Print |
E-mail to a friend
OPINIONS
Editorial: Felinton must negotiate contract taxpayers can afford
A few weeks ago, it looked like one of the three unions representing Huntington city government employees had agreed to bite the bullet and accept that its members would have to bear a greater share of their health insurance costs.
But all was not as it appeared. When members of Huntington City Council began looking at the details of the agreement Mayor David Felinton negotiated with AFSCME Local 598, the costs surprised them. The proposed contract would have cost the city an additional $3.1 million over the next five years, according to Finance Director Bob Wilhelm.
On top of that, the contract might be used as a model for new contracts with police and firefighters, driving the total cost to $6.6 million over five years. This, mind you, in a city that pleads poverty when residents ask it to repave a few streets.
The proposed contract with AFSCME included the following provisions:
- Pay raises totaling $3 an hour, or about 20 percent, over five years.
- Increasing the number of paid holidays from 14 to 15. That means AFSCME employees with more than 21 years of service would have received 40 days, or eight work weeks, of paid holiday and vacation time. First-year AFSCME employees would have received up to 25 days of paid holiday and vacation time.
- Increasing the number of guaranteed overtime hours for when an employee is called into work from three to four.
- Establishing minimum staffing provisions in which the city would maintain staffing levels at their current level for the life of the contract.
There was no way the city council could approve the contract Felinton negotiated. Absolutely no way. Felinton plans to return to the bargaining table this week, but Danny Plybon, president of Local 598, says there will be no new talks on wages.
And Plybon threatens to picket council members' homes and businesses if AFSCME does not get what it wants. That's not right. Picket City Hall if you have to, but don't try to intimidate a councilmember's family or neighbors. That crosses a line. If the union wants the public to have absolutely no sympathy for its members, that's the way to do it.
On the other hand, councilmembers might rightly consider it a badge of honor if the union decides to forfeit whatever public support it has by picketing.
Before Felinton meets with AFSCME negotiators again, he should survey comparable cities to determine if present wage rates are adequate. He should determine what the city can afford. Last week, his administration was saying this contract was affordable if new business were developed in the city. Who really thinks the city will attract enough business to generate nearly $1 million a year in taxes and fees?
Felinton should avoid any language that would prevent privatization of some services, such as trash collection and vehicle maintenance. It would be foolish to preclude that possibility for the next three to five years.
Above all, Felinton should remember that the city's role is to provide services, not jobs. Felinton works for the taxpayers, not for city employees.
This could very well be the most important labor contract negotiation the city has had in years. If Felinton wants to maintain credibility with voters, he will have to come back with a better contract.
