CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Union rejects health care offer
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
BALTIMORE (Map, News) - Members of the Baltimore County police union voted overwhelmingly to reject a county health care package that gradually increases employees’ contributions, officials said Thursday.
Fraternal Order of Police president Cole Weston said he delivered a letter Thursday to county labor commissioner George Gay requesting the parties return to the bargaining table after 98 percent of members voted against the package earlier this week.
The package — collectively negotiated by all the county’s unions — includes gradual cost increases for existing employees over the next five years and immediate higher costs for new employees.
The effect of the union’s rejection on other unions who have accepted the package is unclear, Weston said.
“If we were able to successfully reopen negotiations and they made modifications to their last proposal, which would cause me to take it out to another vote, would they stay consistent with the other labor groups?” Weston said.
Calls to Gay and others authorized to speak on behalf of the county were not returned by press time.
The health care package — part of sweeping cost-cutting proposals that include drastic changes to the county’s pension system — increases costs for HMO participants from 3 percent to 10 percent and from 15 percent to 20 percent for Blue Cross/Blue Shield customers.
Three of the county’s bargaining units have accepted the health care package and proposed changes to the pension system, most notably an extension of the minimum retirement age from 60 to 65 for existing employees and to 67 for future employees.
The county chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is slated to vote on ratification Monday. The county’s 1,700-member Federation of Public Employees chapter voted Thursday, but results were not available by press time.
Lawmakers have questioned the legality of including about 430 former employees who kept money vested in the system in the changes. Councilman John Olszewski Sr., D-District 7, said he sent a letter to County Attorney John Beverungen seeking clarification.
He said future action hinges on the FPE vote.
“If they ratify, the issues go away,” Olszewski said.
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