Friday, December 17, 2010

Teamster's Get 6-9% Pay Increases

  
According to the D&C: Members of Teamsters Local No. 118 ratified a new contract with the Greece Central School District last week, and the agreement was unanimously approved by the Board of Education on Tuesday.

The union represents about 750 of the district's custodial and cafeteria workers, bus drivers and clerical workers. According to the union, the three-year agreement provides for wage schedule increases between 6 percent and 9 percent, retroactive pay to July and maintenance of a "superior" health plan."
SCATS ~~ Why didn't our Board of Education tell us this Tuesday night? Is it possible they didn't know what they approved?
  

23 comments:

Charlie Hubbard said...

Here we go again. What does 6% and 9% mean in $$.
Come budget time the budget will need to increase ??? to pay for this.
WELL what is that figure?
I asked for that figure via foil Tuesday night and have not received it yet which makes me wonder if the board had that info prior to voting. By policy they are supposed to have it 10 days before voting.
When I saw the d+c article this am I said 'what does this mean'.
This is in no way a reflection on the union members - it has nothing to do with them.

Perhaps other readers know what 6% or 9% mean? - I don't.

chubbard005@rochester.rr.com

Anonymous said...

SCATS:
I think I am correct on this. I believe the BOE, thus the public must be told/shown what any new contract will cost BEFORE the BOE can approve the contract. This is now offfical BOE policy.

In addition, new sections of the contract must be highlighted.

This is positive and we can thank Charlie Hubbard for this. Of course the current BOE has broken their own policy once again.

Enjoy

Doug

SCATS said...

Doug ~~ You & Charlie are both absolutely correct! I've quoted it below ... again. The question is, what can we do to force the BOE to follow their own policy? Complain to the Commissioner of Education? What is the procedure?


Policy 6431 ~~
The District shall prepare an estimated cost for each portion of any new employment contract or addendum to the extent feasible. The estimated costs will include the anticipated amount needed for each year of the new contract or addendum. This cost estimate shall be attached to all new contracts or addendums and shall be available to the public. It will be the responsibility of the Superintendent and the Human Resources Department to have these figures available, if possible, ten days prior to any Board discussion of contracts and/or addendums.


The Board will discuss and report the projected costs of such contracts in open session and the projected costs will be recorded in the official meeting minutes.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the Commissioner should be asked for help clarifying and helping us understand. Maybe the BOE needs (deserves?) a little time-out.

SCATS said...

To 3:18PM ~~ Suspension would be good!

Anonymous said...

The bad thing is it doesn't say WHEN the information has to be made public, it just says it has to be. That policy needs wording like: Estimated costs will be discussed in open session at least ten days BEFORE the ratification of a new employment contract. Basically, that entire policy says the BOE can disseminate the information at ANY DATE OF THEIR CHOOSING. There is no timeline in that policy. Boo:(

SCATS said...

To 3:53PM ~~ You may not be aware, but nearly ALL BOE policies are open to interpretation. They apply them to THEIR benefit, always against the benefit of parents, students, taxpayers, etc. It's part of the game they play.

Anonymous said...

Another reason to ask the Commissioner for an interpretation that matters The BOE can stonewall with theirs forever; once the Commissioner has ruled, they have a more difficult time playing their game.

Anonymous said...

SCATS:

I think you could find the procedure on the NYS Ed Dept website. It is a long process. At the end you could win. The commissioner will rule: "Yes Greece BOE clearly did not follow their own policy and they should never, never, ever do that again."

It will then go on to say, "But the breach in policy or the offense is not so serve to undo the action they did. It is not even a slap on the wrist.

Two individuals were always filing with the commissioner. These individuals usually were right and won their case. One was Charlie's brother George and the other individual I forgot his name. He attended most BOE meetings, wrote nummberous articles in the Greece Post and filed with commissioner mostly on financial mismanagment with the reserve funds and appropriations. He usually won but nothing changed.

Enjoy

Doug

SCATS said...

To Doug ~~ Did you mean Tom Kackmeister by chance? It sounds like leaving NY State is a more viable option than getting our electeds to conform to laws. How sad is that??

Anonymous said...

SCATS:

Yes. Thank you. It was Tom Kackmeister. I did not know he left the state. I bet he went South to Florida. No state income tax.

There is another very famous Tom that went South. Tom Golassano(sp.) He spent, twice, over 80 million dollars, each time, of his own money running for governor to try and change Albany. Good luck.
He saved $13,800 a DAY by moving out of NYS. If he was such a smart business man what took him so long to make that choice.

Wouldn't be nice to be so rich knowing you could make $13,800 a day more if you move but you still stay in NY for over ten years to try and change the system.

Merry Christmas/Happy New Years

Enjoy

Doug

SCATS said...

To Doug ~~ I didn't mean to imply that Tom Kackmeister left NY. I was suggesting that leaving was an option for anyone that sought law abiding elected officials. Sorry for the confusion.

Tom Kackmeister said...

FYI: I sent this to the district office today. I'll let you know if I hear back.

To Superintendent:

Re: Teamster's contract:

Where can I locate the documentation that demonstrates the school board followed the policy I have copied below.
I direct this to the superintendent as the policy states it is the Superintendent's responsibility to have the information available.


Policy 6431 ~~
The District shall prepare an estimated cost for each portion of any new employment contract or addendum to the extent feasible. The estimated costs will include the anticipated amount needed for each year of the new contract or addendum. This cost estimate shall be attached to all new contracts or addendums and shall be available to the public. It will be the responsibility of the Superintendent and the Human Resources Department to have these figures available, if possible, ten days prior to any Board discussion of contracts and/or addendums.


The Board will discuss and report the projected costs of such contracts in open session and the projected costs will be recorded in the official meeting minutes.

Tom Kackmeister

SCATS said...

To Tom ~~ Excellent!! Let us know if/what you hear back. It seems to me that our BOE should have to pass periodic testing about their own policies, Open Meetings Laws, FOIL, and state and federal regulations, laws, etc. If they can't get 80% correct, toss them out.

Anonymous said...

Why was the district in such a hurry to settle with the teamsters? The first contract turned down by Teamsters would have saved the tax payers a lot of $. So, the district caves and gives them more than any other union? Why? What does the Teamsters have over the district? Or are do the district negotiators just have no experience?

Anonymous said...

The only Teamsters are getting 6%-9%? will be those at the top of the pay scale. When the least paid see their "raise" they can thank those at the top.

Charlie Hubbard said...

*** TRUST ***

The idea that a policy like the one indentified is even needed should be of concern to all residents. You would think it would be just common sence - sad.

This policy was in reaction to the conduct of the school board of 2004 who gave lifetime family medical and dental paid 100% by taxpayers - remember???
The cost 'was' 'is' ???

Once you reach the point where what you the taxpayers think 'does not matter' few good things (if any) will follow. When 'respect' at any level of government takes a back seat - watch out.

*** TRUST ***

Anonymous said...

Scats; the article indicates the info on the contract was supplied by the union. Why wouldn't the district supply this info?

It talks about a "superior" health care plan. What does that mean?

SCATS said...

To 12:14PM ~~ Maybe we can surmise that the district/BOE didn't know what they approved.

I have heard no details about the particulars of the health care plan. If someone knows the changes made, I'd appreciate it if they would share them.

hay1jax said...

I tried to call the D&C and tell them to retract this. I don't know who told them this information, but I am a school Bus driver in Greece and the contract that was voted on gives only our step raise for 2010(which we already got. I got .25!!) and we get the same for 2011. ONLY our step raise. In 2012 we get a 3%! Which does includes the current step, so it isn't even 3%! Our health care stayed the same for 2010 and 2011. In 2012 we have to pay 2% more!!! Now we will have people all over town mad at us for the D&C's lies!!! No one in America is getting 6-9% raises!!! Sheesh!!

SCATS said...

To hay1jax ~~ Thank you for clearing the air!

Anonymous said...

Modern Math:

2010 Step Raise Approx 3%
2011 Step Raise Approx 3%
2012 Raise/Step Approx 3%
Total 9%
So help me understand how wrong is the D&C article when it printed "Teamsters Contract 6-9% Raise"?

The only people not getting a 6-9% raise would be the most senior people at the very top of the salary schedule and not getting a step raise because there are no more steps.

Enjoy

Doug

Anonymous said...

I still can not grasp how anyone can call a "step increase" anything other than "raise".
If you get paid more this year than last year, you got a raise.
It would be nice if anyone from any union would just talk straight and call a raise a raise.
As for the "superior" health plan, I think the article stated that they get to keep the existing "superior" health plan.