sewer authority gets 6.75% raise

[unioncop]

Sewer Authority approves raises for 75 white-collar employees
6.75% over 3 years tied to concessions
By Brian Meyer NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Updated: 01/17/08 6:56 AM

White-collar employees of the Buffalo Sewer Authority will receive 6.75 percent raises over three years in return for concessions that include moving to a single health insurance provider.

The Sewer Authority approved a contract Wednesday that General Manager David P. Comerford said will cost no additional money.

“The savings we get from the single carrier is more than what we’re paying out for raises,” Comerford said. He added that the contract will have no impact on sewer rates. But he wouldn’t speculate on whether other costs could result in a rate increase July 1. Sewer Authority officials must approve a new budget this spring.

The control board that monitors city finances has opted not to exercise its oversight powers over the Sewer Authority and will not review the contract, said spokesman Bryce Link.

About 75 employees will receive raises, ranging from clerical workers to the highest-paid administrators, whose salary increases mirror raises awarded in union contracts.

Comerford’s $91,557 salary will increase to $95,732 under an agreement that provides a 2 percent raise retroactive to July 1, 2006, and a 2.5 percent raise retroactive to last July. Workers will receive another 2.25 percent increase July 1. Comerford’s salary will rise to just under $97,900 when the final raise takes effect.

Other employees affected include some individuals with highly specialized skills in engineering and other arenas, Comerford said. He said it’s important the authority’s salaries remain competitive, especially for technical positions that are sometimes difficult to fill.

Another change in the contract with workers represented by Local 815, Civil Service Employees Association, is a rule that all workers hired in the future live in the city.

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...ry/253854.html

*I wasnt going to post the whole article and link like kern loves to do but I figured it was short enough so I did

[CSense]

Another change in the contract with workers represented by Local 815, Civil Service Employees Association, is a rule that all workers hired in the future live in the city.

Do you think police would ever go for residency? If so, what do you think it would take?

[citymouse]

The control board that monitors city finances has opted not to exercise its oversight powers over the Sewer Authority and will not review the contract, said spokesman Bryce Link.

I love this line. Another misleading statement by Control Board poop boy Brian Meyer. The control board has no say over the sewer authority. When the control board was created they tried to say they had over sight of the Buffalo Sewer Authority. The Sewer Authority challenged that and the Control Board lost. It is a separate, solvent authority, It generates it's own revenue and is self sustaining and independent of the city budget.
They didn't opt to do anything. They have no oversight powers involving the Buffalo Sewer Authority. Meyers is lying. If the Control Board could have shot this contract down they would have in a heartbeat.
Good for the guys at the sewer authority.

[citymouse]

White-collar employees of the Buffalo Sewer Authority will receive 6.75 percent raises over three years in return for concessions that include moving to a single health insurance provider.

Our local did it wrong. WE agreed to a single health care provider in an agreement out side the context of our contract. We got nothing in return. We did it right before the control board took effect.
It was a move on our part to save the city money. As a show of good faith and common sense initiative. We saved the city millions and now the control board dosen't consider it as a give back. Won't consider that part of this huge budget surplus the city has had over the last few years came from that move on our part.
In hind sight we should never have agreed to it. Maybe we would have a contract today just like the guys at sewer.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

In hind sight we should never have agreed to it. Maybe we would have a contract today just like the guys at sewer.

You should have agreed to it but it is BS that it is not considered a give back.

I also think it is BS that CB did not weigh in on this one. They could of just rubber stamped it. All in all, I think the SA contract is a positive long term contract. I really like the future residency. More so for the future aspect and not the residency.

If all contracts could be worked out where going forward, they would have realistic terms for new hires, I say let the guys in on staff now "get theirs" to a degree and allow attrition to take effect. In a decade or so, the city would be better off.

This is the first time I have read of a public union selling out their "unborn" if you will.

[citymouse]

You should have agreed to it but it is BS that it is not considered a give back.

I also think it is BS that CB did not weigh in on this one. They could of just rubber stamped it.
This is the first time I have read of a public union selling out their "unborn" if you will.

Your beginning statement shows you may be starting to understand why I hate the bastards. They are not interested in fair contracts even if we are willing to give things up.
Again the CB could not weigh in on it, or even rubber stamp it. That's because , as I said, they have no oversight at the Sewer Authority. Brian Meyer is well aware of this. That's why I said he was out and out lying. Why he made that comment is beyond me.
I can only think of two reasons. The first is he was instructed by his editorial board to show relevance of the Control Board. Redundancy in sewer authority matters would be a loss of face in their eyes. It would indicate that a public entity is capable of managing itself and they don't want that image conveyed to the public.
Or second They quoted some one on the control board who made the remark either for the same aforementioned reason or because they are one of the new guys that didn't know any better.
Who knows?
As faras the public sector unions selling out their "unborn" as you termed it, It's not the first time. You don't here about it because all you know is waht you read in the papers.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Your beginning statement shows you may be starting to understand why I hate the bastards. They are not interested in fair contracts even if we are willing to give things up.

I do not agree with this. I do not think the CB is an Evil Empire as you do. I think they are in charge of a very ugly process.

Again the CB could not weigh in on it, or even rubber stamp it. That's because , as I said, they have no oversight at the Sewer Authority. Brian Meyer is well aware of this. That's why I said he was out and out lying. Why he made that comment is beyond me.

Good catch.
I can only think of two reasons. The first is he was instructed by his editorial board to show relevance of the Control Board. Redundancy in sewer authority matters would be a loss of face in their eyes. It would indicate that a public entity is capable of managing itself and they don't want that image conveyed to the public.

Or second They quoted some one on the control board who made the remark either for the same aforementioned reason or because they are one of the new guys that didn't know any better.
Who knows?

That or the public, who buys the paper, is pro CB and he is reporting on that.



There is common ground, I think we will both agree on that. But it is going to very hard for both sides to meet there. Until they do and until the results change the environment, I will be viewing it from 70&Sunny on the left coast.

[Bannister]

In hind sight we should never have agreed to it. Maybe we would have a contract today just like the guys at sewer.

I think it's admirable that your union just agreed to it without bargaining for it. However, no good deed goes unpunished. Take heart in knowing if you had never agreed to it, they could have just unilaterally imposed it anyway like they did to the teachers. They think the cost of litigation is cheaper than the cost of three different providers so they just imposed it knowing it would go to court.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I think it's admirable that your union just agreed to it without bargaining for it. However, no good deed goes unpunished. Take heart in knowing if you had never agreed to it, they could have just unilaterally imposed it anyway like they did to the teachers. They think the cost of litigation is cheaper than the cost of three different providers so they just imposed it knowing it would go to court.

Are you saying there should be the options for multiple providers? Because your union does not have to go to court. That was a choice. To fight for something that does not make sense for the community as a whole.

[Bannister]

Are you saying there should be the options for multiple providers? Because your union does not have to go to court. That was a choice. To fight for something that does not make sense for the community as a whole.

No. We don't need three providers. That's wasteful. I don't know a single teacher who thinks we really need all three.

What we're saying is, it should have been negotiated out of our contract. Not unilaterally imposed. The only reason why we need to negotiate it is because come contract time..when the board wants us to work longer school days and work year round, when they want to raise class sizes past 30, when they want to cut art, music, gym for the prek-3rd graders, and all the other things they would love to stick in the teachers contract...they will not remember that we willingly gave up three providers. Teachers would have no leverage to save other things that are important to us.

Sounds like that's what happened to mouse's union. If the teachers dropped the litigation it would happen to us too.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

No. We don't need three providers. That's wasteful. I don't know a single teacher who thinks we really need all three.

What we're saying is, it should have been negotiated out of our contract. Not unilaterally imposed. The only reason why we need to negotiate it is because come contract time..when the board wants us to work longer school days and work year round, when they want to raise class sizes past 30, when they want to cut art, music, gym for the prek-3rd graders, and all the other things they would love to stick in the teachers contract...they will not remember that we willingly gave up three providers. Teachers would have no leverage to save other things that are important to us.

Sounds like that's what happened to mouse's union. If the teachers dropped the litigation it would happen to us too.

Well have you ever thought as to why they have to cut art, music, gym? Are you saying there is not enough money for these items? Because there are 47 other states that do more with less.

I have never read of a teachers union saying they would give up anything if it meant that the kids got more. If there are examples, I would love to see them. What I have seen is teachers wanting to keep their AND get more for the kids. Instead of changing the sizes of slices in the pie, these things always call for just a bigger pie.

In terms of class sizes, are there a lack of classrooms or a lack of teachers? Because if there is a lack of teachers, that is an easy fix. Hire more for less.
And when I say "less" I do not mean your paycheck. I mean the other 50% of a teachers cost that does not go into take home pay like multiple HC providers, a ridiculously bloated pension system and the like.

[Bannister]

Well have you ever thought as to why they have to cut art, music, gym? Are you saying there is not enough money for these items? Because there are 47 other states that do more with less.

I don't understand the question. I used cutting art, music, gym b/c in 2000 that's what the board wanted to do. One of the things the teachers won back in their strike was art, music and gym for kids in prek-3. I don't know if that is an issue on currently on the table or not.

I have never read of a teachers union saying they would give up anything if it meant that the kids got more. If there are examples, I would love to see them. What I have seen is teachers wanting to keep their AND get more for the kids. Instead of changing the sizes of slices in the pie, these things always call for just a bigger pie.

Eh, I don't think it has to be the teachers or the kids. There's a lot of bloat downtown. The district has created tons of new non-teaching positions. I see more and more every year...the "assistants to the assistant" have assistants.

[citymouse]

Eh, I don't think it has to be the teachers or the kids. There's a lot of bloat downtown. The district has created tons of new non-teaching positions. I see more and more every year...the "assistants to the assistant" have assistants.

I think this is one of the major points that LWNY and many others just dosen't understand. I don't mean that as a shot either.
We see things from a different perspective. A view from the inside they don't have the luxury of. A good example is the second deputy mayor. Another is the new MIS director. Jobs that are appointed patronage positions. One pays $85,000, another pays$130,000. Masiello was even worse. Back in his first term he cried poverty and got us to pass a three year contract with a Zero raise in the 2nd year. The next day he gave all his staff and appointed people raises from three to six thousand a year. Then he ends up crying for this control board who never have the money for new contracts and refuse to honor current ones.
Yet they always OK the political jobs. Even the control board has a staff with a budget of close to two million a year.
It's like banging your head against the wall. They got the public hoodwinked.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I don't understand the question. I used cutting art, music, gym b/c in 2000 that's what the board wanted to do. One of the things the teachers won back in their strike was art, music and gym for kids in prek-3. I don't know if that is an issue on currently on the table or not.

Eh, I don't think it has to be the teachers or the kids. There's a lot of bloat downtown. The district has created tons of new non-teaching positions. I see more and more every year...the "assistants to the assistant" have assistants.

HMMM. For the 2007-2008 Budget......

$76Million was spent on teachers salary for grades K-12.
$6Million was spent on Substitute teachers.
$17Million was spent on teachers retirement
$89Million was spent on Health Insurance ($49MILLION TO RETIREES)
$8Million was spent on other benefits
That is just under 30% of the over $600Million dollar budget.

The office of employee benefits and labor relations spent more then the Superintendents office. By 30K.

The 2007-08 budget is 15% BIGGER than the 2006-07 budget.
The 2007-08 budget is 25% BIGGER than the 2005-06 budget.

All the while, between 2000 to 2006 the Buffalo Public Schools had enrollment DECLINE by 18%.


So to recap, you get more money, less kids and 30% of the budget. So why are programs getting cut. Yea, I am sure it is from the bloat "downtown"....

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

I think this is one of the major points that LWNY and many others just dosen't understand. I don't mean that as a shot either.
We see things from a different perspective. A view from the inside they don't have the luxury of. A good example is the second deputy mayor. Another is the new MIS director. Jobs that are appointed patronage positions. One pays $85,000, another pays$130,000. Masiello was even worse. Back in his first term he cried poverty and got us to pass a three year contract with a Zero raise in the 2nd year. The next day he gave all his staff and appointed people raises from three to six thousand a year. Then he ends up crying for this control board who never have the money for new contracts and refuse to honor current ones.
Yet they always OK the political jobs. Even the control board has a staff with a budget of close to two million a year.
It's like banging your head against the wall. They got the public hoodwinked.

Mouse, you have no grasp on the MIS position but I will give you the BS on the deputy mayor.

However, what people on the outside with a calculator see is when you add up over 10k people who with perks, pension and salary are costing at least a couple of thousand more then they should, say 3k.... Well I see $30,000,000 in waste and you want to bitch about $80k. Yea, I like my perspective.