Move By Selectmen Is Not A Good One
Though well-intentioned, board's overture to unions a mistake
School Committee members (left to right) Deniz Savas, Tom Golota, chairman Andrew Mackie, superintendent Dr. Patricia Ansay, vice chairman Elizabeth McManus and Marge Werner discuss several policy revisions for the Norton Public School system.
Photos (1)
Photos
You have to give the Board of Selectmen credit for trying to aggressively and proactively address the tough financial year ahead. But the concept they came up with last Thursday night was ill-advised, ineffective, and just not a good idea.
Selectmen unanimously voted to send a letter to all unions they negotiate with asking them to accept a one-year extension of their current contracts, the idea being to freeze salaries and benefits thus preventing layoffs and severe cuts in services. They made this proposal in front of a seemingly surprised School Committee, and asked them to consider doing the same with the unions that come under their jurisdiction. The teachers union is by far the largest in town.
The problems with this proposal are many. First, it does not seem to be bargaining in good faith. This is starting negotiations with the collective bargaining units in public and in the press. You could not blame the unions if they got a bit upset that selectmen are apparently negotiating without them. This is the kind of proposal you make at the bargaining table, not in front of the press and the TV cameras.
Second, it is in essence waving the white flag and giving up any chance at negotiating concessions for next year. The budget needs to be lower, not the same. By agreeing to simply extend the contracts currently in place, selectmen pretty much admit they have no shot at getting the unions to give back in order to preserve jobs. That is questionable bargaining strategy to say the least.
Thirdly – it just won’t work. There is absolutely no incentive for the unions to agree to such a proposal. In fact it would be foolish of them to even consider such a thing, and here’s why.
If bargaining begins and the two sides do not reach agreement before the current contracts expire, the terms of the current agreement are automatically extended by law. A recent example of that was with the firefighters union. Their contract had been expired for over two years before a new agreement was recently approved. They continued to work under the terms of the last contract until a new one was signed.
By doing it that way instead of agreeing to a one-year extension, the unions maintain bargaining leverage. They also maintain the possibility of getting raises retroactively, as has happened often before. Why would they agree to extend their contracts by one year when that will happen anyway in the natural course of negotiations?
Selectmen are correct in that something needs to be done about collective bargaining in town – but this isn’t it. This actually accomplishes nothing except making a few headlines and possibly alienating the unions. It is a particularly bad idea on the school side due to the structure of the teachers contract. School committee members might have told selectmen that, had selectmen bothered to ask before announcing their plan.
This was a proposal was not given enough thought before it was pushed forward. Let’s hope it is quickly scrapped, and real bargaining commences with an eye towards maintaining services and saving jobs.
Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and a former selectman. He can be reached at aninsidelook@aol.com.
Andy Burgess
6:38 pm on Monday, February 21, 2011
That's the Board of Selectmen! Anybody who follows them would expect nothing less. I for one am on to Mr. Kimball's political tactics. Mr. Kimball is looking to say anything that will get him re-elected and so is the other guy who is running.
Just an idea Billy, why don't you ask them how much the Board has spent on Council fees the last three years negotiating contracts. We tried, in writing to Mr. Purcell to no avail. The selectmen have made it a practice to ignore the Town Charter when it comes to bargaining. Whether you agree or disagree this is wrong. I'm sure they money they have spent on an attorney could be used to help the budget.
Andy
PS please stop writing articles I agree with.
Bill Gouveia
6:52 pm on Monday, February 21, 2011
You agree? Do I need to retract? :)
I don't mind them spending money on lawyers to negotiate contracts. I think in the long run it might actually save the town money, although I understand the other point of view. And unless I am mistaken, Mr. Kimball isn't up for reelection this year. The only person running for reelection for selectmen this year is Mary Steele.
As I wrote, I think the selectmen were well-intentioned here, but I believe it was a mistake.
Andy Burgess
7:52 pm on Monday, February 21, 2011
Yes I know Mrs. Steele is up this year and not Mr. Kimball or the other guy. I chose the latter because I know what he is doing. He's been doing it for years, which I find a shame because to me it overshadows the good that he has done.
I think we would all be surprised how much the the Selectmen have spent on town Council this year. Saving money is one thing, but at what expense? Penny wise and Pound foolish.
Just for fun, try and find out how much. Hopefully you will have better luck.
Al Fuller
9:09 pm on Monday, February 21, 2011
I would like to say that the board of selectman may have had good intentions for asking the unions to take an zero percent raise for 1 year, but I feel that by doing so the way they did has actually hurt the town. I feel the idea was killed before the end of the meeting due to their bad faith barganing. I am an employee and a resident so I do care what happens in this town. the union I am part of made major concessions to the town this last contract with-out a fight. We knew the town was hurting and we did what we could to help. I will say that my healthcare deductions have more than doubled and after this coming year my small raise will most likely not cover the costs. I take offense to what appears to me to not be an attempt to help the town, but an attempt to make the unions look greedy again . I know that the town only has so much money and that at some point with-out further concessions that reductions in staff are most likely going to happen. I do not want to see my co-workers.friends .layed-off, but I don't think it is fair for the selectemen to say take the zero or face your co-workers and basically say sorry...but gotta let ya go . We all have hardships thats for sure, but put on me the perception that if some one is let go it is because I am greedy may be as simple as with-out a raise I won't be able to support my family. oh 1 other thing..maybe if the town can find a few extra pennies we could get the members of the board of selectmen a copy of the town charter.
Bill Gouveia
10:17 pm on Monday, February 21, 2011
What are you folks referring to when you talk about the Charter? What part of it are you talking about?
Andy Burgess
7:47 am on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The section of the Charter which states (not sure of word for word) that two members of the Board of Selectmen will be present during negotiations. The board has ignored this and used only the Town Manager and Town Council to negotiate.
I would like to add also the neither the Town Manager or Town Council live in this town and really have no vested interest in this town. Town Managers come and go, it's the employees and residents who are left behind to pick up any mess they have left.
The members of the last Union Bargaining Committee were all born and bred here in town and have dedicated their lives to public service in Norton, NOT UNTIL A BETTER DEAL COMES ALONG, which is the case with most Town Managers.
Bill Gouveia
8:14 am on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Section 4-2 (k) of the Town Charter (duties of Town Manager) states:
"(k) To negotiate all contracts involving any subject within the jurisdiction of the office of town manager, including contracts with town employees, except employees of the school department, involving wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Two (2) members of the board of selectmen shall attend and participate with the town manager in all negotiations involving contracts with employee bargaining units and collective bargaining. All contracts of this type shall be subject to ratification and execution by the board of selectmen."
I agree with you this seems pretty clear. But I disagree with your take that a Town Manager has no vested interest. They are professionals hired to do a job. Under your theory, firefighters in other towns who were not "born and bred" in that town also have no vested interest, and I don't think you would agree with that. But I do believe you have a valid point about the Charter and negotiations.
Andy Burgess
11:37 am on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
No Bill I wouldn't agree that firefighters born and bred in other towns have no vested interest. However they typically spend thier careers in one town. There is an exception to every rule, I for one am an example of that. Typically they stay in the town or city that hired them unlike all the Town Managers who I have seen. In hindsight I should not have said no vested interest in the town, but perhaps not much of a vested interest in the town. Again, there is an exception to every rule but unfortunately I have not seen it yet. What I have seen are Town Managers who leave for the higher paycheck and better deal, or do what Jim Purcell did and lead the board to believe he was leaving and drive up his pay (in order to keep him) and retire in a three years. I must admit that was a pretty clever way to feather his retirement nest.
Good to know we agree on something again, I guess with all this cold weather h--l is freezing over.
Bill Gouveia
12:24 pm on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
If it makes you feel better about us agreeing, I disagree with your take on Jim Purcell! :)
He stayed at the request of selectmen, and I think the town is better for that. You really don't want to get into how many public employees benefit at the end of their careers that way. It is not their fault, it is the way the system is set up today. Like you, I have seen some Town Managers that were simply collecting a paycheck and didn't seem to overly care about their community. I do not believe Mr. Purcell fell into that category at all.
We are very fortunate here in Norton to have had quite a few public safety employees who are lifelong residents of the town and give of themselves quite a bit. Of course, not all of them have been like that - but the overwhelming majority have. As you know, negotiations in times like these can get pretty intense and personal. You are dealing with people's lives and families, and you can't blame them for taking that very much to heart. I think in this instance I talked about in this column, the unions were being treated unfairly and I said so.
I'll see what I can do to get us back to fighting in the future! :)
Andy Burgess
4:24 pm on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
I guess we can agree to disagree. Perhaps we are in disagreement or maybe I didn't make my point, he beefed up his pension with his hefty raise over the last three years. And may I add it was at a higher percentage than my union recieved. Think about it, higher percentage for a higher salary in these financial times. Does not seem fair to me. I know the arguments and all that jazz. When I am eligible for my retirement, only sixteen years away, I still will not enjoy the same package he recieved. I will have worked for the Fire Dept. for over 35 years, and that does not include my 3 years on another dept. He worked here seven. But don't worry, I'm not retiring that soon. I still love my job.
Bill Gouveia
4:30 pm on Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Only sixteen years away? Boy, are you old! :)