Saturday, November 27, 2010

Something To Consider in Union Talks

In most companies, new employees don't get anywhere near the perks that a previous generation enjoyed. Vacation days cannot be banked, your birthday is not a day off and even if you never took a sick day, you will not be rewarded when you retire.

Municipal government, especially in cities, seems to be the last bastion of "terminal leave," in which a person leaves the job but gets paid until all those earned days are expended. A current example is the retirement of Fire Chief Cecil Allen, who will have five months of terminal leave after he turns over the reins to an acting chief, who will then also receive chief's pay for being in charge.

In the spirit of post-Thanksgiving time, when leftovers abound, I am giving you a leftover article from 2008 that talks about money owed to employees for accrued days off. Click here to see it. As union negotiations go on, this may be of interest in thinking about limiting future liability.

--Bernice

5 comments:

  1. In my company they would bank one weeks worth of vacation time through the next year only...as of this year ( mid year ) they changed it to no banking of anytime even for the following year. It's officially completely USE IT OR LOSE IT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My company has a use it or lose it policy on vacation time. If one were to leave the company with vacation time due, it is paid to them. But, of course, it's never more than the maximum yearly vacation time due. So we're talking five weeks maximum.

    Sick time can accrue to 240 hours, then gets capped. If it's not used, it's gone upon retiring or otherwise leaving the company. Personal days and other comp time is also on a use it or lose it basis. I'm sure many call out sick a lot as their time is waning, but not all.

    Lately with knee surgeries, I don't have to worry about gathering too much sick time. It pays more than short term disability and has to be used up first.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While the banking of sick days (paid at the rate of recieving 1 days pay for every 3 on the books) has been around since I can remember, the addition of terminal leave when an employee retires is something that was offered to the Unions by the City at the bargaining table. All the unions have it but the number of days vary between the unions. This was offered to the unions in agreement for placing a cap of $15,000 on payment of unused sick days as well as being paid for those days at the rate earned instead of the final hourly rate. Depending on the number of days an employee has, he can take that many days (depending on the terms of a particular union contract) paid at the rate of 1 to 1. So if an employee has 40 days of sick time on the books prior to retirement, and their contract allows for 2 months terminal leave, they can plan their last day of work 2 months before their actual retirement date and receive their normal pay for those two months. Sweet deal! 40 sick days on the books only takes less than 3 years to accumulate.

    And in the case of long term employees, imaging earning a salary at one rate and then cashing in on it at a higher rate if their contract does not contain that language. Good investment if you bank your sick time. Especially if you in the uniformed services where it can be up to 6 months time. 6 months pay plus cashing in on $15k in unused time. Another sweet deal!

    And it is always difficult to get unions to give back anything previously negoiated. It would be nice to say that the City needs to address these long time benefits by grandfathering current employess and making new conditions of employment with new hires, but with current layoffs, there should be no new hires coming in.

    So if that is not going to happen, the City needs to address non-union employees. Do like Lattimore did in the 80's - 0% pay raise for non-union employess. Oh yeah, except for the City Clerk who sued the City successfully to receive a pay raise comparable to what unions were getting. Way to go Ms. W.

    It has to start at the top - don't expect unions to make concessions while the top brass has always received the same benefits fought for at the bargaining table and then some.

    Still waiting to see a salary ordiance to reduce the mayor's and council members salaries. Hear that council members? Grandfather yourself in and lower the salaries for your replacements. Perhaps the City could actually find concerned citizens to run for public office instead of someone looking for another paycheck and health benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is absolutely no reason for Council members to get health insurance or other benefits. After all, they aren't even part-time employees.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree, there is NO reason for council members to get medical insurance benefits. And why should they grandfather themselves in? Let them take a pay cut, or since they're so interested in austerity, just work for free.

    ReplyDelete