October 24, 2008

Council 94 Accepts "New" Deal

Marc Comtois

In July, Council 94 tried to ignore economic reality and rejected this deal:

1) Pay raises of zero, 2.5 percent, 3 percent and 3 percent during each of the next four years;
2) a one-day pay reduction in the current year that employees can recoup as a paid leave day;
3) escalating increases in the percentage of premium the employees will be required to pay for their health insurance.

One primary reason given for the rejection was related to the latter. Because 70 percent of the membership make less than $40,000 each year, changing the employee health-care contributions from a percentage of salary to a percentage of the health-care premium was considered to have a "disproportionate effect on Council 94’s lower earners."

Today, the membership of Council 94 accepted this agreement:

1) Pay raises of zero, 2.5 percent, 3 percent and 3 percent during each of the next four years;
2) Employee health-care contributions that are a percentage of premiums, though in a graduated scale. For instance, those who make less than $45,000 pay 12% in the first year while those who make over $90,000 pay 25%.
3) Increase in co-pays for emergency-room care and specialists.
4) Wellness program whereby employees can reduce co-share payments by as much as $500 if they quit smoking or visit their primary care physician (before going to a specialist).

Which deal would have been better for the membership? In the end, were they well served by their leadership?

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Why did only (roughly) 2500 out of 4000 union memebers vote on this very, very important contract??

Posted by: Red at October 24, 2008 7:48 PM

And 3,066 out of 4,000 members voted on the prior contract in July. H'm, interesting question.

Posted by: Monique at October 24, 2008 9:05 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.