|
QUESTION:According to an AP story, the largest union representing Iowa's state
workers on Wednesday proposed a $44million contract package that would raise
pay, raise that state's share in health care benefits and prevent future
layoffs.
Highlights of the proposal:
1. A 5 percent pay raise in each of the two years of the contract, at a
cost of $34.1 million a year.
2. Raising the state's share of the cost for workers' health care, up from
the current 75 percent paid to 90 percent, at a cost of $10.5 million.
3. Putting in place a ban on any more layoffs or furloughs for state
workers.
4. Imposing a cease and desist on contracting state services to private
business.
My take:
1. Raises should be issued based on performance/merit, as opposed to just
a, "here you go" fashion.
2. Why on earth should any employer be responsible for providing 90 percent
of workers' health care coverage? The current 75 percent is more than
generous.
3. Layoffs are as much a part of economic reality as raises are. It is
unreasonble for the union to try and take this last resort option away from
the state.
4. Nothing more than an attempt at mandating job security.
ANSWER: Now that part of your argument I will agree with. That being said they (the
legislatures and executive branch) should have a better handle on what the
state's income will be in the coming year.
Until a few years before I retired the trucks in our department were replaced
every ten years. You would not believe what it took to keep them going that
long. Then things started to get tight. Trucks and equipment was not replaced as
frequently. They started buying some used trucks and heavy equipment and then
incurred huge expenses bringing it up to a point where it was safe to use. In
some cases needed equipment was just phased out when it was too obsolete to
repair. In others new equipment was purchased but it was smaller and inadequate
for the jobs it was expected to do. Then you could drive by some, not all, city
offices at night and see every light in the place on all night with not a person
on the premises other than the security guard.
At the same time more and more white collar jobs were being created, many of
them redundant or to that casual observer make work jobs. This was the time of
the "Reform Committee Report" that suggested cutting first line supervisory
staff by more than half. As it was the city was growing at a fast rate and in at
least one quadrant the forman was driving as much as 80 miles or more per day
supervising us, checking on future work, answering citizens calls in person and
other duties. When we unionized just after the law went into effect allowing us
to bargain the foremen in several departments wanted to join us. Of course they
were ruled out by the state. Some of the things they feared eventually came to
pass. When I left a heavy equipment operator working the second or third shift
actually was making more than a supervisor that had been in his job less than
seven years. Their vacation, sick leave, bereavement leave, etc. was all lumped
into one neat little package and given a snappy title. This meant if a
supervisor took his/her family on vacation and used up most of that years leave
they damned well better not get sick for the rest of that year.
I could go on, but this is already too damned long and no one is going to change
their view based on anything scribbled in here anyway.
|
|
|
|
