It reminded me of other occasions where the council's business got sidelined in favor of disputes over use of ball fields or pleas for city funding that the governing body could not legally give. Lots of heat, not much light and a test of the patience of those who came out to see the legislators legislating..
The concerns voiced for employees enrolled in the Legal Shield payroll deduction plan appeared to be commingled with the personal interest of individuals who might lose money if the plan is not allowed. (By way of background, when the issue came up at the Jan. 13 council meeting, Corporation Counsel David Minchello explained that the payroll deduction was implemented last year without his approval and that an indemnification resolution was needed from the council in order to allow the payroll deduction. It was the new administration's decision not to continue the plan. I must admit, I had to look this up in my notes as the Jan. 13 was another maelstrom of issues, too many to cover on the blog.)
All this aside, the sometimes heated remarks on the subject did provide a glimpse into upcoming political contests. The First Ward and Second & Third Ward at-large seats are up this year, along with the unexpired Third Ward seat vacated by Mayor Adrian O. Mapp. Candidates must file on March 31 for the June primary (or on June 3 to run as independents).
Rebecca Williams is the incumbent in the Second & Third Ward at-large seat and Gloria Taylor is the appointee serving in the Third Ward seat. It was interesting to this observer to see Taylor not just disagree with Williams regarding Legal Shield, but seeming to characterize her as not interested in the employees enrolled in Legal Shield.
In advocating for Legal Shield, entrepreneur Jeffery Dunn had last month called the payroll deduction a necessity for employees who had no checking accounts. Williams pointed out Dunn's personal ties to the company as shown in online links and said if employees without banking should receive financial counseling, as the deduction was taken off the top before they paid rent, mortgages or credit card payments. She said employees could sign up with Legal Shield directly if they wished.
At this point, with no one on hand to speak for Legal Shield, Council President Bridget Rivers called for a five-minute recess, after which Dunn showed up.
Taylor launched her characterization of Williams by criticizing her use of the term "indigent."
"My real concern is servicing the employees," she said. "I am not going to make them invisible."
When Williams said perhaps the city could look into other companies, Taylor said, "Again we are doing this elitist looking down on folk."
After preaching concern for "the least of these," Taylor condemned "people who think other people are not as important."
Councilman Cory Storch, who directs a social service agency, objected to Taylor's remarks about "the least of us" and people not caring. Storch said the city had to act like a business by being "as efficient as it is possible to be," and had to be careful about companies that come in and want to use the city for their gain.
The next City Council meeting is an agenda fixing session at 7:30 p.m. March 3 in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
..
As with the PMUA nominations, Councilwoman Taylor speaks but she doesn't know what she is talking about. Alternatively, if she does have an inkling about what she says, the conclusion is that her Council agenda is to leave the door open for corruption and profiteering. For this she has the company of several colleagues who labor mightily for Plainfield's One Percenters in their battle against a better future for our city.
ReplyDeleteThe packet Riley was nothing more than a printout of data from the company's website which any Councilor could have easily googled (found).
ReplyDeleteHi, Bernice,
ReplyDeleteA correction--I did not use the term "indigent," as far as I remember--appointed Councilor Taylor used that term. She used the word "elitist" to negatively characterize me--which deeply offended me. She doesn't know me or my background, so to deliberately use code words and terms to play to a perceived audience of "the least of these" is the worst kind of pandering. For anyone to build a straw man argument that I don't care about those employees and others who struggle with their finances shows that they haven't bothered to even look at my record--haven't even bothered to look in any detail into what this company is all about. Instead, they deflect the topic to make it about me being an "elitist." Because I don't support Legal Shield as a payroll deduction, I am an elitist? Ridiculous--beneath contempt.
I know many of the employees who work for the city--among those who live here, many are my constituents--they would beg to differ with anyone who termed me an elitist, because they know me, and they know that I work hard to serve them.
Regarding this business of Plainfield employees who don't have checking accounts--we have no idea how many people the self-interested Legal Shield reps are talking about--they keep fudging the numbers every time they open their mouths. Of the 80, 90, or 100 employees who are interested in Legal Shield's services, how many don't have checking/credit accounts? 5%? 10%? 20%? What exactly are we talking about here? And yet, and yet. This is simply another distraction from the question of whether the city should collect Legal Shield's monthly bills from our employees. I must reiterate, as an automatic payroll deduction, Legal Shield's bill gets paid BEFORE the mortgage/rent, the utilities, the food, etc.
I am well aware of how banking practices have disproportionately affected lower income people, and especially African Americans, who then are forced to go to check cashing places (and sometimes payday lenders) to perform their baking needs. THAT issue (a huge one) has NOTHING to do with Legal Shield's self-interested reps attempting to take advantage of the desperation of people who don't have access to checking accounts by taking the money through a payroll deduction.
Rebecca
Most of your arguments make sense but your dismissal of your opponent with, "Ridiculous--beneath contempt", is something only an elitist would say.
DeleteTo 10:33 am--how does my response to a comment that contemptuously and imperiously dismisses me as an elitist make it "something only an elitist would say"--that doesn't make any sense. I found the comment ridiculous and beneath contempt. And I do not view the councilors as "opponents"--that is your word--I view them as councilors. I treat my colleagues with the same respect that I expect from them.
DeleteI am concerned that anyone would take the word of self-interested salespeople (whether or not they live in our city) who go around promoting a service--it is the job of the city council to make sure that we protest the employees of the city by making sure that services are thoroughly vetted before foisting them on the employees of the city as a "benefit" to them. The sales packet shared with the council by the sales person didn't contain any information that one couldn't get on one's own--it was just broad, self-serving information about Legal Shield. Oddly, it didn't mention their troubles with the SEC.
Also--typo in an earlier comment--I meant "banking" needs--not "baking."
Rebecca
Further, there is no reason why someone who wants this product (and who may not have a checking account) cannot send a money order each month to Legal Shield. Again, the self-interested Legal Shield representatives continue to frame their argument as helping all these employees who don't have checking accounts--but WE know that the Legal Shield reps will make significant commissions off the employees. I am still disturbed by Mr. Dunn's lack of disclosure about his personal financial interest in this company. Not once did he acknowledge that he stands to make money if employees sign up. Not once. If we have employees who are struggling, they should be directed toward reputable credit counseling services--not toward being part of a monthly windfall for a privately-held company like Legal Shield, which is only after the automatic payroll deduction.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is for the employees and the city not to be taken in by continued hucksterism and misleading representations. One of the things the Legal Shield reps kept speaking of in their earlier representations was the idea of protecting employees against "Identity Theft"--that's the way these multilevel marketing companies work--they sign people up for a basic service that seems inexpensive, but when they add on all the other services (usually by creating worst-case scenarios), the employee ends up dedicating a significant amount of money to the company--often upwards of $40-50 per month.
To reiterate, I am completely aware of how difficult it might be for some people to get bank accounts for a variety of reasons, but that certainly should not open the floodgates for multilevel marketing companies to target vulnerable and possibly desperate individuals.
Again, if an employee wants this service, he or she can pay with a money order. You should know that Legal Shield has a Payment Option Form that can be filled out--THE INDIVIDUAL WANTING THE SERVICE CAN MAIL IT IN WITH A MONEY ORDER--the same way, I assume, that they would pay other bills. You wouldn't know this if you listened to self-interested reps.
Rebecca
I just wanted to add to comments above. As a user of this service when it was operated under the name PrePaid Legal, I found it to be useful when dealing with simple annoying issues where maybe you might need a letter to get somone off your back, for example, you pay a bill but due to their error your account is not credited and they continually call despite your cancelled check as proof. Also, it was great because it offered a will, health directive, etc to make me get those papers in order. However, when you need an attorney for something more serious, while he came with a cheaper rate, for example $150 per hour, instead of $200, it's still alot of money that you may not have and if you don't pay discount or not, you can still be without a lawyer. I was also a salesperson of this service at one time too and from what i've read, no where is it mentioned that not only do you get commission from each sale, there is also a residual payment the salesperson receives every year when the membership is renewed. So you get paid upfront and on the back end as long as the membership is active. Since the membership is monthly, people can simply drop it or just not pay it and it's over. The saleperson is paid once for the initial sign up. So of course it is in the best interest of the salesperson to get the city to collect the fees because this way there will probably be less of a drop in membership and the salesperson will continually collect the residuals as long as the person is employed.
DeleteTo those council members who voted to put the resolution on the next agenda: Have you investigated to see if LegalShield actually works for those whom it's supposed to protect?
ReplyDeleteDo NOT take ANY salesperson's word for it. All salespeople bend the truth, it doesn't matter where they went to school or where they pray on Sunday.
What happens if you need a real lawyer in real time not just lawyer chat? Does the employee's contract w/LS compel them to retain a LS attorney?
Nobody is going to provide unlimited legal service for $20.00 a month. What are the add-on fees? Are those fees also withheld from pay? Is there a limit as to what the employee is forced to pay each period? Is there a cap on total fees?
What if an employee loses their job in the middle of a legal action?
Are legal files transferable if the employee leaves the job or discontinues the service?
Can the employee cancel the contract and stop the deductions at any time? Just as important can LS drop the employee for any reason?
What is LS goes out of business? Where does that leave an employee?
Have you spoken to attorneys who do criminal, housing, bankruptcy, real estate or educational law to ask their opinion on the service and see what kind or reputation LS has in the legal community?
I believe that you are serious about protecting those whom you represent but you owe it to them to look into this carefully and not just sit through a salesperson's canned presentation. Only after you have asked tough questions and are satisfied with the answers should you vote to approve.
By approving the deductions you are in effect endorsing the service. Make real sure you know what you are are getting the employees into before you approve.
Why shouldn't all City employees have a bank account with direct deposit? Use the bank's Bill Pay feature, or go to your service provider's website and pay your bill there. City Council should ask for a report of all the elective salary deductions being offered to employees. I would like to know how long this particular one has been on the shelf, and how many workers are opting for what. I don't get how it came to be without a legal sign-off from Corporation Counsel. Actually I do get it, this is just one of many mystifying disguises.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe in this day and age that any City employee does not have a checking accout or does not use direct deposit. If the City has the right to deduct operating expenses from wage garnishments of City employees, why can't they charge for a payroll deduction?
ReplyDeleteIt seems very strange to me that someone who is a city employee doesn't have a bank account.
ReplyDeleteBanks require the same ID that someone would need to be a city employee -- social security, address, proof of residency.
Would it be possible to have direct deductions from employees paychecks to pay the City Taxes and PMUA fees? Now that is an idea worth looking into.
ReplyDeleteGloria Taylor exhibits, yet again, her lack of understanding of what a Council person is supposed to do. She is not representing a certain segment of the population, she is representing all of Plainfield (or at least supposed to). If she wants to have her church deduct Legal Shield costs from her contributors, have at it.
ReplyDeleteAgain, thank you Jerry Green for putting someone on the Council who has good intentions but no clue what their fiduciary responsibilities are. Yet again, Jerry exhibits his lack of concern for Plainfield, and great love of keeping Plainfield under his thumb. Pitiful.
Councilman Reid:
ReplyDeleteIf a city employee who is signed up for Legal Shield needs more lawyering than he or she can get with the basic plan, and Legal Shield "lends" them the money to be paid back by garnisheeing their pay, do you know what the interest rate is? Have you seen it in writing?
Yeah... Uhhhh, Dear Gloria... you're already associated with the 3 Ring Circus on City Council ( congrats - WTH ???? ) .. no sense trying to oust Bill Reid as the Ring Master.
ReplyDeleteNext they can deduct rent a center
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how in this day and age anyone can operate without some kind of bank account. When my husband started his job many years ago, they only paid through direct deposit, so they didn't care if you didn't have an account, if you wanted to get paid you had to get one. So how come Plainfield doesn't require this? It would certainly make more sense then the city deducting this legal shield fee. Also, it would allow the employees to decide what bills they want taken out of their hard earned money instead of having that option dictated by other people who may not have their best interest in mind only lining their bank accounts.
ReplyDeleteBefore the city could even entertain the notion of adopting LegalShield, they would have to look at its competition--I did--LegalZoom, Rocket Lawyer, Hyatt Legal Plans, ARAG Insurance, etc. At least two of these companies, ARAG Insurance Company and Hyatt Legal Plans (part of MetLife), offer these plans as employee benefits--however, they don't use the independent reps like LegalShield does. I am wondering whether the employees who have expressed interest in a legal plan are aware of the competitors--certainly, they should know where they can get the most bang for their buck. For those who are among "the least of these," it is our fiduciary responsibility to make sure that they are broadly aware of the competitors. If the city wanted to see about offering a legal plan as an employee benefit, I am sure that they would do their research, have these plans vetted through our city's legal team, figure out if this is something that they want to do, and then make a presentation to the employees. Again--LegalShield is just one of many companies that offers legal insurance services and products. I think that the employees should be made aware of these other entities, if they are not already, so that they can make a more informed choice--rather than just hearing one sales pitch. From what I could see, there is nothing that LegalShield offers that these other companies don't--but employees wouldn't know that unless the other companies, too, are allowed to make their pitches.
ReplyDeleteRebecca
P.S. Please forgive typos in already published comments!
I would prefer to see the employees being presented with the info as a payroll attachment. If they are interested, they can sign up for it on their own. No payroll deduction needed. As Wanda stated, it is a good basic legal service for those times when needed. It does provide more, and is given at a "discounted" rate. Gloria needs to go bye bye.
ReplyDelete