From Mayor Finch:
Union members to pay 25% health care premium
The City of Bridgeport has reached a tentative agreement with Local RI-200 NAGE (National Association of Government Employees) through 2014, which calls for an immediate hike in health care premium cost sharing, a restructured wage schedule for most employees, and an early retirement incentive. The agreement also ends the use of take-home vehicles by Park Police personnel.
According to the agreement, health care premium cost-sharing for current employees and retirees will move from 12 percent to 25 percent by July 1, 2012. Any employees hired after November 15, 2011 will begin paying 25 percent upon employment, and their premium will increase one-percent each year topping out at 50 percent. Also, any current employee who is eligible for retiree medical benefits will have the right to retire and continue paying their current 12-percent health care cost share premium if they retire before December 31, 2011.
NAGE joins eight other City unions, and the unaffiliated employees, which, through negotiation, have already, have begun paying a 25-percent health care premium cost share. These health care concessions have created substantial savings for the City, and it is expected that savings will continue to grow over the life of the contracts.
The union represents 641 workers, and includes office workers, public facilities personnel, cafeteria personnel, health department and social services workers, Park Police, Animal Control Officers and Telecommunications Officers.
“I want to personally thank the NAGE union for coming to the table to hammer out this agreement,” said Mayor Finch. “They are joining the other City unions which, through negotiation, are now shouldering a larger share of their health care cost premiums to help save jobs and save the City significant amounts of money.”
“We’re happy to work with the City to put together a fair deal that is good for our members and good for the City. This agreement will help save our members jobs and help the taxpayers at the same time.” said Dwayne M. Harrison, President, NAGE, Local R1-200. “I want to thank Mayor Finch for helping to foster improved relations between our union and the administration going forward.”
Contract highlights:
• Two years of zero-percent raises in the first two years of the contract, followed by 5% on 1/1/2012; 2% on 7/1/2012; 2% 1/1/2013 and 3.5% on 7/1/2013.
• Park Police Officers will no longer be able to take their assigned vehicles home, and the Police Chief will have the right to assign Park Police as needed.
• Early retirement incentive for employees who retire by December 31, 2011, in return for cost savings for the City.
• Telecommunication Officers wage schedule has been restructured according to their level.
• Housing Code Inspectors, Sanitarians, Lead Inspectors, Outreach Tuberculosis Workers, Property Appraisers, Zoning Inspectors and Anti-Blight Inspectors will receive a $400 one-time clothing allowance upon ratification, and $200 each October 1 thereafter; Animal Control Officers will receive a $500 uniform allowance on Oct. 1, 2011.
This contract is a great deal for the City because they have tied the hands of 9 unions with health care premiums for the next 25 years. This is a terrible contract for union workers because their pay raises will go to pay their health care premiums.
*** You can agree to pay them soon, so they can pay back twice later; what’s next for city employees? Savings that will amount to a possible tax increase come next fiscal year, no? How’s the city budget looking this time of year, I wonder? *** FORGETABOUTIT ***
Unions stink.
You stink!
This is the only record (City of Bpt. vs 1522) from the CT Department of Labor:
www .ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/4560.pdf
“The agreement also ends the use of take-home vehicles by Park Police personnel.”
Are you kidding me? The cars assigned to the Park Police are in such poor condition I doubt they would make it to the home of the officer. Did any one of you ever see the white and lime color vehicle driven by the Park Police officers? The Park Police were assigned new vehicles prior to 2008 and when the city laid off the Park Police officers, the vehicles were transferred to the Police Department and never returned to the Park Police after they were re-instated via binding arbitration.
“… This agreement will help save our members jobs …”
Where’s the No layoff clause, Dwayne?
Former Co-worker Jimmy Kennedy retired this year and he was told he will continue to contribute 12% if he retired by June 31, 2011. “… According to the agreement, health care premium cost-sharing for current employees and retirees will move from 12 percent to 25 percent by July 1, 2012. Notice: The premium increase applies to “retirees.” This means there is no guarantee after I retire 10 or 20 years down the road, my premiums won’t go higher than the currently proposed 25%. Retirees don’t get to elect (vote for or against) the current and future Union leaders. Let alone, Retirees don’t get to vote for the rejection or approval of the current or future city/union contract. Why are retiree benefits included in this contract? I take it Dwayne M. Harrison, President, NAGE, Local R1-200 will allow all NAGE retirees to vote on the ratification or rejection of this contract.
Whether it’s 12%, 25% or 50%–of what? Let’s say the city pays $4,000 per employees, per year, for health insurance. At 25%, I would pay $1,000 and the city pays $3,000 (75%). Every employer in the public and private sector will tell you the cost of health insurance always goes higher. If the cost of healthcare goes up to $8,000 per employee, per year, I’d be paying $2,000 and the city pays $6,000. Where would the city be saving money when this happens? The problem with healthcare cost is not the employers nor the employees–it’s the fucking healthcare industry.
If I pay 12% more, will I be exempt from paying the co-payments for example? I’m sure I won’t! We are getting a .5% raise after the 12% premium increase in 2 years. The retirees don’t get the 12.5% raise, do they? By the way, what happened to the three years of arbitration? How much did NAGE spend and who did they pay during these three years? Why didn’t the NAGE leadership ask or tell the membership of their plans to withdraw the labor grievance with the city? NO transparency whatsoever! But I did get a Thanksgiving turkey check.
I was reading the 2010 arbitration decision regarding the civilianization of the Emergency Command Center when I read this:
Date: Friday, 4/16/2010
Time: 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM …
“… 40. The City currently has a debt burden of six hundred and fifty four million dollars.”
See it here at the bottom of the written decision:
www .ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/decisions-pdf/2010/4478.pdf
It’s a bad deal all around. Finch has orchestrated another mindless contract with absolutely no idea where the money is going to come from to pay the raises when they come due. The man is such an idiot and we take it in the neck every freaking time he plays chief executive. The only way this fool is able to pay the similar cop deal is by not funding the pensions. How long can he get away with this reckless behavior? When the NAGE raises come due we are going to be in a lot of trouble.
yahooy, you are incorrect by stating: “… Finch has orchestrated another mindless contract …” Assuming NAGE members ratify the agreement, the real and only winner is the City of Bridgeport. Finch’s primary responsibility is the financial well-being of the city. The Union’s primary responsibility should be financial well-being of its members. Both should meet in the middle!
“We’re happy to work with the City to put together a fair deal that is good for our members …”
Let me break this agreement in simple and clear terms. We currently contribute 12% towards our healthcare premiums. The city wants us to pay 25% towards the premium. An increase from 12% percent to 25%, is NOT a 13% percent increase towards our premiums–it’s closer to a 108% increase. Good for our members, Dwayne? As I had stated earlier, the cost of healthcare has been on the increase. But the increase is usually 6% to 12% a year–NOT 108%. Here is where the city makes and saves enough money to cover the raises, yahooy.
Now let’s look at the language of the contract as stated above:
“… an immediate hike in health care premium cost sharing …” This means as soon as the contract is ratified, we will ‘immediately’ start paying an extra 13% towards (108% increase) our premium. We will not get the first raise (5% on 1/1/2012) until a month later (looking at the dates on the contract, I guess the union will take a vote around the holidays to avoid a large number of members voting). If NAGE ratifies the contract on 1/1/2012, we immediately start paying the extra 13% in healthcare premiums and get a 5% raise. This means for the following 6 months, each member will have to pay 8% more of the premium out of their pockets as the 5% raise will cover the rest (giving it back). After the 6 months, we get another “2% raise on 7/1/2012.” By this date, we will be paying the 13% more in premium and getting a total of a 7% raise. This means we will be giving back the 7% raise to cover the premium increase cost and still be paying 6% out-of-pocket a year later and for the following 6 months, which brings us to the “2% 1/1/2013” raise, for a total of a 9% raise. Again, we will give back the 9% raise to cover the 13% increase of the premium cost. This means that by 1/1/2013, we will be paying 4% of the premium increase out-of-pocket for the following 6 months and of course giving back that 9% raise, which brings us to the 3.5% raise on 7/1/2013. By 7/1/2013 we should be getting the full total of the raise of 12.5%. But for the following years, we will be giving back the 12.5% raise to cover the 13% increase in premium and still have to pay .5% out-of-pocket to cover the 13% premium increase. If, or should I say as long as the city never gives NAGE members a raise without having to pay more for our healthcare cost, we will always pay the 13% (108% more) increase in premium out of pocket.
One more point before I end. Did anyone take notice of this line: “… a restructured wage schedule for most employees …” This means NOT ALL members will get a raise and if you don’t, get ready to pay 108% percent more towards your healthcare premium as soon as the contract is ratified–assuming it does!
A fair deal that is good for our members, eh?
“Two years of zero-percent raises in the first two years of the contract, followed by 5% on 1/1/2012; 2% on 7/1/2012; 2% 1/1/2013 and 3.5% on 7/1/2013.”
How does this compute to 0% increase in the first two years? According to this they get a 5% raise in 5 weeks??? Then another 2% this July followed by 2% in a year and then 3.5% in the next 6 months.
We cannot afford this raise program if it goes into effect in five weeks like the above-captioned statement indicates.
Doing more math:
My deduction for healthcare is $39.00 a week. Under the tentative agreement between NAGE and the city, I’ve calculated that by paying 100% more, I’d be paying $78.00 a week (prescription deduction not included). This would drop my take-home pay by about $160 a month. Assuming I would be one of the lucky ones to get a raise, the drop in my take-home pay will be less than $160–maybe around $115.
I’m being asked if the tentative agreement is a good deal. For me personally, it’s not a bad deal, considering the alternatives and there aren’t many. It’s a better deal than the retirees or new hires will get assuming the city doesn’t come back for more givebacks in the future.
I don’t understand why the retirees should or could be affected by this agreement. The retirees aren’t union dues-paying members and I don’t think the union should be including them as part of the negotiations. I do think if the city wants retirees to pay more towards their healthcare premium, they should let them know about it and set a fair increased figure the city feels they should accept. If they don’t want to pay more, then they can try shopping around for lower-cost coverage–good luck!
Each NAGE member needs to sit down and take a look at their finances. I’m doing this with the assumption the tentative agreement will be ratified by the union members. Where can I “cut?”
Don’t worry, my fingers don’t come into play here. Can I cut my car insurance payments by dropping the full coverage for a no-fault policy? Can I make a few bucks on the side to cover added expenses? I keep hearing people saying they can’t afford this or that. We all can afford to take some time to look into areas where we can cut down on expenses. If I can just completely stop smoking …
Talking about smoking, one thing we all as human beings must do, is be very clear when trying to come to an understanding among each other. No smoke and mirrors! Let’s be clear as to the impact any policy or agreement will have on an individual or group. Each member must read the agreement and ask questions. The union leaders have the responsibility to answer all questions and address the concerns of its members. Selfishness must be put aside by all individual union members and consider the financial situation the city of Bridgeport is in–especially those who live here. In 2008, I bumped–so they say–into the Police Department. There were five people doing Janitorial work–or at least getting paid to do so–at the BPD. As of now, we are down to two, but the building is clean. Doing more with less as Bill Finch puts it. I’m not looking at the tentative agreement from the point of view of good or bad. Is it necessary? That’s the question! Necessary for what? One thing I’m convince of is it’s not necessary nor my obligation to vote in favor of the agreement to save other union member’s jobs. To be frank, some don’t even deserve to have a job. I take pride in my work and my city. If I have to make a sacrifice for my city, I’ll be the first in line. Ratification is necessary as sacrifices are necessary.
Joel, without seeing the wording of the contract I’m sure anything about retirees has to do with those who have retired before this new contract is agreed to by the members. In July 2001 the City changed the working for future retirees to increase those who retired after that date that whatever increase in medical coverage by current workers that increase would be what retirees would pay, the same as those still working.
Thanks to Ron Mackey, Joel Gonzalez and a female employee last spring who posted some real numbers to complement the 25% of her healthcare monthly expense for employee and child, if I remember correctly. Because of these people who participate in the healthcare system, the human face of financial decisions about employment negotiations is revealed.
For the past two decades there have been two major elements in our US inflation indices that have risen 2-3 times faster than the CPI. One of these has been the cost of healthcare, and the other is the cost of education at all levels. The subject today is healthcare as a part of employee compensation. Healthcare expenses have certainly been rising at a much higher rate than have basic salary compensation for public or private employees. And this has impacted governmental budgets and balance sheets increasingly because governments are almost the last place where retirees are entitled to healthcare provided by their former employer (and with costs subsidized at some level due to preexisting agreements.)
I think sharing the full costs, and the expected effects over time as well as what this does in a practical sense to employees, former, current and future, is important. The Finch administration has failed to show these effects in any open and transparent manner. And the CT Post has also failed to provide a focus or special report that would put the City labor negotiations in a framework. Isn’t it interesting major financial institutions, utilities and contractors with fully, partially or non-unionized employees have all had to deal with the issue, have self-insured plans in many cases that provide insight into fair and prudent development, and yet as members of a business group regionally have not publicly focused a light on this necessary subject? (Sorry for the 57 word sentence!) Who will stand up and let the public, as taxpayers, see what is happening? Time will tell.
I’m sorry Joel, but the rest of the working world is paying on average 25% of their pay to a health plan. I can’t feel sorry as a taxpayer for the city employees needing to step up to the plate and pay what the rest of the world is.
I would also assume you have the option to not get health care coverage from the city and seek your own, which you would pay crazy high premiums for. There is also the option of getting another job if you don’t like it.
*** Keeping up with the Health Care Crisis in America is like canoeing upstream without a paddle, no? Next issue for the city to change, “unlimited” sick time & hiring age limit for hazardous duty jobs, no? *** Q&A ***
Maybe we can write the President of the United States and he can come up with an affordable health care plan, he can call it ObamaCare!
We have NOT had a “transparent” City-run government in dealing with the City’s budget, union contracts or with Pension Plan “A” payments.
NAGE members need to know how much their weekly paycheck will be with the increase in medical payments and with their pay raise, “transparency” before approving their contract. The only published information concerning the real problems with Pension Plan “A” payments has come from BEACON2, their has been no comment during this past election from Mayor Finch or the City Council and I doubt we’ll hear anything in the near future about those overdue Pension Plan “A” payments.
Ron,
I ask for your assistance at this time as I have previously. Lennie or Andy will provide my number to you.
Open, accountable and transparent have been the words I have used from the beginning. They are still in use because our situation has not improved through the 2011 election process. And the press itself fails in the energy department where muckraking might be a solid key to building readership. Would City payments of more than $180,000 annually to the newspaper for “whatever” be a reason to stay with an incumbent and be so docile folks think you are a dead institution? Is there an appearance of any conflict at a minimum? Don’t know for sure until the body politic speaks up? Time will tell.
BEACON2 // Nov 21, 2011 at 5:56 pm
To your posting
B2,
Let’s cut to the chase. There is no way to believe the CT Post has maintained any credible level of integrity … some endorsement calling upon the voters to re-elect Bill Finch!
That was the turning point for many of us …