Snow-day pay: The issue isn’t melting away

As published in the Record Journal on Sunday April 7, 2013

By Jesse Buchanan
Record-Journal staff
jbuchanan@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2230
Twitter: @JBuchananRJ

WALLINGFORD - Although it’s rare for Town Hall to close due to bad weather, the question of paying workers under those circumstances has become a contentious issue between Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. and town employee union leaders.

Dickinson said the town is under no obligation to pay workers for Feb. 11, the day Town Hall was closed due to a blizzard. To get paid, employees must use a vacation day, Dickinson said in a Feb. 14 memo.

Dickinson said he can remember closing Town Hall one other time, but couldn’t recall the year. He has been mayor for almost 30 years.

Despite the infrequency, Dickinson said he’s trying to establish a policy.

“These things do arise,” he said. “You can’t look at it as a one-time expense. It becomes a potential ongoing issue.

Town Personnel Director Terence Sullivan said he can only remember a handful of times that Town Hall has closed due to weather in the last two decades.

“It’s so infrequent you can probably count on one hand,” he said. “It’s a very infrequent occurrence.”

Based on adding the salary and overtime costs of Town Hall departments in the 2011-12 fiscal year budget, Wallingford pays more than $22,000 per day in employee compensation. The yearly salary costs were divided by the 248 workdays to estimate daily employee pay.

The salary figure didn’t include police, fire, public works and utilities, since those departments operate in all weather.

Departments at both Town Hall and 6 Fairfield Boulevard were included in the daily salary estimate.

Dickinson didn’t have an estimate of how much a day’s pay would cost Town Hall.

Jason Zandri, a Town Council Democrat running for mayor, said it’s unfair to expect town employees to use a vacation day when Dickinson closes Town Hall. Paying employees who stay home in a storm isn’t a common occurrence, Zandri said Refusing to pay employees for a snow day was “completely in character” for Dickinson, according to Zandri. He said the mayor is looking to save money by not paying employees, but risking thousands of dollars in a legal battle that the town will likely lose.

“You get to 20 hours of legal fees and you’re already halfway there,” Zandri said.

Town leaders shouldn’t be intimidated by unions threatening arbitration, according to Republican Councilor Craig Fishbein.

“Merely to run away and cower in the corner because of the arbitration process is, in my opinion, not the appropriate way to deal with these issues,” Fishbein said.

Fear of losing arbitration and incurring legal fees is often used as a reason by the council to avoid conflict with the unions, he said.

Chuck Ballard, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Co. 4, Local 1183, said the union has filed for an arbitration hearing date with the state labor board. He declined to comment on the issue and its effects on employees.

“This is definitely an ongoing process,” he said.

No date has been set for arbitration. “Typically these take awhile,” Ballard said. “If it takes less than a year, I’d be surprised.”

Opinions vary on wisdom of using arbitration in Wallingford Unions’ dispute

As published in the Record Journal on Thursday March 28, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said Wednesday that he’d rather resort to arbitration than deal with the ongoing cost of paying town employees every time Town Hall closes due to inclement weather.

Town Hall was closed on Feb. 14 as the cleanup effort began after the blizzard, and two days later Dickinson filed a memo stating that town employees who didn’t report to work that day must take a vacation day in order to be paid. Nonessential town employees had been told not to report to work that day, and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy closed the state.

Personnel Director Terrence Sullivan said in early March that six of the town’s seven employee unions filed a grievance in opposition to Dickinson’s ruling. The police union did not file a grievance. Sullivan, who could not be reached Wednesday, said earlier this month that he had heard the arguments of several unions, but could not reach any compromise. He said he expected several unions to resort to arbitration,which Dickinson referred to Wednesday as “a one-time cost.”

“If every time Town Hall closes there’s a cost associated with that, that’s an ongoing cost,” Dickinson said.

Earlier this month, Sullivan said he still had to hear from two unions.

On Wednesday, Dickinson said, “I think it’s still in the grievance process,” so there’s no indication that any town employee union will decide to go to arbitration. Shelby Jackson, president of United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-14, which represents municipal managers, and Chuck Ballard, president of Local 1183 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union representing public works, clerical and sewer workers, could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

Sullivan explained in February that there are two options when settling a dispute through arbitration. Either the Connecticut State Board of Mediation & Arbitration or the American Arbitration Association can settle the grievance as a neutral party. Sullivan said settling a dispute through the state board is cheaper, but can take more time.

“The state board is flooded with grievances“ from both municipalities and private companies, he said. “It can take a year to a year and a half to get an initial hearing.”

There is a $25 filing fee when dealing with the state board, while the association charges between $250 and $300 to file a complaint, Sullivan said. Going through the association is much faster, he said, with an initial hearing usually held within 90 days, and a conclusion reached 30 days after the final hearing. But there could be arbitration fees of$1,500 per hearing when working with the association.

Town Councilor Craig Fishbein said there are two schools of thought when settling union complaints. The town can either “run and hide in the corner and agree” to what the union gives as their last offer, or “fight on behalf of the taxpayers,” a method Fishbein would agree with “more often than not.”

Fishbein said he’s been hearing in council chambers that “we’re just going to lose in arbitration,” but the councilor feels if the town doesn’t fight unions through arbitration, there’s no chance of winning.

Town Councilor John LeTourneau said fighting town employee unions through arbitration is a “huge mistake.”

LeTourneau said the cost of arbitration and personnel hours dealing with the grievance and arbitration process is wasteful and will end up costing the town more money than if Dickinson decided to change his mind and pay employees for the day Town Hall was closed.

“This is going to open up such a large can of worms that it will be years until it gets unwound,” LeTourneau said. “We’re paying (employees) to take time to file grievances. They’re on the clock.”

LeTourneau also said the town doesn’t do well in arbitration battles with town unions.

“It sounds good on the surface ... take a stand, don’t pay your employees,” he said. “But if you get into the weeds of this thing, it’s going to cost the town a lot of money. There’s a reason why unions are strong in this town, and this is an example.”

Wallingford - Unions protest vacation-day edict

As published in the Record Journal on Saturday February 23, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – Two unions have filed grievances protesting the mayor’s decision requiring town employees to use a vacation day to cover time not worked when Town Hall was closed earlier this month due to the blizzard.

Personnel Director Terence Sullivan said Friday that United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-14, representing municipal managers, and United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-16, representing the Water Department employees, had filed a grievance protesting Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s Feb. 14 memo.

Sullivan also said he expects Local 1183 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union representing public works, clerical and sewer workers, to file a grievance soon. Earlier this week, the union’s president, Chuck Ballard, said one would be filed by week’s end.

“I’m hopeful we find some resolution,” Sullivan said.

Because multiple unions are filing grievances, Sullivan said the first two steps of the resolution process will be skipped. Normally, an aggrieved employee first brings his or her complaint to a direct supervisor. If the supervisor cannot resolve the issue, it’s brought to the department head. If the complaint is still unresolved, Sullivan holds an informal hearing.

In this case, though, the process will skip directly to the informal hearing with Sullivan because it’s not a single employee bringing forward a complaint.

Separate hearings will be held within “the next two weeks,” Sullivan said, calling the meetings “a fair process.”

Sullivan said that Dickinson is unlikely to be involved in the hearings. Also, no matter what the decision, no disciplinary action will be taken.

“This is just an administrative matter,” Sullivan said.

If the issue can’t be resolved through Sullivan, there is the possibility it will go to arbitration through either the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration or the American Arbitration Association. That is a last resort, though.

“Very few grievances actually go all the way,” Sullivan said.

Shelby Jackson, president of the managers union, was out of the office and unavailable for comment on Friday. Joseph Mrozowski, president of the water workers union, referred comment to Wayne Gilbert, regional director of the United Public Service Employees Union, but Gilbert was out of his office on Friday.

Ballard was also unavailable for comment, but made his position clear in a letter to the editor published in the Record-Journal Friday.

After referring to Dickinson’s memo, Ballard wrote: “However, the binding agreement states that the town is not allowed to close town government offices and demand vacation time to be used. Furthermore, town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees— so why is this situation any different?”

Ballard goes on to say that, with multiple grievances filed,work hours will be wasted and the expense to the town will grow.

“The end result is a huge bill for taxpayers,” he said.

Town Councilor Craig Fishbein, a Republican, agreed with Dickinson’s stance, stating, “I don’t think it’s appropriate to pay people arbitrarily.”

While the cost of arbitration and time put into finding a resolution are “always a concern,” Fishbein said, he thinks it’s inappropriate for the unions to use them as leverage. He called the blizzard “a once-in-a lifetime storm,” and doesn’t think this issue will come up again anytime soon.

Town Councilor John Letourneau, a Republican, said he disagreed with Dickinson, and that the issue could “cost the town thousands in litigation.”

“Is it worth it at the end of the day for a philosophical stance?” LeTourneau said. “That’s where I differ from the mayor.”

Editor Letter from the Record Journal - Miscalculated memo

As published in the Record Journal on Friday February 22, 2013

Wallingford municipal employees who could not attend a day of work because of Blizzard Nemo should not be forced into counting it as a vacation day.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. has requested this use of time-off from workers who stayed home when town hall was closed Feb. 11 due to snowfall. Fiscal conservatism of Dickinson has long helped Wallingford remain in solid financial shape, even during stormy economic times. Thus, in asking that staff count a day lost to Nemo as vacation, he’s at least acting with the best monetary interests of taxpayers in mind. “I have a hard time feeling the town should be paying people when they didn’t work,” Dickinson logically argued in a Feb. 14 memo (R-J, 2-16).

Problem is that this comes after the fact. Certain civic employees were told to attend work on Feb. 11 for assistance with cleanup efforts. Maybe additional individuals would have come in had they known beforehand that the alternative was a lost vacation day.

Employees in private sectors, or even other municipalities, justifiably might be unhappy if their boss requested similar sacrifice days after the storm. It’s therefore reasonable, as outlined by Local 1183 President Chuck Ballard (see his letter below), that at least one union representing Wallingford workers expects to file a grievance. “Town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees — so why is this situation any different?” Ballard persuasively writes. Especially since Dickinson’s decision is opposite some public policy in Connecticut.

In Meriden, Southington and Cheshire, municipal employees are not required to use vacation hours in order to receive wages for days when work is canceled. State staff also gets paid even if officials close Connecticut offices in extreme situations like Nemo, as was the case on Feb. 11. Comparatively, Dickinson’s request is unorthodox.

But more importantly, it seems retroactive, and based on unclear legal language. In his memo about the matter, Dickinson stated that he did “believe” that collective bargaining contracts do not require payment of wages unless an employee reports for work. Wallingford unions probably would have responded differently to this if a definite answer existed — and was widely known before Nemo — about whether it’s contractually permissible or not.

Some readers understandably may agree here with the mayor, who has made another tough decision in his decades-long tradition of holding the line on expenses. Wallingford retains sound monetary status partly because of Dickinson’s willingness to govern conservatively and, at times, unconventionally. But taking away vacation without employees knowing prior that those hours were at risk is unjust.

If Dickinson plans to continue requiring vacation time for workdays canceled amidst severe weather conditions, he must negotiate such language unambiguously into future union contracts — ensuring fair, even-handed treatment for both employees and community.

Letter to the Editor of the Record Journal - Mayor and memo

As published in the Record Journal on Friday February 22, 2013

Editor: What good is an agreement if it’s violated? More importantly, what is the ramification if either party does not adhere to the agreement issued by the State Labor Board? It all comes down to this: taxpayer dollars! The fact is that Wallingford Mayor Bill Dickinson closed town government offices on Monday, February 11, 2013. Mayor Dickinson then issued a memo declaring that all employees must use vacation time or lose pay for that Monday.

However, the binding agreement states that the town is not allowed to close town government offices and demand vacation time to be used. Furthermore, town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees — so why is this situation any different?

There will certainly be grievances filed by affected unions, which will result in a multitude of work hours being spent on the case. In addition, add the expense of the town’s labor attorney, which can be even more costly. The end result is a huge bill for taxpayers.

According to a Record-Journal news story (Saturday, February 16), the mayor stated: “I don’t want to feel like we are giving money away when it isn’t warranted.” In this instance, he is doing just that. He is wasting time and taxpayer dollars on a poor labor decision (which is not his first).

Perhaps the residents of Wallingford need to realize it’s time for a change and bring this town into the twenty first century by not wasting taxpayer dollars!

(The writer is President, Local 1183.) CHUCK BALLARD, CARMEL, NEW YORK

Dickinson: No work, no snow day pay

As published in the Record Journal on Saturday February 16, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD - Since Town Hall was closed Monday during the blizzard cleanup effort, Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. is asking town department heads, managers and employees who didn’t report to work to take a vacation day in order to be paid. Dickinson made the announcement in a memo addressed to all town employees on Thursday. Nonessential town employees had been told not to report to work on Monday.

“We believe that collective bargaining contracts do not require the payment of wages unless an employee has reported for work,” Dickinson wrote. “We believe that this is a fair and just resolution of the questions that arise when payment of wages to employees who have not work are raised by those employees who did work.” Some managers and employees were still asked to report to work on Monday to continue snow removal and support “public safety operations,” Dickinson said.

Shelby Jackson, president of United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-14, which represents municipal managers in Wallingford, said “members of our union have expressed concern and the memo is under review.”

He could not confirm if the union plans to file a grievance. Jackson said that, according to contract, the union has until Thursday to file a grievance.

Chuck Ballard, president of Local 1183 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union representing public works, clerical and sewer workers, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Dickinson explained his reasoning for the memo on Friday, stating, “I have a hard time feeling the town should be paying people when they didn’t work.”

“I don’t want to feel like we are giving money away when it isn’t warranted,” he said.

Dickinson said the employees who did have to work Monday feel “they should be paid something extra” for their time if those who were asked not to show up for work Monday are still paid.

Dickinson said he would have trouble explaining to the public “that we pay people when they are not working.”

In Meriden, Southington and Cheshire, municipal employees are not asked to use vacation days in order to receive payment for a day they were told not to show up. Those municipal governments were open on Monday.

“When we don’t open Town Hall, we don’t charge vacation days,” Southington Town Manager Garry Brumback said.

In Cheshire, Town Manager Michael Milone said charging vacation or personal time is against policy when Town Hall is closed.

“People would say to me, ‘I would have been at work if you didn’t close,’ ” Milone said. “And that’s probably true.”

Caroline Beitman, Meriden’s personnel director, said, “We cannot legally make our unionized employees use personal time if you send them home and shut down the work place.” However, she said, those who couldn’t get to work Monday had to use personal time.

According to the state comptroller’s office, hourly state employees are also paid for days they are asked not to report to work in circumstances such as Monday’s, when state offices were closed.

Workers at Wallingford Town Hall who have not accumulated vacation time will be allowed to make up the lost time. Jackson said two people in the assessor’s office, where he works, were hired recently and have no vacation time. After consulting with the town’s personnel director, Terry Sullivan, he learned that they will be able to work an extra hour per day until the lost time is made up, making Dickinson’s action “more palatable.”

Arbitration may cost jobs in Wallingford

As published in the Record Journal Friday September 9, 2011

By Robert Cyr

Record-Journal staff
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD — In most of the town’s labor negotiations in the past year, unions have emerged the winners in costly arbitration, which has some blaming the mayor’s demand for pay freezes.

Last week, a payment of $230,000 was awarded to the 55 members of United Public Service Employees Union Local 424, a management union with positions that include town planner, public works superintendent and tax collector. The town won’t be able to cover that solely by leaving vacant positions unfilled, so officials have pointed to layoffs as a potential solution.

Mediating attorney J. Larry Foy billed both the town and the union $10,812 each for his arbitration services. But in reality, other costs associated with arbitration pushed that figure to $17,338, said Terrence Sullivan, personnel director.

In every case the town is involved with binding arbitration, each side hires its own lawyer and pays half the fee for a third-party, neutral arbitrator. Along with court reporting fees and document copying, the arbitrators account for a large portion of the process, win or lose, he said.

“It’s a small price to pay to avoid wage increases; it isn’t wasteful and isn’t wrong,” Sullivan said. “Many times the union brings the town into the process, but now the town is driving arbitration and we’re being vilified for wasting the town’s resources. Sometimes it takes a fight to get the savings and language that we need.”

In the past 12 months the town has spent $42,300 on arbitration proceedings, including processes that awarded pay raises and other contract details to three unions, including the manager’s union. Arbitration with Local 1183 of the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees cost the town $12,346 last year, and International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1326 cost taxpayers $12,566, Sullivan said. Those arbitration awards totaled more than $100,000.

The town avoided arbitration costs with school unions in February, when three chapters of the United Public Service Employees Union representing more than 60 workers in the school district were awarded four-year contracts by the Town Council.

Pay raises for the three unions amounted to $133,240.80, far less than the cost of arbitration, according to School Superintendent Salvatore Menzo. Menzo estimated the cost to arbitrate all three contracts between $42,000 and $45,000.

In late November, the council approved several internal transfers for the Public Utilities Department to cover an arbitration award for Local 1183 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents about 130 employees in the sewer, public works, clerical and emergency dispatch departments. Public Utilities Director George Adair has said there is no money to cover possible pay raises for one union still negotiating a contract with the mayor.

With the highest bond rating possible and millions of dollars in its reserve account, the town’s financial success and the conservative approach of its mayor, William W. Dickinson Jr., may make it an easy target for unions wanting more, some town officials have said. Dickinson’s $141.5 million budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year, however, did not contain funding for wage increases in any department.

He stressed that the town is facing a decrease in its Grand List for the first time in more than 25 years, resulting in a revenue loss of more than $3 million.

“I don’t know how you tell the public that you’re agreeing to increases with the economy the way it is — with 9 percent unemployment,” he said. “Given the very challenging distress in the economy, there’s got to be recognition that government can’t continue as it did in the good times.”

Dickinson’s stance in union negotiations has been publicly challenged by his mayoral opponent, Democratic Town Councilor Vincent Testa Jr. Testa said the town takes a one-size-fits-all approach with collective bargaining, and that just hasn’t worked well so far.

“None of us want to see large raises when the economy is tough and we’re struggling with the tax dollars we have — but the simple fact is that, if you’re going into negotiations and you offer no pay raises for three years, you’re going to lose,” he said.

Local UPSEU Director Wayne Gilbert said the town’s stance is far too rigid with unions and more than half the negotiations end up in arbitration. He said the process put a strain on professional relationships and made it hard for things to get back to normal after the binding arbitration is finished and the awards announced.

“It’s absolutely ludicrous. It means you have to work extremely hard to present the case,” he said. “That kind of litigious nature doesn’t foster good relations between the parties. These are the employees who get water to your house, bring electricity to your house, plow your streets. They take care of the education of your children and grandchildren.”

Town must pay managers union $230,000

As published in the Record Journal, Saturday September 3, 2011

By Robert Cyr
Record-Journal staff
rcyr@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD

— The town will have to come up with more than $200,000 after the Town Council decided this week it would not contest an arbitration award in favor of a local managers’ union asking for retroactive pay increases.

A payment of $230,000 was awarded to the 55 members of United Public Service Employees Union Local 424, a management union with positions that include town planner, public works superintendent and tax collector, said Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.

The amount reflects a 2.5 percent annual salary increase for 2011, he said. The first two years of the contract starting in 2009 involved a wage increase. A 2 percent increase is set for 2012, according to award documents.

Dickinson said he was not pleased with the decision, but the amount has to be found somewhere — and town officials will be meeting soon to examine municipal finances to meet the award.

“I certainly don’t agree with the philosophy that goes into it; I don’t think it recognizes in any way that our primary source of revenue is taxes,” he said. “It ignores the fact that taxes have to go up for increased costs, and that never seems to be included in the decision making. Clearly vacant positions wouldn’t be filled, unless there’s other money available.”

Dickinson said it was too soon to say whether layoffs were imminent. In a controversial move late last year, he laid off paramedic staff to meet arbitration awards with another town union. Mediating attorney J. Larry Foy billed both the Town of Wallingford and the union $10,812 each for his arbitration services.

Personnel Director Terrence Sullivan said the first area of savings that is looked at is vacant positions, and the salaries and other benefits associated with those positions are added up. But leaving those positions vacant will not be enough to pay the award.

“Then we get into the tougher area — whether or not there has to be reduction in staff because we have to pay that money no matter what,” he said.

Local UPSEU Director Wayne Gilbert was not available for comment.

FROM WALLINGFORD - Leave the ‘zero’ offer behind

As published in the Record Journal, Sunday February 27, 2011

The discussion has come around again with respect to union contracts, pay raises and the possibility of binding arbitration.

As we have already seen here in Wallingford, we never win a binding arbitration case. When you take something to arbitration you can say that the outcome is an unknown but not here in Wallingford; we always lose.

This is mainly because arbitrators review the case and consider the union position and the town’s “last, best offer” and compare the two.
Our last, best offer lately has been “zero.”

Salaries are compared with other union contracts in town, and pay rates for similar positions in towns with a comparable financial picture. Wallingford’s finances are assessed and it’s reviewed whether the town is able to afford pay hikes. Because of years of frugal spending habits and tight money management, Wallingford is so fiscally responsible that in this small circumstance success works against us. All of these factors end up making it impossible for the town to win an arbitration case.

This is best addressed by agreeing that the arbitration process is broken. When a negotiation reaches the point at which it goes to arbitration, arbitrators cannot properly consider objectively and simultaneously what is best for both the town and the union. When a town such as Wallingford ends up in this situation, it’s “rainy day fund” is often looked at like a solid resource available to fund the arbiters’ decision. In fact, that rainy day fund is really the fruit of responsible spending set aside for real costs and emergencies.

Wallingford and other towns should be proactive to work with lawmakers to address the arbitration process to make it fairer and more balanced in future situations. In the meantime Wallingford needs to understand what “bargaining in good faith” really means. It does not mean “zero percent raises regardless for the entire X year agreement” or “let’s set this now at zero and possibly re-negotiate it as needed later.” Unions would not be stupid enough to accept this. They know full well that no town would come back to the table merely because conditions have changed for the better. Most municipal employers — or any other kind for that matter — are not set up to respond that way.

We all understand that 16 percent of the workforce is unemployed or underemployed and that 9 percent of them are collecting unemployment. What needs to be understood as well is that the remaining 84 percent are working. We are dealing with rising fuel costs, food costs, insurance costs, local, state and federal taxes, and so forth. These things are not all sitting idly at zero percent inflation. It should not be assumed that pay should remain at the zero point either.

I am keenly aware that pay raises for municipal employees is one catalyst which causes taxes to go up. I am also keenly aware that going to arbitration generally leads to the cost of the arbitration itself and very often more in actual judgments than what was asked / negotiated for in the first place. That raises taxes even higher.

Wallingford needs to find a better understanding of what the actual work climate is for those still working and to obtain a proper understanding of what competing salaries are for given jobs. Then it must work to provide the best and fairest deal for all.

Otherwise the decision gets taken out of Wallingford’s hands and is made by others. Historically that has amounted to a win for the unions only. Good for them for winning those arbitrations, too, if the town is not being smart about playing the game under the current rules.

As I have said before, Wallingford does many smart things and they have worked well for years. I wouldn’t suggest changing anything that still works. But there are clearly some things that no longer work the way they used to. This is another perfect example of where we need to change up our game.

Labor board rules against Wallingford

As posted online at MyRecordJournal.com

By: Jesse Buchanan | Posted: Thursday, August 5, 2010

No big surprise here. According to the story online at MyRecordJournal.com the state labor board determined that Wallingford committed a prohibited practice when it voted down a contract with the custodial workers union in September 2009.

The story written by Jesse Buchanan goes on to indicate that the “decision was made in late July by the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, which ordered that the town put into effect the agreement of last year.”

The end result of this was that the three-year contract was effectively reinstated and it awards a one percent wage increase for the first year and a 1.95 percent wage increase for the subsequent two.

That wage increase cost is on top of the costs that the town needed to spend, in both time and money, to defend itself in arbitration. Those additional monetary costs were in the neighborhood of $12,000.00.

Again, this is in addition of the costs of people time spent doing work related to the arbitration effort.

FROM WALLINGFORD - In the same fiscal boat

This week’s FROM WALLINGFORD is from my counterpart on the column – Stephen Knight

The Wallingford Town Council held a public hearing on the proposed 2010-2011 Town Budget last Wednesday. As expected, most of the attendees spoke about the Education budget. Most were parents and teachers (very often both) speaking out in favor of maintaining the current level of education spending. As Chairman Parisi acknowledged, they were passionate, articulate, knowledgeable and polite, altogether a real credit to themselves and to the public process.

There was one other attendee: a giant elephant in the room that no one save one lone speaker would even admit existed. That is the proposal that the employees of the Town of Wallingford forego a wage increase for one year in order to prevent layoffs. They spoke about how many talented teachers would be lost, how much the Special Ed students benefited from the system, the potential disruption of reconfiguring the elementary schools, and how hard the BOE had worked to trim the budget already. Everybody talked of the hardships resulting from teacher and staff layoffs, but nobody even came close to recognizing the obvious solution.

It was almost surreal. Speaker after speaker pleaded with councilors not to eliminate these positions, eloquently describing how much value these young teachers brought to the system and how we would lose their energy and talent because of their absence. Yet the simple idea of town employees giving up a wage increase for one year was considered so alien a concept in this world that all the dislocation and hardship described was considered utterly unavoidable.

Why does this perception exist? Let’s examine it from these two vantage points: 1) the public employee world and 2) the union world. And please understand from the get-go that this is not criticism of either but analysis of the reality of both.

First of all, until very recently, government employees have lived in a universe of ever-expanding dollars. Dollars in the private sector are finite, because institutions in this world are confined to only that money they can attract by offering something people want. Government, on the other hand, commands its resources through taxation, the amount limited only to the greater economy’s ability to provide. And that money has always gushed forth from the dynamic American economy. The public employee has never known otherwise — until now — and the new reality of limited resources is not really setting in. 250 people laid off at Marlin Firearms? A one-day story. Layoffs in government? Unheard of. Can’t happen. The money’s there somewhere.

Secondly, unions are in the business of negotiating more for their members. Not less. Not the same. More. Here’s why. Have you ever had to push a car? Remember how hard it was to get it rolling; how much effort it took to get it moving? And how much easier it seemed to keep it moving, and the last thing you wanted was for it to slow to a stop because of how hard it would be to get it going again? Well, unions think that way too. It took them years and years to get to the point where, when they sit down with management to negotiate a new contract, wage increases are assumed. The momentum of negotiating is not whether there will be increases, but how much will these assumed increases be. And we are now asking them to accept a wage freeze — to stop the car, if you will. And their thinking is: if we do this, how will we ever get that momentum back? How will we ever get back to “more” being inevitable?

We are all — taxpayer and public employee alike— navigating in some rough water, and it sure looks like we will be for quite some time. The question then becomes: when will we realize that to survive, we all need to be in the same boat? And paddling in the same direction? And how in the heck do we get there?

Follow up - asking for permission to approach several of the town unions

So from the story that was printed in the Record Journal this morning (Saturday April 17) where I had indicated to Dave Moran that I was going to ask for permission to approach several of the town unions regarding reducing hours and / or their time (effectively asking them if they would be willing to donate their time) I had a good conversation with the Chief Dortenzio regarding the subject late in the day on Friday.

It would seem this is something that is not permissible even for a regular citizen to do as it does not comply with wage and labor laws even if some or all of the union members would be willing to do it.

Having said that I cannot approach them to even ask because it is not permitted by law.

I will probably ask if the unions proper if they would be interested in taking a vote to make a donation to the event but that is the most that is allowed under the law.

It may seem unfortunate to some extent that the law is that way as it could have been one way to reduce the cost and relieve some of the fundraising burden, but that law is there to protect the workers as much as the employer (the Town) where it comes down to fairness, workman’s compensation, insurance and so forth.

I am good with the explanation and the discussion and appreciate the Chief’s time.

Steady as she goes…

FROM WALLINGFORD Teacher layoffs - paradigm shift

This week’s edition of FROM WALLINGFORD was written by my counterpart Stephen Knight

As published in the Record Journal - Sunday March 21, 2010

“We must hang together, gentlemen … else, we shall most assuredly hang sepa­rately.” — Benjamin Franklin

If the Connecticut Education Association (aka: teacher’s union) had that as its credo, the substantial layoffs in the Wallingford school system that are loom­ing might be avoided, But, alas, layoffs are being touted as the only possible way to address the town’s budget shortfall for the coming year. The suggestion to reopen the contract between the CEA and the BOE, and thus avoid these devastating dislocations to so many lives, has been dismissed by union leadership. They will have none of it.

Why is that? Well, there are two reasons that they are unable to bring themselves to doing so: 1) they have never had to, and 2) there is too much else at stake. This is not, mind you, a condemnation of the CEA. Far from it. This is just a picture of the reality that has been constructed over a long period of time, a pathway that they walk that has been built stone by stone over many decades.

First of all, neither the union nor the government has ever faced quite so stark a situation. It has become obvious to most of us that the taxpayer base is plain tapped out. Up until now, for as long as any of us can remember, contract negotia­tions have gone like this: The two sides meet. The town says “We have no money.” The union says “You’ll find it.” They talk. They come to an agreement. The union goes to its members and says “we fought hard and got you this.” The town goes to the taxpayers and says “you’re lucky it wasn’t more.” Everybody stays put. Taxes go up. Everybody moves on. Today negotiations are like this: The two sides meet. The town says “We’re $4 million short. We can’t raise taxes. The state is cutting our funds. We need to talk.” The union responds “You always say that. We have a contract.” The town says “But really. Something has to give.” The union responds “We feel your pain, but we have a contract and we aren’t touching it.” The town says “But people will lose their jobs.” The union responds “If we re­open the contract once, we’ll be doing it forever. No can do.” In other words, they have no idea of how to surmount this ob­stacle, and even their legal advisers are telling them: better to throw forty teach­ers under the bus than to risk setting a precedent you will have to live with in the future. It seems counterintuitive to the stated goals of unionism, but that is the re­ality.

Which brings me to my second point: Unions are no different from any other or­ganization. While the mission statement may say otherwise, the number one goal of the union is survival of the organiza­tion, the same as it is for The March of Dimes, the Red Cross, the US Army or Microsoft. In this case, the union has made a choice that its bargaining position for the future will be irreparably harmed if it concedes to renegotiate its contract with the town. As much as they regret it — and I truly believe that their leadership does regret it — they see these laid off members as casualties that have to be borne for the long term protection of the union’s position.

There will be more dislocation to fol­low. There is a paradigm shift taking place in our economy here in the 21st century, and our comfortable and familiar 20th century methods of coping with these shocks to our system are obviously inade­quate. These forty are a testament to that fact.

Technorati Tags: From Wallingford,Opinion,union,schools,layoff,contract

Teachers’ wages

An editorial written by By Richard P. Harkawik P­resident, Wal­lingford E­ducation Association – as published in the Record Journal on Saturday February 20, 2010

A common misconception concerns the salary increase Wallingford teachers received as a result of the last contract nego­tiations. The belief that all teach­ers received a 4.2 percent in­crease in salaries this year is not accurate.

The 4.2 percent represents a percentage of last year’s salary account.This “pool” of money is then used to first pay the cost of increments that are part of the contractual salary schedule; the remainder is then applied to all teachers as an increase. Thus, a 4.2 percent increase does not add 4.2 percent to all salaries. In fact, the majority of teachers re­ceived a 2 percent increase this year, as opposed to the national wage increase average of 2.8 per­cent. Much time was spent dur­ing negotiations in determining how we could “fix” the salary schedule so that it would be more evenly balanced between the different steps, and to make Wallingford more competitive in attracting and retaining quality teachers.

In fact, Wallingford lagged be­hind almost every other town in New Haven County when salary schedules were compared. In or­der to make Wallingford’s salary schedule more equal with the other towns, the 4.2 percent in­crease was necessary. Addition­ally, the teachers also made sev­eral concessions to help this happen: a step freeze this year, and the addition of one step in the schedule. Teachers now have 13 steps; other town unions have between 3 and 5 steps.

The contract itself was ap­proved by the Board of Educa­tion and the Town Council, dur­ing the worst of the economic crisis. Both had the opportunity to reject it; neither chose to do so. It was not long after this con­tract was passed last year that teachers were asked for give­backs. This year, again, we have been asked to make concessions. One has to wonder why agree­ments are made if the intent is not to honor them.

The process of negotiating a contract involves give and take. Wage increases are negotiated in the context of other components, such as insurance co-pays, premium shares, and other ben­efits. Aiming for this balance,the contract was negotiated in good faith, and we now look to the mayor and town council to honor their commitment to the education of our town’s children at the level of excellence they have always received from the teachers of Wallingford.

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,opinion,schools,wages,salary,contract,union