CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Pay dispute settled with corrections guard union
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
The agreement resolves allegations that Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services corrections officers never received pay increases or promotions although they assumed more responsibilities.
The settlement comes amid major reform efforts the agency’s director, Vincent Schirald, introduced. He has remained at odds with the union since he took the job two years ago. Last year the union called for his dismissal.
Schiraldi and union president Glenn Adams called the settlement “historic.”
“Both sides bargained hard,” Adams said Thursday. “You can’t reform the juvenile justice system without a hard-working labor force, and you can’t have that without treating people fairly.”
Thirteen employees were awarded money for back pay and retirement and 143 employees were awarded compensation for promotion claims.
The agreement allocates more than $460,000 a year to the employees.
Schiraldi said settlement would accelerate the rest of his reform efforts.
“Our people have the hardest job in the District of Columbia,” Schiraldi said. “And they deserve to be compensated for it.”
smccabe@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:13 PM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "County workers union rejects pension changes"
Report as inappropriate
5:24 AM MST on Wed., May. 9, 2007
re: "County workers union rejects pension changes"
Report as inappropriate
6:36 AM MST on Fri., May. 4, 2007
re: "Union rejects health care offer"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
I am not sure where Ms. Malarkey is getting her information from, There is no "Law requiring governments to prefund retirement benefits." There is however GASB which is an accounting standard that has governments accounting for and paying for other post employment benefits, ie. health care, so they will be able to maintain their AAA bond ratings. Within GASB there is no mention of pensions. I sure do wish that reporters would verify their facts prior to printing such information. It should also be noted that this article depicts the union memebers in a positive light, which is good, but recent artcles about the BCFPE appeared to show the union as the "BAD GUYS". Thank you Ms. Malarkey for your true and honest information. Not.
225 agree | 211 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
finaly, a union that has sence to protect their members rather than line the pockets of a few. Thank You ASCME How many of the members of the other Unions voted to ratify because they were strong armed . Every employee out there should be writing to their Councilman right now and letting them know how this retirement proposal affects their family .and demand that the portion affecting prior and existing employees be removed..not approved, whether you voted to ratify or not.
216 agree | 238 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am a little confused by Johnny Olzewski's comment --- The future action hings on the FPE vote? There are 6 unions in Baltimore County, why does the future of all employees depend on this one vote? The contract was ratified by a vote of 152 to 146! Since the majority of the members (corrections and 911) were given a two step upgrade, those numbers say a lot. 146 people were willing to give up the upgrades to protect their benefits. And what about the other 1300 employees represented by this union, many who are on the low end of the pay scale and can not afford to join for the right to vote. These changes affect them also. Remember councilman, you are in an elected position. These are not just employees, they are tax payers!
234 agree | 219 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree