CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Union, county get second chance on pension proposal
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: Baltimore County
Baltimore County (Map, News) - The Baltimore County labor union that last week refused to accept proposed pension plan changes will leave the final decision to its members after lawmakers launched a persuasive last-ditch effort days before the annual budget is due.
Leaders of the county Federation of Public Employees chapter — a 1,700-strong group representing correctional officers, public works employees and clerical assistants — agreed to let its members vote on a proposal to extend the minimum retirement age from 60 to 65 for employees with less than 30 years of service.
Negotiators for the union, the last bargaining group to reach an agreement with county administrators, refused to accept offers that included raises as high as 13 percent for some employees after seven and a half hours of negotiations Thursday, the deadline. But union leaders agreed Wednesday to allow members to vote on the offer, which did not include pay raises for about 800 employees, up or down.
“The county executive wanted to do everything he could to make sure county employees were protected,” said Don Mohler, a spokesman for County Executive Jim Smith. “He didn’t want them to be disadvantaged because of the union’s leadership.”
Union spokesman Terence Cooper said leaders reconsidered after the county agreed to evaluate the 800 employees to determine potential pay raises.
Smith is scheduled to deliver his annual budget message Monday and a union vote was not scheduled by press time. In the interim, Mohler said, the county will work under the assumption the union will ratify the contract.
Officials credited council members Joe Bartenfelder, D-District 6, and John Olszewski Sr., D-District 7, with convincing union officials to reconsider. A longtime union member, Olszewski said he intervened out of “fairness.”
“I’m not in the position to tell them how to vote, I just think they should have a vote,” Olszewski said. “We were fortunate to revive this.”
jmalarkey@baltimoreexaminer.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 | 210 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 | 237 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 | 218 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree