Northampton County Council reversed itself last night on a payraise for the county's probation officers. All nonunion workers received a two percent payhike at the beginning of the year, but probation officers were in limbo because they were in the middle of decertifying their union. That happened in late January, and it took county administrators until late July to come up with a payscale, identical to the old payscale, along with the two per cent increase. Probation officers wanted it made retroactive to the beginning of the year, like the rest of the county's nonunion workforce. Though Council voted for the increase, they refused to make it retroactive.
This error was rectified last night. Matt Dietz, who had been absent the night of the increase, revisited the issue and proposed making it retroactive.
Voting to do so were Dietz, Peg Ferraro, Ron Heckman, John Cusick and Bob Werner.
Council members Kevin Lott and Bill McGee, both of whom are union agents, voted No. Their vote was clearly retaliation for leaving the union. Joining them were Tara Zrinski and Lori Vargo Heffner.
While punishing workers who have left the union, these union agents have turned a deaf ear to complaints made by union workers at the jail, Gracedale and 911. It appears the only union workers they like ate their own - trade unions.
33 comments:
Why was this allowed to be voted on again. Lawyers should look into this. This may be a breech of proper procedure as established by law. Can this even be legal?
What is the deal. So if you are not in a union the county council could care less about you. Yet out here at Gracedale we in the union are ignored by the same people. Who exactly do they represent.
Are all the elected officials union bosses and corporate bosses. How about some regular people who treat everyone fairly.
There's no statute of limitations or double jeopardy in council voting. They can reconsider whatever they like. You don't like that your side lost the vote when all elected members representing all county voters were finally present. Democracy is a bummer sometimes. They did the right thing and the vindictive were spotlighted for being the nasty paid-for fucks that they are. Chalk one up for the good guys. Let the bad guys blow me.
12:58, Completely legal. Try reading the HRC from time to time.
"What is the deal. So if you are not in a union the county council could care less about you."
Actually, as I pointed out in the body of my story, the union agents on Council have zero regard for the plight of workers, be they union or nonunion. They have demonstrated that time and again with union workers from Gracedale, the jail and 911.
I had to laugh to myself when Lott and McGee had their hissy fit about the nickels and dimes this would cost. McGee thought nothing of a responsible contractor ordinance that is going to make county contracts far more expensive. They are there to take care of trade unions at the expense of county taxpayers and have no regard for the county worker. I am extremely disappointed in them both I was already disappointed in Zrinski and Heffner.
County elected officials are there to represent all the employees not just union employees. They should treat everyone fair. It is unfortunate that the new members pick and chose who gets treated fair and who gets punished. Glad there are a few fair officials left.
County Council did the right thing. The parole officers decertified a union that they shouldn't have been members of in the first place. They are "at will" employees of the courts.
This isn't the first time a union has been decertified in County Government, but, it was the first time individuals who voted to decertify the union were singled out for punishment. To those who voted for the career service pay increment, Congratulations for standing up and doing the right thing. To the foul balls who voted against doing he right thing, Many of us will remember you on election day.
Tara Zrinski is a leader on matters that are urgent like climate and environmental stewardship, the plight of some union trough sloppers is a tertiary issue.
Blue BADGER
Bernie 8:08,
I read the HRC and nothing in it references this action.
The County Council should have followed Robert's Rules of Order.
Roberts Rules of Order, the standard used for conducting meetings, provides for this exact situation and prevents a reversal by those in the minority of a decision. The reversal occurring, because at the next meeting they have additional attendance of members favoring them and call for a new vote of the same motion.
A motion passed can not be amended, vacated, or revisited unless the motion made to do so is made and seconded by members who originally voted in the majority.
Why? To prevent exactly what happened: A council decision being reversed by those who were originally on the losing side of a vote.
Please note that my reference to Robert's is not an opinion of retroactive raise being right or wrong. Just an observation of how County Council didn't follow correct procedure.
You don't know what you are talking about, as usual. Watch the video. Chris Spadoni cited the specific provisions providing in the Charter that any council member at any time can move to amend a resolution. That is our County Constitution, and it trumps Roberts's Rules, which were never adopted by Council anyway.
This is permissible under Robert's Rules as well. Dietz was not a part of the minority favoring a retroactive hike bc he was not there. He was the equivalent of a NO vote bc the County Constitution requires five votes of the total Council to do anything. Under Robert's rules, Dietz had every right to ask for a re-vote at the very next meeting.
You are grasping at straws and are advocating that you ignore the advice of your ownlawyer in an attempt to punish probation officers for leaving the union.
You folks are pitiful. Let it go already.
I must be reading an old version of HRC. I see where any member can introduce a resolution. This situation is revisiting one passed at the previous meeting. I never said Dietz was part of the minority. He wasn't part of the majority, is the point.
In this instance, following proper procedure would have the same result.
However, it would be interesting to see a day when a vote is 4-3 and the next meeting with all members in attendance the losing side calls for another vote and wins 5-4 on something you don't want passed.
Did McClure have any comments? Ultimately it was his recommendation not to give back pay during the debate via his silence at the last meeting.
12:27, Your 4-3 analogy just proves you have no understanding of our HRC. Under our Constitution, you need 5 votes to do anything. Thus a 4-3 vote is a failure. And that is precisely my point. Because Dietz was absent, he was a no vote.
Also, you just refuse to read the Charter. A council member can intro a resolution at any time for any reason. Lord knows Zrinski does it enough.
Go back and read the charter and watch the video before making a fool out of yourself again.
While you’re at it, tell McGee that a second person plural is “you,” not “yous.” This is evidence of poor reading skills, a trait you apparently share with him.
While you’re at it, tell McGee that a second person plural is “you,” not “yous.” This is evidence of poor reading skills, a trait you apparently share with him.
Points to you Bernie regarding my analogy of 4-3. Your reference to McGee and the relationship of "you" and "yous" to poor reading skills escapes me.
Perhaps you meant writing skills, or the inability to have a civil discussion when someone is in disagreement with your opinion.
Wow Bernie, watched the video after reading, I heard it was a wild meeting. That Lott guy sounds really angry. He and McGee are shouters. It did not seem like that big a problem. What is all the anger about? Do you think that the meeting was held right and that the solicitor should have got involvers. They sure sounded like they thought he was all wrong. I felt for the council Prez as he tried to explain what was going on.
McClure can veto
"Wow Bernie, watched the video after reading, I heard it was a wild meeting. That Lott guy sounds really angry. He and McGee are shouters. It did not seem like that big a problem. What is all the anger about?"
It was all about retaliating against a group of workers for going nonunion. Lott and McGee will deny this animus but their behavior demonstrates otherwise. They are hypocrites, too. They are yelling about nickels and dimes but their responsible contractor ordinance (which I support) is quite costly. I liked Lott and McGee but have some real second thoughts now. McGee is proving to be a dud with zero personality. McGee appears to be down-to-earth, but was all for screwing county workers.
"McClure can veto"
No, he can't. This is a resolution, not an ordinance. But he can choose to disregard a resolution. He does this at his peril. Right now ne can claim he was just letting council make the call. If he makes this mistake and ignores the resolution, he can then be portrayed as an Exec who retaliates against employees for deciding to leave the union. McClure is smarter than that. I also think he feels it is not really a big deal.
Council was borderline irrational. So were probation officers. Had they stayed in the union, they would have had a step. They should have waited to decertify. They mistakenly believed they would go right back to a much higher pay scale under career service. That did not happen. They But fundamental fairness dictates they receive the same raise awarded to other career service workers.
Council members who tried to screw these nonunion workers will pay a price.
McClure will likely ignore the resolution. He accepted a lot of union money and will do as he's instructed. This is a very important issue for union membership, and Lamont knows it.
You are obviously anti-union and are in no position to know what is or is not important to union membership. This is a minor issue that has been blown out of proportion by two union agents and two goofs looking for handouts. To actual union people, they have no problem with it.
If McClure does ignore the resolution, this is precisely the kind of issue that will be very good in a negative mailer attacking him. Unlike Lott and McGee, he is smart and knows this is a battle that should not be fought.
The important things are matters like the responsible contractor ordinance, which I support. Retaliation against nonunion workers is petty and mean-spirited, and will look that way in a campaign ad.
Electorally, public unions have nowhere to go and aren't going anywhere but D. Their votes are locked in, despite their endless whining. Trades union votes are somewhat at risk for Ds, as shown in 2016. They paid for candidates and they expect a proper return on those investments. Lots of people lump the two flavors of unions together. D party leaders know there's a huge difference.
Sad that unions formed to help workers and Democrats use fairness to employees as their tag line. In this case both the union bosses and the Democrats said screw you to workers. This was a really pathetic display of leadership. A special shame on Zirinski and Hefner for blindly doing what they are told and not thinking for themselves. Zirinski is a fraud and Hefner is just an angry insecure person.
"Electorally, public unions have nowhere to go and aren't going anywhere but D. Their votes are locked in, despite their endless whining"
Just as trade union votes are no sure thing, you can only push public sector employees so far before they began looking at Republicans. Also, 25% of the workforce is nonunion. Sticking it to them is a way to guarantee they vote R.
I thought Kevin Lott was very disrespectful to council solicitor. He acted liker he knew more about the law than the lawyer.
Spadoni's lonely job is to tell them the law, not what they want to hear.
kar·ma the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences.
INFORMAL
Karma -destiny or fate, following as effect from cause.
Yo BO I hear that Heckman will be away for the next council meeting and Hefner is in charge. She may bring this issue up again and have the votes to change it back.
Heckman will be away and Heffner will be in charge. Peg might be absent, too. Remember the rule of five, right in the HRC. She would need five votes she does not have. She only has four. Also, by that time, the probation officers will already have started receiving the retroactive pay.
She will do what the union tells her to do.
Spadoni is nothing more than a political hack, only reason he get these county jobs are friends has nothing to do with his knowledge of the law, which he knows very little about.....
He knows more about the law than the Council members sitting there. I was proud of him as he sat there on Thursday and made specific reference to the HRC and how this is permitted,and without regard to whether this might cost him his job. He acted with integrity, something someone who attacks others anonymously knows little about.
Annon 6:56 are you special needs or just a jackass? Atty Spadoni has worked in city and county government law longer than you, I am sure. Certainly longer than the goofs on council who questioned his credentials. Their time put together is less that the half life of A fruit fly. They know nothing as thy have been there for how long? Atty Spadoni did the research and gave them the factual information. The council President took the information and ran the meeting by the rules not some butt hurt crybabies bullies' feelings. I was told people are really pissed at him. That is because he did the right thing and followed rules. Now I am sure these brain surgeons will want to write their own rules as well as their own county laws.
Neither AStty Spadoni or the council President buckled under pressure from bullies and they did the right thing as leaders.
Post a Comment