CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
County workers union rejects pension changes
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
)
Baltimore County employees are members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
More than 90 percent of the county branch of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees sacrificed raises to vote against extending the minimum retirement age for employees with fewer than 30 years of service from 60 to 65.
The proposal is estimated to force about 47 percent of the county’s employees to work longer than expected to retire with full benefits.
“There are thieves in government who are trying to steal retirement from people who are just a paycheck away from public assistance,” said Glen Middleton, the union’s executive director.
The proposals have been controversial as the County Council prepares to approve a budget for 2008. The union was the only one of six to reject the council’s offer, though other union contracts were narrowly ratified.
County administrators said the changes are necessary to prepare for state funding cuts and account for a new law requiring governments to prefund retirement benefits, estimated as a $2 billion county liability.
Don Mohler, a spokesman for County Executive Jim Smith, said the union members will continue to work under the same contract as this year.
“It’s unfortunate, but we’ll be back at the bargaining table next year,” Mohler said.
Several council members said they were considering modifying the proposal to exclude about 430 former employees and current employees close to 60.
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