Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Better Days?


The Big Lug Nut and AFSCME Iowa Council 61 President Danny Homan are pictured in happier times, when both were living off the fat of the land.

Bitter days is more like it now and the scientific community is united in that fact.

AFSCME Iowa Council 61 announced the results of a membership vote on whether to accept cuts in pay and benefits, this budget year, in exchange for preventing layoffs for union members.

By a margin of 59% to 41%, members agreed to take five days of unpaid leave and giving up about $75 a month in retirement contributions.

66% of union members voted, I believe Homan referred to it as a historic vote with their highest percentage ever.

That's really sad, especially since they mail the ballot to your home and provide a postage paid return envelope.

Homan noted the five unpaid days can be scheduled consecutively, like vacation days, which would allow that employee to qualify for unemployment benefits.

Homan suggested that the state needs to "Raise more revenue" and that can be accomplished by a couple of ways, "Either get rid of some tax exemptions, or, hang on, here comes the big 'T' word, do a tax increase so that the only people balancing the state budget aren't state employees."

There's some sympathy for workers in the private sector who don't get a vote on taking unpaid days, layoffs or pay cuts when their employers face economic hardships.

Let me see if I get this straight.

AFSCME Iowa Council 61 wants you (the taxpayer) to pay more with less earnings because their well compensated members (taxpayer employees) don't want to lose anymore of their benefits that have increased by 151%, five times the rate of inflation, since 1999.

State workers as a group make nearly $5,400 more a year on average in base salary and receive $4,700 more in benefits than their private-sector counterparts.

And you need to shoulder more of the responsibility?

Fat of the land!

Finally, if I was a non-union state employee that lost my job while a less senior union member kept theirs, I would be suing the State of Iowa and AFSCME Iowa Council 61 over this agreement.

The union has a legal responsibility to represent all the workers, whether they are members or not, it seems to me that bargaining away non-union jobs would be a violation of Iowa's "Right to Work" law.

10 Comments:

Anonymous CW said...

Ballots were not mailed to anyone's house. There were 31 polling places set up across Iowa. Not like facts seem to matter to you.

8:56 AM

 
Anonymous CW said...

And by the way, you obviously don't understand the agreement since NO AFSCME covered positions will lose their jobs - that means the dues paying members and the ones who choose to get their greivance/ contract negotiations, arbitration, and representation for nothing.

Like I posted, its not like facts matter to you.

8:58 AM

 
Blogger King of SNARK said...

CW calm down, no need to get all agitated.

The Liter does believe facts matter and if we made an error in the balloting process, we apologize.

I used my own union background when believing the ballots would be mailed.

I figured an organization in the hip pocket of the Dummycrats would be, like them, all about making voting easier.

It makes me wonder what Don McKee err...Danny Homan is doing with all the dues dollars.

As for your second post, I can only go by what the press reports.

Thanks for reading!

1:28 PM

 
Anonymous CW said...

Mr. King:

Show me the press report that says members of an AFSCME bargaining unit who are not dues paying members are not subject to the MOU ratified by the vote.

4:37 PM

 
Blogger King of SNARK said...

Happy to oblige CW --

11/10 Charlotte Eby appeared in several newspapers noting an agreement had been reached...

"The total savings of $26.4 million is expected to save 479 AFSCME jobs."

"Under the terms of the agreement, no member of the union who is an executive branch employee can be laid off until June 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Employees outside the bargaining unit who are laid off will not be allowed to displace AFSCME employees."

"Price said he did not know at this point how many non-union members might be laid off."

11/10 Jennifer Jacobs wrote in the Ragister...

"Iowa's largest public employee union will vote this month on whether to take five unpaid days off and sacrifice about $75 a month in retirement contributions in exchange for an agreement that none of its members will be laid off for seven months."

Ragister Editorial on 11/11...

"In an agreement reached with Culver, all AFSCME workers would take five unpaid days off and sacrifice about $75 a month in retirement contributions. In exchange, no AFSCME worker would be laid off before the end of this fiscal year. Also managers could not "bump" or take the job of the union employees. This agreement does not apply to non-AFSCME members facing layoffs, but could save 479 jobs."

11/16 in the Sioux City Journal...

"Homan has said the concessions would save 479 AFSCME jobs."

Can't locate the TV reports from any of those twinkies, as they don't put their entire casts on the web, but they're out there.

Best of luck.

5:56 AM

 
Blogger King of SNARK said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:20 PM

 
Anonymous CW said...

Nice cherry picking Mr. King:

How about you quote the article that your LINKED TO in the original article from

Union's vote saves 561 state jobs
By JENNIFER JACOBS

"The "memorandum of understanding" between AFSCME and Culver states that all 20,000 state employees in the executive branch covered by the union contract will be safe from layoffs until July 1, the start of the next state budget year."

5:15 PM

 
Anonymous CW said...

... so please correct your assertion that Council 61 is breaking right to work laws.

5:37 PM

 
Blogger King of SNARK said...

M/M CW

Or should I say Charlie?

I'm not sure I can give you your total wish man.

I stated "if", "it seems to me" and "would be" based on the unclear picture painted by the media, as I've shown and you've ignored.

I don't recall seeing the paragraph you cited in the article when I read it online.

If it was there and I missed it, I apologize for that.

However, I know the Ragister has a history of editing their online content (adding and deleting) without explanation.

Now I need you to show me that you're going after the media about correcting their errors.

6:55 AM

 
Anonymous CW said...

hey looking back on this, this was a fun exchange. LOL

7:46 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home