New Haven Independent

Two Unions Avoid The Hatchet

by Melissa Bailey | February 19, 2009 4:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

By agreeing to givebacks on pensions and pay raises, two small city unions have secured a guarantee of no layoffs for two years.

“We did what we had to do,” said Jerome Houser (pictured), president of Local 68, after a press conference Thursday afternoon in City Hall.

Houser was one of 14 union presidents scrambling to meet an ultimatum from the mayor by Feb. 16. The mayor ordered them to come up with $10 million in concessions or face 241 layoffs.

Only two unions, Local 68 and Local 71, met the city’s request for givebacks, city officials announced Thursday. The rest will face layoffs unless they come up with an adequate plan before the mayor presents his FY09-10 budget next Thursday, said Emmet Hibson, Jr. (pictured), the city’s director of organizational development.

Houser’s union represents 85 blue-collar workers who pick up trash and clean city streets. The union rank-and-file sat down with the mayor in December to talk about the big picture of why he was asking them for givebacks.

The bargaining unit faced the threat of two layoffs if it didn’t come up with $194,000 in concessions.

The workers avoided those jobs cuts by agreeing to open up their contract and make two changes: cut their scheduled pay raise from 4.25 percent to 2 percent, and increase their pension contribution by 1 percent.

Jack Menser, president of Local 71, faced a similar threat. He and his workers were at that December meeting with the mayor too, too. He said the decision to make givebacks was difficult, but the choice came down to saving eight jobs.

“Not one of them was mine,” he noted. His union represents 68 blue-collar workers, most in the parks department. Workers agreed to pay 2 percent more into their pension plans, and take a 2.25 percent instead of a 4.25 percent raise, he said — a savings of $130,000.

Meanwhile, the city rejected savings plans from its two major unions, teachers and management.

On the morning of the press conference, the teachers’ union was still making offers to try to reach a requested $4 million in concessions, said the union president, Dave Cicarella.

He said the original proposal, which he made last Friday, included one furlough day, an increase in health care contributions, and a spreading out of the sick day payout for retirees. The plan also relied heavily on attrition. Combined with these offers, Cicarella asked for a four-year extension of the union contract, which is set to expire in 2010.

When the city rejected that offer, he presented a plan Thursday morning that asked for only a two-year contract extension, with zero-percent pay raises over two years.

“We were incredibly reasonable,” said Cicarella. He said he was “miffed” that the city rejected that plan, too. “You [the city] asked for this, and I tried to meet what they wanted,” he said.

The plan was rejected because it included a contract extension and because the assumption of attrition could not be relied upon for negotiating purposes, said city spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga.

She said the city also said “no” to a proposal from Local 3144, the management union. The plan offered three things, said union president Larry Amendola: a decrease in a pay raise from 3 percent to 2 percent; an increase in workers’ pension contribution from 6 to 8 percent, and an additional 2 percent increase in medical contributions. The plan totaled $700,000, he said. He said city labor director looked at the plan and asked for an additional three days’ furlough - a suggestion Amendola did not welcome.

“How much more can you expect?” asked Amendola (at right in photo) Thursday.

Mayorga said the union’s proposal fell about $300,000 shy of what the city had requested.

“There’s still quite a gap there,” Mayorga said. “We would be falling short of a number where we would be comfortable offering a no-layoff clause.”

City officials said they are “leaving the door open” for further negotiations up until Feb. 26, but are moving forward under the assumption that no more concessions will come through.

Mayor John DeStefano plans to unveil his budget and announce any layoffs late Thursday afternoon. Layoffs would take place Feb. 27 for city-side employees, and at the end of the school year for Board of Education workers.

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: anon | February 19, 2009 4:28 PM

if you set a deadline - last tuesday for those that don't remember... - stick to it.

Posted by: anon | February 19, 2009 5:31 PM

I agree. Deadlines are important if you want people to trust government.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 19, 2009 9:26 PM

The two unions that agreed to givebacks are weak.
You never give back,Even if it means that members are going to be laid off.The unions today need to get the playbook of a union leader by the name of Mike Quill founder of the transport workers union of america. He said no give backs and we will not settle for one penny less than our objectives!!! When told he would go to jail by a judge if he called a strike he said the judge can drop dead in his black robe and I don't care if I rot in jail. This is the type of union leader ship we need. Rember union leaders this is a war and in war you must stand fast and never surrender what you have won in victory!!!

Posted by: Whatsup | February 19, 2009 11:09 PM

Did the president of 3144 even think of his membership when he said no to the 3 day furlough? Doesn't sound like he brought that request back for us flock to vote on it. Bad decision and not good leadership.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | February 20, 2009 8:12 AM

Threefifths:

I hope your response was intended to be ironic. The City's financial situation is a house of cards. We borrow money to pay for routine and predictable expenses such as police body armor and road work. We sell assets for one time revenues to plug budget gaps. We simply spend more money than we can afford. Most of the money - 65% - of the General Fund is for employment related costs and 50% or more of the City Debt and IOUs are for employment related costs. The scary thing is that we promised the city workers a lot but have not adequately funded those obligations. We have not put enough into your pension funds, into the health care we promised you after you retire, to pay you for all those sick days you never took. The money is not there like we promised. We shuffle the deck each year to essentially pay the minimum credit card payment and hope we can continue to rob Peter to pay Paul every year to keep it all going.

This is not the employee's fault, but it is their problem to deal with. If they refuse to alter terms, then the City has no other choices. I am surprised they are offering two year no layoff provisions at all. The only way to seriously reduce the City's Debt and Obligations is to reduce staff. This is not a philosophical argument, but one based on math. I would prefer to continue paying a much smaller number of staff well, with good benefits. Good jobs that are sustainable to the City. Not full time assistant principals with full time jobs elsewhere. Not a mayor's team at a cost of $1 Million. Not Alders who get BOE jobs days after being elected. Not Capital Funds paying for people's jobs for years and years and years - clearly beyond the scope of a capital project.

Posted by: Mad as Hell | February 20, 2009 8:36 AM

J kerkes

You have it wrong. The voters will have to pay the bill. They were stupid enough to vote for DeStefano year on year. City Hall is full of DeStefano cronies doing nothing. If you think they will get pink slips you are crazy. After the layoffs they will still be there doing nothing. Youll be paying more for less.

Posted by: NHPS Teacher | February 20, 2009 11:56 AM

It really burns me that the Mayor wouldn't accept a two year pay freeze for teachers. This deal also included a furlough day and 1% increase in our medical contributions. The steps in our contract are already meaningless, due to past union concessions of pay and step freezes.

I can't wait until the Mayor asks for our endorsement of his re-election bid. That will be a real hoot.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 20, 2009 1:18 PM

JeffreyKerekes
My response is not to be ironic,I am talking about how weak the unions are.Think about it if King John can ask for give backs,What makes you think he will not come back and say that we will now have layoff? You never give back what you have
won at the table.Also to NHPS Teacher is this true
that Teachers in this state donot get social security and if so what idiot did that.

Posted by: anon | February 20, 2009 5:16 PM

threefifths: the current contracts, as you say, that were won at the table are not sustainable, prevent efficiencies, and are unrealistic with respect to the needs of citizens. baby steps are not good enough anymore. public employees should take a job in the private sector and realize what the comparison should be. the unions should be volunteering to do "their part": shifting their health plans to one lowest cost option, defined contribution pension plans for all new hires, etc. Things that exist in private industry need to be brought to the public sector.

on a big-picture, a single-payer national healthcare system (that leaves room for pay-incentives for doctors and innovation) could rather help the city control costs.

Posted by: Jeffrey Please | February 20, 2009 5:45 PM

Jeffrey:

For all the time you spend on reviewing the budget you continue to astound with your ability make numbers up, add things wrong, compound finances for the effect of creating artificial drama.

On the one hand you want to cut the budget, on the other hand you want to transfer Capital expenditures to the General Fund Budget thus adding to the budget. On the one hand you want to reduce the cost of payroll yet on the other hand you want to fully fund retiree and pension benefits beyond the 100% of the actuarial recommendation that the City already funds.

I guess NHCAN knows more about budgeting than a professional actuary.

If you fully funded future pension liability and potential medical liability why not fully fund future Capital projects like bridges, roads, potholes, roofs, boilers, etc.

I am sure you fully fund your mortgage, your car loan, your potential future capital projects at your home and you do not pay in a little each week to your 401(k) but fully fund your future payments weekly as well.

You sir, do not have a clue. The more you research the budget the more you actually make me feel better about Johnny D. Believe me that aint easy.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 20, 2009 6:14 PM

Anon
It call bargaining in good faith,Again my point is you do not change a contract if it is vote on by rank and file.

Posted by: Tom Burns | February 20, 2009 6:31 PM

You are all right --- Tom

Posted by: uhavenoidea | February 20, 2009 7:59 PM

I dont understand how the city can ask the unions for givebacks when they are still paying afb management to over look the maintenance dept. when they already have supervisors!!

Posted by: Dumbo | February 20, 2009 8:26 PM

Johnny Boy has given himself a 11% pay hike and gets these poor working stiffs to give back about 4%. Wake up. Theirs an election in November. After hes back it will be sorry we cant afford it.
Here yo are have a pink slip.

Posted by: NHPS Teacher | February 21, 2009 3:24 PM

Three-fifths: It is true that teachers in Connecticut do not pay into Social Security. This is a result of a deal made in the 1950's with the Teacher's Retirement Board. In exchange, we have our pension program.

Anon: You suggest that we take defined contribution retirement instead of our pension. We are unable to negotiate this, due to the deal made in the 50's with the state of Connecticut regarding social security. We offered to increase our contributions for medical, freeze our pay, and take a furlough day.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 21, 2009 9:58 PM

NHPSTEACHER
Dame what would stop them from enroning your pension? This is why the person who told me this works for the New York City School system.

Posted by: Fed Up | February 24, 2009 9:33 AM

During these critical times laying off legitimate workers is not fair, or even asking them for givebacks. What about all the special positions given to special people.

Posted by: iamjh | March 2, 2009 5:04 AM

Uh -- Local 68 and Local 71 of what? These unions have names. For people interested in the story, that's important information.

Two Unions Avoid The Hatchet

Comments

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed