Washtenaw County approves 10-year union contracts one week before right-to-work implementation
Editor's note: Alicia Ping's commissioner district has been corrected.
In an unprecedented chain of events, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners approved 10-year-long contracts with five of its unions Wednesday night one week before Michigan's new right-to-work law takes effect.
Conan Smith
Andrew Kuhn | For AnnArbor.com
The resulting reduction in employee legacy costs were touted by commissioners Wednesday night as a major investment in the long-term fiscal stability of the county, though many commissioners admitted that the terms of the contracts weren’t perfect.
“We are able to eliminate substantive legacy costs for the organization,” said Commissioner Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor. “It comes at the cost of introducing risk into the benefit system for our employees.”
Contracts include wage increases for the units that negotiated with the county. The Board of Commissioners also approved similar wage increases for non-union employees Wednesday night.
“This has got to be one of the best contracts this county has ever negotiated,” said Commissioner Ronnie Peterson, D-Ypsilanti, noting that it came after years of sacrifice of union employees during previous contract negotiations.
Ronnie Peterson
Andrew Kuhn | For AnnArbor.com
Negotiations began one month ago after the Board of Commissioners passed a formal resolution both condemning right-to-work and directing county administration to begin negotiating union contracts.
“Labor and management came together … and worked out these contracts. It’s an amazing accomplishment,” said Commissioner Yousef Rabhi, D-Ann Arbor. “(These contracts) have some features that make some of us uncomfortable. … but this is a process, and it’s a process that we all engaged in -- and at the end of the day, means a significant impact on the long-term fiscal stability of Washtenaw County.”
The Michigan legislature passed the right-to-work law in December. The law removes the security clause in union contracts that requires workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
The law is being challenged in numerous lawsuits.
By extending union contracts before right-to-work is in effect in Michigan, the county is attempting to ensure that its new hires will still abide by the security clause included in the contracts and pay the union dues for the next 10 years.
The contracts
Unions of Washtenaw County employees that now have 10-year contracts are units I and II of the Public Defenders Association, units I and II of the Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan, units I and II of the Michigan Nurses Association, units I and II of the Assistant Prosecutor’s Association and the largest union of county employees, AFSCME Local 2733.
Four of the contracts passed in an 8-1 vote, with Commissioner Dan Smith, R-Northfield Township, as the no vote.
Commissioner Peterson abstained from voting on the AFSCME Local 2733 contract, which passed in a 7-1 vote with dissent from Dan Smith.
“It’s a 10-year-long contract in all but one case, and that is very likely longer than the service of most of us sitting around this table,” Dan Smith said. “A 10-year contract severely binds future boards and dramatically eliminates the flexibility they have to respond to situations may face them seven or eight years down the road.”
An additional union, AFSCME Local 3052, struck a five-year contract with the county Wednesday night as well. The contract passed 7-1, with Dan Smith as the dissenting vote and Peterson abstaining.
“This means security for the next five years,” said Nancy Heine, president of Local 3052.
All of the contracts would have expired Dec. 31.
Heine said her union wanted a five-year contract because of the state of the economy. Though the change in the retirement contribution was a “stumbling block,” Heine said it’s what the union members wanted.
“It’s more important for us to have the stability,” Heine said in reference to union dues. “It helps us affect changes in Lansing for the next couple of years.”
The 10-year-long contracts negotiated with five of the unions contain the same schedule of wage increases:
- 2014: Restore 3.85 percent to employee salary by eliminating banked leave days, as well as 2 percent non-structural pay increase
- 2015: 1 percent raise as of July 1; opportunity for 2 percent or 3 percent raise corresponding with property tax revenue at July 1
- 2016: 2 percent structural salary increase as of Jan. 1
- 2017: 2 percent non-structural raise in bi-weekly payments or as lump sum
- 2018: 1 percent raise as of July 1; opportunity for 2 percent or 3 percent raise corresponding with property tax revenue at July 1
- 2019: 2 percent structural salary increase as of Jan. 1
- 2020: 2 percent non-structural raise in bi-weekly payments or as lump sum
- 2021: 1 percent raise as of July 1; opportunity for 2 percent or 3 percent raise corresponding with property tax revenue at July 1
- 2022: 2 percent structural salary increase as of Jan. 1
- 2023: 2 percent non-structural raise in bi-weekly payments or as lump sum
Changes in retiree benefits and health care contributions are also the same throughout the five contracts.
For the five-year AFSCME 3052 contract, employees will receive the same schedule of raises through 2017 as negotiated in the 10-year-contract agreements with other unions.
The county’s unions have taken concessions in contract negotiations with the county since 2007.
Heine said it will take employees until 2015 to bring salaries back to 2007 levels under the wage increase schedule the county adopted Wednesday.
County claims long-term savings
The main concession the unions gave up in exchange for the 10-year contract was the switch from a defined benefit retirement plan to a defined contribution plan.
A defined benefit plan is more expensive for employers, because they're typically the ones funding the retirement savings for an employee. In a defined contribution plan, employees decide how much of their paycheck they want to put into a retirement savings account like a 401(k).
“This is a very big change in the way the county does business,” Conan Smith said.
In 2013, the county contributed 10.36 percent to the retirement savings of non-sheriff union employees. County administration projected the county’s contribution would grow by eight percent per year.
With personnel expenditures at 67 percent of the county’s general fund budget, Administrator Verna McDaniel named a $2.62 million reduction in personal services over the next four years as a part of her budget recommendations in January.
A major part of the reduction is from the change in the retirement plans set in the new union contracts -- an unintended but positive result of negotiations for the county.
“Overall, this is the best thing that could have happened for planning for the county,” said Commissioner Alicia Ping, R-Saline.
The county is in a budget deliberation year, and must produce a balanced budget for the next two years this fall. McDaniel is pushing for a four-year budget, which would require $6.88 million in cuts but eliminate the structural deficit.
For all new employees hired in 2014, they will enter into defined contribution plans for their retirement savings. Current employees can with their current defined benefit plan, but caps will be implemented on how much the county will contribute.
Under the defined contribution plan, the county contributes between 6 percent and 7.5 percent to employee pensions.
“You take care of the employees who are here and are existing and who have taken the sacrifice over the long haul and although we were compassionate and wanted to take care of future employees, we don’t know how many future employees we’re going to have,” said Caryette Fenner, president of AFSCME Local 2733.
The new plan will be riskier for employees, said Conan Smith.
“People are going to have to pay attention to their contribution,” Fenner said.
Benefits for non-union employees
Annual wage increases and benefit adjustments the Board of Commissioners agreed to for AFSCME Local 2733 were extended to all non-union employees in the county and to five elected officials, effective March 21 to Dec. 31, 2023.
The same resolution passed Wednesday also set the annual salaries of three county elected officials: Water Resources Commissioner Evan Pratt, Treasurer Catherine McClary and Clerk and Register of Deeds Larry Kestenbaum at $101,685, effective immediately.
Per 2012 salary data, McClary will be getting a $3,115 raise from her former annual pay of $98,570.
The clerk and water resources commissioner were both paid $101,528 in 2012.
Amy Biolchini covers Washtenaw County, health and environmental issues for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at (734) 623-2552, amybiolchini@annarbor.com or on Twitter.
Comments
JB SHOOTER
Thu, Mar 28, 2013 : 4:24 p.m.
10 years? I really thought there would be more confidence that the law will be overturned or repealed. I do not know how an elected official can in good faith negotiate a 10 year contract in these times. I expected cooler heads to prevail in the government. 5 years I could see, but 10 is surprising...
Mackinac Straits
Tue, Mar 26, 2013 : 2:42 a.m.
This action simply proves the point of RTW proponents that public sector unions basically negotiate with themselves at the expense of taxpayers. I'm not sure which is more offensive, the contracts themselves, or the machinations of the compliant commissioners trying to explain themselves. Thanks for that Commissioners, #not.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:04 a.m.
Clearly this is in the best interest of the taxpayers. If only they could have gotten a twenty year contract! Anyway, democrats looking out for their supporters with the intention of the dues money continuing to flow back to them as political contributions. It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
Fred
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 9:30 p.m.
Ten years is long eough to raise questions of legality. Would a 99 year contract be legal? Two hundred years?
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 8:51 p.m.
A "negotiation" between unions and the lawmakers they purchased. Who wins? Union bosses. Who loses? Everyone else.
John S. Armbruster
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:44 p.m.
the reason for the 10 year deal is to keep the dollars flowing to the unions and therefore union contributions to Democratic Campaign coffers. It takes away the right of the union member to opt out of paying dues. The length of the contract is excessive given no one knows what is going to happen in that length of time, and it certainly does not benefit the vast majority of the taxpayers in the county.
Sandy Castle
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.
This contract benefits Washtenaw County. The commissioners were smart enough to use the fear generated by the so-called RTW legislation to their advantage. That said, the commissioners are also smart enough to know that working WITH the union, which isn't some group of strangers, but is the bulk of their workforce, was to their benefit. These union employees voluntarily opened up their contracts a couple of years ago and negotiated wage and benefit cuts when the county desperately needed it. They negotiated over 8 million in savings for the county. In this contract there were things everybody benefitted from and things that each gave up. The taxpayers are winners in this negotiation when you look at the savings that will be realized from the 2014 changes to the pension and retiree health benefits.
B2Pilot
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 2:43 a.m.
sandy please tell me the difference between a public union and a 'private union' the contract was not up for renewal the commissioners came out and opposed right to work and openly stated they were doing this to circumvent the system- and in my line of work I do work with 'public unions' as you call them daily- 10 year contract is good for the union coffers. your failing to admit the obvious
Jay Thomas
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:07 a.m.
I would bet money that the county will be broke toward the tail end of this contract.
Judy
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 7:03 p.m.
You claim the commissioners were smart and saved the tax payers money because of the change to the pension and retiree health benefits starting in 2014, if this is true these same terms could of been negotiated at the end of original contract and not at this time. The only reason these contacts were opened early was because of RTW will start at the end of this month and now we are stuck with a 10 year contract. Unless you have a magic ball no one has any idea what will happen 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 years from now and to me that is a problem as a Washtenaw county tax payer.
Sandy Castle
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 5:44 p.m.
B2Pilot, I would encourage you to read the contract that was negotiated and to make an attempt to learn about public union negotiation rather than just to make assumptions. Private unions are very different than public. Judy, your comment doesnt make sense. Can you clarify, please?
Judy
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 5:30 p.m.
"The taxpayers are winners in this negotiation when you look at the savings that will be realized from the 2014 changes to the pension and retiree health benefits." If this is true, it would of been true in December of 2013 also!
B2Pilot
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 5:11 p.m.
If it so great I would think private business's would also be rushing to get a new contract. Apparently they aren't as smart as our union bought and paid for commissioners. If you have strong leadership representing the residents best interest you would not have to rush into a deal & for 10 years. Any savings for the county are not going to be passed onto the residents my taxes will continue to go up, roads will continue to decline with less maintenance county services to residents will continue to decline. Have a nice day
Goofus
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:28 p.m.
Can Livingston County just annex Dan Smith already?
Judy
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.
Clownfish, do you have to be a Washtenaw County residident to "work" in Washtenaw County? As far as I know the answer is: "No" and for that reason alone this is why this 10 contract agreements are bad for the Washtenaw County Tax payers.
Judy
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.
Clownfish I will ask you again, do you have to be a Washtenaw County residident to "work" for Washtenaw County Road Commision? As far as I know the answer is: "No" and for that reason this 10 contract agreements are bad for the Washtenaw County Tax payers. Remember you are the one who stated above, "Did you know that union members are taxpayers too? Are you willing to offer your services at a reduced rate to save taxpayers money?"
clownfish
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
?
tartan8
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:43 p.m.
One thing that needs mentioning here is that over the last 4 years, county employees supported the union in opening up the union contract to negotiate concessions which in turn helped the county balance their budgets. Each employee lost several thousand dollars in wages, but services were maintained.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.
All of the negative posters now have the chance to apply to work for the county, and to offer to do the work for less money and benefits. How many of you are going to show the county how well you can work for less than the people doing th jobs now? Any takers? I also want to know if anybody that decides to not pay union dues under the new law will refuse these new wages and benefits? And is there any chance of a public apology from people that called unions members "thugs" in previous threads related to the RTW protests in Lansing now that the prosecutor has viewed unedited footage of the alleged "attack" FOX News broadcast across the nation? No charges have been filed and the prosecutor said the man was using self defense after being knocked to the ground. Anybody want to step up and admit that they were fooled by FOX and Breitbart, who once again tried to use half truths and heavily edited footage to rile up the ill informed masses?
going nowhere
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 10:07 p.m.
@judy....these contracts that the county just negotiated have nothing to do with the road commission....their contracts are run through the road commissioners....totally different entity
maallen
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
Clownfish, There are many people who would step in, work for less, and do more of an efficient job, but they can't because of the union contract. And they won't be able to for the next 10 years! Oh, the irony! If you are a member of the union, you will still be required to pay union dues. RTW is applying to those that are not members but are forced to pay the union anyway because of the way the unions write up their contracts. Didn't realize if one is pushed to the ground you are allowed to stand up, and start throwing punches at a person that might or might not have pushed you. It's good to know that the next time I am in Ingham County and someone pushes I can start swinging away! And yes, there were union "thugs" at the rally. How else do you explain the tent being taken down, tables being over turned, and food being destroyed? That was the peaceful, fun loving, members of the union?
B2Pilot
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
clowny- there are thousands of people that would gladly take a county job that pays as well as these jobs do, with the benefits, paid vacation, retirement etc. don't kid yourself. The only thing this contract did was take away worker rights to choose who they wish to represent them. this is about protecting union leadership not worker rights. And don't say they would not be making what they make without a union. Nissan, toyota, Mercedes (I could go on) all pay their workers better than their union counter-parts.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:21 p.m.
No Judy, I do not work for the Commission. I have worked for local governments, large corporations, small businesses and am now self employed. If your husband has applied and was not hired then someone else was probably considered more qualified. I would call up Rep Shirkey and request that your husband be given any job he desires, Shirkey being the guy that wants all of us to have a Right to a job.
Judy
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
He has applied 3 or 4 times over the last 2 years after seeing a job posting, talked to other drivers, who told him of a job opening and never even got a call. Do you work for the Washtenaw County Road Commision? Or are you just making it up as you go?
clownfish
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:52 p.m.
Judy, have him go down and apply.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:50 p.m.
I guess low wages and apologies for libel are for Other People? I am really curious why nobody that thinks the county employees are overpaid is willing to step up and do the job for less?
Judy
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:50 p.m.
My Husband would love to work for the county, he is willing to work for less than what they pay the county workers now, all he needs is a call on when to start. He has all the endorsements on his drivers license to drive any one of the road trucks and no points! So....clownfish when can he start?
Dog Guy
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.
The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners serves Washtenaw Co. taxpayers . . . to unions . . . on a silver platter.
Judy
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 4:22 p.m.
Clownfish I will ask you again, do you have to be a Washtenaw County residident to "work" for Washtenaw County? As far as I know the answer is: "No" and for that reason alone is why this 10 contract agreements are bad for the Washtenaw County Tax payers. Again my husband will work for less any day of the week to work for the Road Commision.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:16 p.m.
Did you know that union members are taxpayers too? Are you willing to offer your services at a reduced rate to save taxpayers money?
It's hard to hide from facts
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 2:48 p.m.
Shame on every single one of you commissioners, including Dan Smith. Smith fought harder and lobbied his colleagues longer for some really dumb initiatives and pet causes. When the time came to really make an impact with county finances over the long haul, Dan Smith you put up a really meager resistance. Shame on you!
SalineTeacher
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:47 p.m.
"dumb initiatives and pet causes"? It sounds like you're mixing up the Commissioners Smith.
OutfieldDan
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
Vote these criminals out of office. They don't represent the citizens of Washtenaw County.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:12 a.m.
With all of the UofM and EMU students... that's going to be difficult. Despite their education they are actually low information voters with no time for stuff like this and will pull the lever for the candidate with the (D) next to their name.
SalineTeacher
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
You know something is awry when Yousef Rabhi says "(These contracts) ... means a significant impact on the long-term fiscal stability of Washtenaw County."
B2Pilot
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 1:04 p.m.
personnel expenditures at 67 percent of the county's general fund budget, Administrator Verna McDaniel named a $2.62 million reduction in personal services - and this is good for the county residents how ?? The Bob Ficano employment rule alive and well in Washtenaw county Conan needs to go
HB11
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.
Thank you Dan Smith!
jcj
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:29 p.m.
It will be like professional athletes that sign long term deals. If the economy stays slow enough they will be happy. IF the economy takes off they will be screaming bloody murder and want to renegotiate ( I use that term loosely)
Jay Thomas
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:14 a.m.
Believe it. And if (D)'s are running things they will get what they ask for.
jcj
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:26 p.m.
"This has got to be one of the best contracts this county has ever negotiated," said Commissioner Ronnie Peterson, D-Ypsilanti, WHAT else would he say? Best thing since sliced bread. That remains to be seen.
dotdash
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
It seems to come down to a question of whether the switch from defined benefits to defined contributions (a gain for taxpayers) makes up for the decreased flexibility the county takes on with the 10 year contract. Any experts out there who can speak to this? Yes sir seems to have a point as well that 1% raises won't be so good for workers if/when inflation goes up. On the whole, this seems like a contract that should please fiscal watchdogs -- and maybe even could be counted an unintended (but fiscally sound) outcome of the looming RTW legislation?
Ken
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:22 p.m.
Taxpayers be damned, Your Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners
DonBee
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:20 p.m.
30 percent pay raises over the next ten years in written contracts. Lovely. What happens if the economy goes into deep depression? Do we follow Detroit and lay everyone off cutting services deeply? This is almost criminal, There is no out there, some of the money is contingent, but once the contingency is met, then we are stuck. On the other hand if inflation starts running at 10 percent per year, these people are stuck. It is a huge gamble to make a political point. There is no governance here, no looking out for the tax payers. "DUMB! DUMBER! and the County Commission!" - Jeff Daniel's next movie!
Gorc
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:16 p.m.
Switching one of the legacy cost to a defined contribution plan will create a significant long term savings for the tax payer. Typically, pension payments and health care cost for retirees have been a financial strain on local and state governments. Not so much with the federal government because they can keep printing money.
yes sir
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:12 p.m.
Bad for workers, good for union, good for taxpayers. Workers ar forced to pay dues for 10 years and when inflation starts hitting high single digits or double digits in 3-4 years, the workers are really going to feel the pinch. 6 years at 10% inflation during the back end of this contract is going to cost workers 43% of their working wage. OUCH. No one can predict the future 10 years out. The board was trying to make a political statement by making sure unions are funded for the next 10 years - but the workers just got screwed.
maallen
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 5:19 p.m.
Clownfish, The workers haven't voted on it, yet. But rest assured, the unions will point out all the positives and lead their lambs to slaughter.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
Then why did the workers agree to the terms? Did you know that the union is made up of workers, therefore if the union benefits so do the workers? That is the point of a union.
AMOC
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 1:29 p.m.
It's not good for taxpayers. There are too many raises, and too much incentive to increase property valuations here. The only people these contracts are good for are the union officials who will now have sinecures for the next 10 years.
Gorc
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:07 p.m.
Mrs. Biolchini - thank you.
DexterGardener
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:01 p.m.
Good reporting.
walker101
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 11:59 a.m.
In exchange for the extended time frame, the unions agreed to changes in employee contributions to retirement and health care benefits for workers hired in 2014, OK what we're they, it would be interesting to see how much or how little the commissioners gave in, how in the world can these individuals determine how much medical costs will rise or decline in the next 10 years. I guess now the County residents know now they are servants to the unions for at least the next 10 years regardless. What a joke.
Angry Moderate
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 11:32 a.m.
This will be a complete disaster that everyone will regret within 5 years.
Krupper1
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 11:12 a.m.
Taking away from the workers to fund the union?
jns131
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:44 a.m.
Bingo!!! Ding ding ding....give this person a prize.
1bit
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 11:06 a.m.
Switching from a defined benefit plan to defined contribution plan is a big deal. For both sides.
kmgeb2000
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:23 p.m.
Yes it is significant. Is it new shift for WC? The answer is no. In 2001 new hires were in a defined contribution plan and existing employees were in the defined benefits. Some years later that changed, and now it is back (as a defined contribution).
SonnyDog09
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 1:17 p.m.
What took them so long?
1bit
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
@DonBee: Sure, a "grandfather" clause. Pretty routine stuff for any contract with a significant change to benefit or pay structure. But this is a pretty fundamental shift nonetheless.
DonBee
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
1bit - Only if they hire new folks, if you were hired before the contract start date, your protected.
Bcar
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 10:55 a.m.
I thought unions were supposed to look out for and fight for LOWER legacy cost to employees?? Or maybe they're just trying to keep the union alive and union leaders employed... "This has got to be one of the best contracts this county has ever negotiated..." That says it all.
jns131
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:43 a.m.
They are. But with union membership down right now they are desperate for money in any form they can get it in. The way they want to do this I call it unconstitutional.
TheDiagSquirrel
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 10:46 a.m.
The reason Ronnie Peterson abstained from the AFSCME votes was probably because his wife Gloria Peterson is the president of AFSCME 1583. Seems like relevant information for this article...
Jay Thomas
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:20 a.m.
Usual conflicts of interest we see around these parts... like the Mayor of Ann Arbor working for the U and being expected to negotiate with them in the best interests of the citizenry.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 3:05 p.m.
He abstained, that removes any conflict for this vote. What other conflicts of interest are there?
Amy Biolchini
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 2:37 p.m.
Peterson cited a professional affiliation with the parent organization as his reason for abstaining.
DonBee
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:22 p.m.
But, but, but that would be admitting that there are strong conflicts of interest on the board.
javajolt1
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 10:46 a.m.
Why negotiate a TEN year deal? Because RTW is going into effect? That's not a compelling reason to do this. City and County elected officials have traditionally been so bad at negotiating these contracts. Look at The pension and benefit plans in Ann Arbor going all the way back to the sweetheart deal negotiated by former City Administrator Neil Berlin. I'm not sure what the solution is but it seems as if the sopthistocated Union negotiators always get the best of the unsophisticated, part time elected officials charged with getting the best agreement for its constituents. And why not? It's only taxpayers money. That's not like REAL money, is it?
missmisery
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 10:37 a.m.
I find this to be a very interesting process. Commissioner Peterson continues to surprise me. I wonder how late this meeting went?
maallen
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 5:11 p.m.
That's it? They discussed these union contracts in closed session for about 1.5 hours? So, after it was presented to them, they discussed it for 1.5 hours and came to a decision on contracts that last ten years. Geesh, it takes them weeks when discussing trash removal for the year, or snow removal for the season.
Amy Biolchini
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.
The meeting ended at 9:30 pm, and included a closed session to discuss the union contracts that lasted about 1.5 hrs.
pgagreg
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 10:34 a.m.
10 year contracts to circumvent the new RTW laws. There seems to be lots of salary increases in the agreement. Some tied to property values and some not. How in the world can anyone know what the economy will be 10 years from now, or 5 years or even next year. If the unions wanted to protect their revenue stream (union dues) with a long term agreement I wish our commissioners would have taken the majority of the taxpayers interest into consideration and not given away the house with pay increases. I won't forget come the next election
Jay Thomas
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:23 a.m.
18 people think they know what costs will be ten years down the road. Can't make this stuff up. If they are wrong there will be no choice except to raise property taxes.
B2Pilot
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.
I'm guessing property assessments will be going up yearly
kmgeb2000
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 12:57 p.m.
The contract has more the POTENTIAL for salary increases, but what was not presented here is that the WC Administration has the flexibility to implement four unpaid furlough day per year starting in 2015 or approximately minus 1.5%. So, in essence those 2% years could become a whole 0.5% raise. Now consider inflation is currently at 1.7%, then the 2% raise is effectively 0.3%. Again, with the potential for a 1.5% reduction via furlough, for total of minus 1.2%. This is after nearly 6 years of salary reductions close to 10% of take-home, and inflation pushing this down even further. Granted inflation touched everyone.
A2comments
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 : 10:25 a.m.
Thanks to Dan Smith, the voice of reason.