Northampton County Council refuses to budge on a collective bargaining agreement with the court-appointed professional unit. Last night, by a 5-4 vote, they again refused to approve the agreement, even though it is the product of an arbitration. Council members John Cusick, Tom Dietrich, Bruce Gilbert, Barb Thierry and Ron Angle all voted against a three-year contract that would give probation officers and Domestic Relations accountants pay increases, but would also require a higher employee contribution to medical care. Wage hikes of 5% this year, followed by 2.5% raises in 2011 and 2012, trouble Council members, especially since there are also salary bumps of $1,000 and $500 over the next two years.
Asked for the second or third time for a legal opinion, Council Solicitor Phil Lauer gave a confusing and long-winded explanation about legislative enactments and severability.
Peg Ferraro was more than willing to approve the contract because "we've always done it." She also warned that a refusal could end up costing the County more, especially if an unfair labor practice is filed.
Angle, unmoved by whatever it was that Lauer said, had this simple answer. "I don't give a damn what the arbitrator says. I don't give a damn what the courts say. I care what the people in Region 4 say. I'm voting No."
Council then considered approving the contract for 2010 and 2011, but not 2012. That resolution was tabled when it became clear that more information is needed.
Although it's clear that Council is unhappy with the terms of an arbitrated award, it is equally clear they are on thin legal ice.
So Angle in his own eloquent way is doing exactly what you scream at the Gracedale supporters for doing. I guess we will be reading about the Angle the Axe-murderer, right Bernie!
ReplyDeleteI don't think so bc Lauer was far too equivocal in his opinion.
ReplyDeleteI just love how Council approves pay increases for non-union and the recent prison contract, but votes no to the contract from a group that actually gets alot of the expenses reimbursed through State funding.
ReplyDeleteI sure hope Angle let's the taxpayers know how much they will be spending in legal fees fighting this. And ultimately losing since what I read into the long-winded explanantion from the attorney was that they don't have much of a chance at overturning it.
Primary election is less than 2 weeks away, think that had anything to do with it?
I think Lauer should have been much more clear. Instead of going into all the possibilities, he should have just told them that this is a case they lose.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the basis for the reconsideration? Did someone on the prevailing side move to reconsider the vote?
ReplyDeleteIt was tabled last time They took it off the table for some reason.
ReplyDelete"I don't give a damn what the arbitrator says. I don't give a damn what the courts say."
ReplyDeleteAnd there is the problem.
When was the actual arbitration hearing and ruling between the County and AFSCME that favor the union wage increases (especially considering 2009 CPI of 3% and 2010 of 2.2%)? Your Express link is dated April, but I assume the hearing/ruling may have been some time before that.
ReplyDeleteMany local public sector unions have found themselves in the reality of the times. Some have fought it and others have worked with their employers to find amicable solutions to the budget realities.
The reason I ask when the arbitration was is that I know that traditionally in PA police arbitration awards tended to favor the unions. I know we are talking different unions, but both are public sector and involve arbitration. Now that there has been a public shift of opinion in the face of budget realities, including in our own PA government(s), I wonder if arbitrations will become less favorable toward the unions. Palmer Township police lost an arbitration in February(last reported to be appealing), and Bethlehem Township and its police union went into arbitration and over three months later there is yet to be a ruling from the arbitrators which make me wonder how they will be ruling.
5%, 2.5%, 2.5% seems unrealistic for the times.
Maybe these police unions need a good solid dose of camden, NJ negotiations.
ReplyDeleteno agreement reached, arbitration, 50% police/fire layoff
Unions get the breaks in arbitration awards...always. The laws of today certainly do not favor the employer and wont for the immediate future. Legislators are banked by unions so in essence the decions rendered are paid for by the unions who back the legislators who make the laws
ReplyDelete...go figure
Lighthouse, I don't have the exact date, but it was definitely prior to April, and definitely favored the unions.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the County keep approving contracts and then reneging on them? They should just say "NO" in the first place. Also Union and Union Workers can't expect to receive these kinds of increases in pay...and Neither should the non-union workers!!!!! We all need to understand that we all have to do our part in times of trouble! The County can't give certain groups high percentage raises and then turn around and say no to another group...Implement a wage freeze across the board and be done with it...that is the fair and undiscrimitory way to handle it. We need to understand that no one can be spending money they don't have..I am a Union Worker...and I get it! And the County should be more open with the Gracedale Worker who actually offered Give Backs....we really are a group of workers who do get it..we may not be happy with it but we understand it.
ReplyDeleteI'm also a County union worker and would not have a problem with a pay freeze if EVERY County employee had a pay freeze. With this latest contract the 2010 increase will NOT go into effect until the date of your anniversary. If your anniversary date is in September, you just had a pay freeze for 9 months. I don't think ANY other County employee can say that, and it's also something NO County Council member mentioned.
ReplyDeleteAs far as comparing the pay increases to industry, please take a look at the last 10 years and do a comparison. No complaints from County employees in past years when industry was getting significant increases and bonuses and we were getting 2.5% increases.
Not to mention that the initial contract DID NOT favor the union. That was the contract that actually caused the non-union employees to be paid more that the union employee in the same paygrade.
Also, with the $$$ that is made from the professional unit and the amount of reimbursements received it is not all that much money coming from County Contribution. Again, this is something that was never discussed at the COuncil meetings.
Yet Angle said the similar Corrections Officer contract was one of the best he ever voted for.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a persistent problem with this Adminstration, they have a very poor management team and frankly don't know how to close a deal.
This is the Administration that gave Human Service caseworkers 7 to 8% pay increases and county council approved.
This is a very inconsistent and confused group trying to run the County. So far the only "real" thing they have accomplished is renaming the courthouse floors. Oh and blaming everything on other people. Leadership personified.
tommy
The lay off tool ought to now be used. The law requires council to vote and approve the contract, otherwise, each of them who vote no could face personal charges. Let them have their nice package of benefits and salaries decided by the arbitrator but then layoff enough of them to hold the line. I bet before the layoffs are initiated, they will want to open up that brand new contract and renegotiate.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, nothing is said when the prison contract is negotiated and the non-union workers get raises.
ReplyDeleteAnyone see the great paint job on the old courthouse? Probably not, you would have to be flying down Walnut street atrns arou the back of the building to see it. What's the cost on that?
When the economy turns around and industry is back to giving bonuses and high salary increases will you be on this blog demanding the County employees receive more than the 2.5% increase? Probably not.
The problem here is that the general public and some of County council doesn't truly know how much the latest contract will truly cost.
Anon 9:42
ReplyDeleteI'd venture to say that none of the County council members know the true cost of the contract. Which is why they shouldn't be voting in the first place if they can't make an informed decision. This is political posturing, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, it's being done at the expense of the workers, most of whom are taxpayers in Northampton County.
It's become obvious that being informed is the least of their concern. Consider that they voted on a resolution without even having it by the Monday before the County Council meeting (as is required by everyone except Angle). Dietrich (spelling error) even mentioned that he only had 30 seconds to look at it!!! But it was from Angle, so they voted on it anyway.
ReplyDeleteI blame the President for the vote without proper review on the bridge resolution. I blame the entire Council for not fully understanding the costs of the contract and voting anyway.
I was a 5-4 vote. Some members of Council, including Dowd, shared your concern. I agree with you, by the way. Absent exigent circumstances, this could have waited two weeks. Interestingly, the two Dems voted with Angle.
ReplyDeleteThe two Dems voting with was shocking. I almost thought I heard it wrong!
ReplyDeleteUnlike Angle the Dem's on Council vote on the issues not personalities. Angle is all about grudges and attacks, not issues.
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that Dems were doing the politically popular thing.
ReplyDelete"And again, nothing is said when the prison contract is negotiated and the non-union workers get raises."
ReplyDeleteMaybe those negotiating the prison contract saw the writing on the wall and made concessions. A little foresight goes a long way.