This comes to us directly from the Office of Mayor Tipple
“Wednesday, November 18, 2009 – Today temporary layoff notices were issued to ten (10) employees. This was necessary in order to immediately reduce our expenses before year end. This layoff is indefinite.
The City of Wausau is implementing two (2) non-voluntary temporary layoff days (furloughs) for 2009. The furloughs apply to all full time and permanent part time employees of AFSCME Local 1287 and 1287CH. The leave days are as follows:
1287 Full and Permanent Part Time Employees:
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
1287CH Full and Permanent Part Time Employees:
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Crossing Guards will be excluded from the December 23, 2009 lay off day (furlough) as school will be in session that day. City Hall and Customer Service Counters of the Police Department, Community Development Authority and Public Works will be closed on the above days. These layoffs were selected in an attempt to minimize disruption of city operations and services to constituents.”
Saltpeter
8:29 am on November 19th
You can certainly see where the power resides. Ten of the Street Crew get the axe. The office workers get a couple of days off without pay. The day before Thanksgiving and the day before Christmas Eve. Bummer! Way to throw yourselve on the sword for the common man’s good.
John H. Fischer
8:50 am on November 19th
Athough the layoffs could have probably been avoided had the union(s) been able to simply accept economic reality and realize that maybe cost of living increases when the cost of living (measured by the CPI) has actually been negative for most of the year borders on unreasonable, I was happy to see that no police officers or fire fighers were on the list (yet).
I do wonder, though, whether it would have been better for some of the staffing cuts had come from more of the administrative areas?
John H. Fischer
10:13 am on November 19th
really… made many concessions…?
Such as?
Dino Corvino
10:17 am on November 19th
Sorry, I was correcting a formatting thing, while John was commenting, and how we have an out of sequence situation.
What I said was, I have heard that all of the unions have made concessions in this budget process, and that people have been surprised and thrilled with them.
In response to what John asked me now…
I know that a few departments and their staff have agreed to take on projects that would normally be part of their duties, and they are just going to do them as ‘volunteer work’,
More than that, I do not know. I am simply going on conversations I have had with a few staff people, and councilmembers.
Barry Liss
2:20 pm on November 23rd
a cheap cliche to blame the union – the union was not the primary problem that brought us to this point…
John H. Fischer
4:02 pm on November 23rd
the PRIMARY problem – no… I agree…
However, a part of the problem (incluidng their ability to negotiate without using good faith because of how arbitration works with municiple employees) – Yep!
There are many issues that contributed to our current situation, and working out of the current situation will take a cooperative effort from all involved.
And much like for- profit companies, if the employer can simply not afford to keep the current staffing level, they have to make a choice…. either all sacrifice a little.. or a few must be let go.
Barry Liss
10:05 am on November 24th
Mr Fischer, you assert that “the layoffs could have probably been avoided had the union(s) been able to simply accept economic reality and realize that maybe cost of living increases when the cost of living (measured by the CPI) has actually been negative for most of the year borders on unreasonable.” Here is the contract between the unions and the city of Wausau. You will find the pay scales on appendix 1, pgs 34-35. The data do not support your assertion.
http://www.ci.wausau.wi.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lOx4Zz2TlKg%3D&tabid=491
John H. Fischer
4:31 pm on November 24th
I guess I don’t understand how the pay rates in the union contract do anything for my statement, either in support of it or opposed to it.
To see what the wage increases were that were negotiated, you would have to compare the current pay scale tables with the previous ones.
To determine the change in “cost of living”, one only needs to review the CPI website http://www.bls.gov/cpi/
My point is… that the unions demanded a cost of living increase over their previous contract. However, with the actual cost of living going down (as measured by CPI), next contract will they plead for cost of living decreases.
Again, I never said they were the PRIMARY cause of the problem. The primary cause, if I had to diagnose one, would be a disconnect in the perception of reality between those who govern and those who are governed.
Barry Liss
6:05 pm on November 24th
Sir, I provided you with a link to the contact so people realize it is in fact a contract – ostensibly negotiated in good faith, you imply differently but who knows what you mean.
Also, I wanted to acquaint people with the positions and the moderate level of the salaries.
John H. Fischer
6:11 pm on November 24th
Sir.. don’t call me sir.. call me seargent – I work for a living.
(OOPS.. sorry.. army flash back.. )
what I mean when I question “good faith” bargaining.
The way the law is (as I understand it).. if at contract renewal the City’s original offer is 10 and the Union’s offer is 20… and through negotations the city is able to come up to 14 and the union is willing to come down to 16, but no one wants to take that last step..
The union is in a position of power because they know that if the city does not eventually come up to 16, it will go to arbitration.. and the arbitrator will not look at negotiations and will decide on one of the original proposals… 10 or 20… so the union can wait for the city to come up to 16 or go to arbitration where based on history, they have a very good chance of getting the original 20.
That is my understanding of how the contract negotiation system works.. some one on the “inside”, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Jim Rosenberg
1:59 pm on November 25th
The arbitrator chooses from the FINAL offers — not the initial offers. In your example, the arbitrator would choose either 14 or 16 (but not 15; one offer prevails in its entirety.)
Some have asked why the city didn’t try to negotiate zero-increase contracts to begin with and hold to that position. The answer is pretty simple: with the facts that were available at the time, we would have lost in arbitration. But if unions are NOW willing to revisit the pay increases in light of the facts and the consequences of not compromising on pay, (more layoffs), then it is extremely helpful in assisting the city to maintain services and jobs, given the realities now in play. (The contracts were negotiated prior to knowing the levy limit, the extent to which shared revenue would be cut, etc.) At this point, we have received some important help from both the Police and Firefighters unions, for which we are very grateful.