's the one that gives these eight individuals job-and-financial-protection-for-life, and essentially identifies the SB as having "an affirmative duty to budget for the position and to speak in favor of funding this position in total." That's the clause, that, no matter what happens financially to the town and even the town's employees, these individuals are guaranteed their jobs. As a matter of fact, the language in clause b goes farther to state that "It is also understood that if layoffs or staff cutbacks are needed in the Town, this EMPLOYEE'S position will only be decreased or eliminated after the TOWN has already undertaken to decrease or eliminate other positions which add up to the amount of the annual salary of this position first." So other town employees will be axed first to guarantee these individuals keep their job at their current salary, as well. (That's also stipulated in the contracts.)
If you don't believe that this language exists, ask the director of budget and finance/treasurer to read the contracts yourself. (And ask to read the school's contracts as well.)
Clause b will be eliminated when these contracts expire in 2009. The prior SB has promised us that. By going forward with contracts whose language benefits both the employee AND the town residents, we will free ourselves of the continuation of over-the-top financial obligations to these individuals when they retire or leave Dartmouth's employ.
THAT'S where the savings come in. It's a savings over time. It's money NOT SPENT and that will not have to be spent in the future if we negotiate responsibly and do not bind ourselves any further with generous buy-backs, etc., that will only deplete our finances for years to come.
Obviously there will have to be give-and-take. No one will give up something without something in return, and no one expects them to. But we residents and taxpayers should not be held hostage to pay out this money in and for years to come, because someone negotiated with no thought to the future financial consequences of their demands and desires.
So you want to blame CFRG AND the DOR? Please read for yourself. Nothing has been "fabricated" and nothing is intended to "incite" or "poison" the town. This language and provisions and this clause b ARE in black-and-white. Go down and read so you can be assured that this language is there, and that no one, including the DOR and CFRG, is conspiring to "fabricate" a "false premise" as you claim has happened. This language and provisions and clause b are not "promises that these things existed in the first place." They are actualities.
I must be mistaken. when layoffs happen they cut the management first leaving the ordinary workers?
that's clause B in a nutshell. It gives the same protection to the 8 employees a union contract would. When there are union layoffs do you think the senior members go first? no they go last. And whether you want to believe it or not-when a person leaves a company they recieve a check for unused vacation and sick time.As for your comment "no expects them too" on this blog alone alot of people expect the town employees to fall on their sword for the health of the town. This wont happen. you will see after everything is done and signed there will be no real savings as the cfrg promised.
To Poor,
a personal contract and a collective bargaining agreement are the same thing. except a personal contract is with one person and a collective bargaining is with more than one."why does the town's financial condition not matter." it wont matter to the person deciding the award in the bad faith negotiations settlement."What the employees gain by making concessions on benefits is continued employment." That attitude in itself dooms any sort of good faith negotiations. the senior members will accept layoffs to maintain their jobs. If you dont believe me look at the teachers union accepting 40 layoffs instead of a pay freeze. You just cant negotiate with the attitude "take this and be happy you still have a job"
Thank you anon 2:50, you've summed up my point better than I could. The only thing I will add is that I have stated several times the limitation on the number of personal contracts in my opinion is a good thing in and of itself but I never believed that there were significant cost savings to be had there contrary to what some on this thread continue to insist. The insistance that a take it or leave it attitude is the proper bargaining platform will only lead to more distrust and division here in town. And so it goes.
What's the problem with clause 'b'? Will a department run itself if the manager gets the ax first? From where I sit, if my boss gets let go first there would be ten guys thinking they were the boss - real productive scenario. Not.
Anon 3:13, no one said managers had to go first. I would certainly hope that, if a manager did go first, your company would have someone from within the company to step into his/her place to carry on in the interim, if that's what it took for your business to survive and begin to recoup any financial losses it was taking or foresaw to be taking in the future. I would hope this would be done with forethought to the consequences of productivity, morale, etc., or it would be a foolish move, as you imply.
Anonymous, 2:50, then someone is a poor negotiator and is selling the taxpayers short. Are you suggesting we go along with whatever everyone (employees, union) wants, even if that is not completely fair or in the taxpayers' best interest as well as the best interest of the employees? Are we supposed to cave in and accept everything the union asks for? Shame if we do. That's poor negotiating in my opinion, at least. Do you think that, in today's economy especially, there wouldn't be others who would gladly step in to fill these jobs, be skilled to do so, and be happy to be working and earning a living? Sounds to me like we are at the mercy of the unions and the employees. Who continues to be the winner here? Certainly, not us. Not that there should be winners and losers, but there should be negotiating with fairness and equality for both the employees and the town, which translates into you and I. Where is there someone who will protect us and speak in our best interest?
The town's financial condition will matter to someone deciding on contracts. If there's no money to pay increases, then how can anyone force the town into deficit spending. They cannot. Personal contracts and collective bargaining contracts are not the same. There are myriad laws covering collective bargaining. None on personal contracts except to limit their duration.
Sounds like we have ruffled the feathers of a disgruntled EX-personal contract holder. The days of town employees being on both sides of the bargaining table are over. Get used to it. Thank God for people like the CFRG.
Show me the money.
Nope anon 7:28, I left municipal employ long before these issues came up. Took a job in the private sector and never looked back. Guess what, the pay is better, the bennies are better and I actually get some respect for the work I do. Don't miss the public sector one bit.
Sorry, I mistook a disgruntled ex-board member for a town employee.
Nope anon 7:00 p.m. never been on a board and not really a dis-gruntled anything.
Post a Comment