Coral Gables: Teamsters and other Unions At Odds With The Taxpayers

Next to the City Commission, which has been unable to resolve the growing financial problems of the city, the police, firefighter and, now the general employee unions, are opposed to finding a solution to the financial stability of the city.  There views are that the city of Coral Gables is a wealthy community and able to finance well paid employees.  If this was true Coral Gables would be the only city or county in the whole US that is in that category.

The choices are clear, and they have been made clear by the the city manager.  Either the unions accept salaries and benefits that are reasonable and sustainable (and, indeed, I would say competitive) in the coming years or see the number of positions fall.  While the public security personnel contend that they are indispensalbe to the city, there is no single employee, either supervisor or staff feel that are indispensable to the future of the city.  The unions’ arrogance is only exceeded by their indifference to the heavy penalties the citizens are paying through higher and higher property taxes to pay their salaries, pensions and other multiple benefits.

Quoting the Teamsters from the contract negotiations (and the recent Impasse Hearing), “…it is difficult to believe that Coral Gables has transformed itself from prince to pauper within the space of a few years…” and “Apparently marginally increased taxes during a time of economic uncertainty are not the price that will be paid by Coral Gables’ affluent resident…”.  How out of touch can a union be.

Coral Gables: Balancing Well-Being of Taxpayers and the Budget

The Teamsters Union is now leading the general employees into a dark corner by asserting that Coral Gables is wealthy enough to keep paying high salaries, pensions and other benefits.  This is insulting to residents who have paid taxes through thick and (now) thin and have generally accommodated decent and fair salaries for most (and some not so great) employees in many years.

Many residents now believe that the Slesnick Commission has tolerated, if not outright defended, the well-being of employees above taxpayers.  Unions, of course, have cooperated in this process by defending the commission.

Now both the commission and the unions should work together and share the pain to get the budget back into balance.

Taxpayers cannot do any more than they have.

Why Can’t Coral Gables Cut Pensions: FL Cities are Cutting Pensions Now

Please read what other cities are doing.  Coral Gables employees, including police and firefighters should accept big cuts now.

Once they were considered a sacred perk for public sector employees.

But pensions have morphed into an albatross for many municipalities, compounded by shrinking tax revenues, investment losses and longer life spans.

Recent money-saving measures range from Sunrise raising the retirement age from 58 to 62 for new general employees to Hollywood requiring greater pension contributions (9 percent, up from 7) from their general employees. Other cities, including Pembroke Pines, Fort Lauderdale and possibly Hallandale Beach, are shifting new hires to 401(k)-type plans, which are subject to fluctuations in the market.

Municipalities with the largest payrolls are beset with heavy pension shortfalls. They include Fort Lauderdale ($306.8 million shortfall), Hollywood ($353.3 million) and Pembroke Pines ($201.4 million) in Broward County and Delray Beach ($51 million) and West Palm Beach ($90 million) in Palm Beach County.

Retirement contributions for Fort Lauderdale firefighters and police, for example, will rise from 8 to 8.25 percent of their base pay in October 2011. New hires already contribute 8.5 percent.

In Pembroke Pines, general employees hired after July 1 will shift to a 401(k)-type plan… New officers and firefighters hired after May 1 won’t receive longevity pay, while current employees will have their longevity pay frozen at the current rate.

via South Florida cities begin slashing pension costs – Sun Sentinel.

Teamsters Local 769 vs the City of Coral Gables

This coming Monday at 9am the City Commission, in an Impasse Meeting, will take up the failed negotiations with the International Brotherhood of Teams Local 769, who represent employees of the City of Coral Gables, and are unable to reach agreement with the city over a series of proposed salary and pension concessions.

In a talk before the Ponce Business Association, Mr. Mike Scott, Local President of the Teamsters Local 769, gave the views of a group of city employees (excluding police and firefighters who have their own contracts) who he represents.

The head of the Teamsters Local indicated that a required mediation process between the union and the city has failed; and the union will not accept the city’s proposals that includes an increase to 10 percent in pension contributions, a change from a rule of 70 to a rule of 80 to join the DROP and an across-the-board reduction in salaries

The view of the Teamsters is that the employees included in their negotiation should not have to take a larger concession than the police or the firefighters are taking.  The firefighters made a volunteer contribution of 5 percent (and as I understand it is compensated in later years by an earlier participation in pensions, which rough equals the value of their 5 percent contribution), and the police will negotiate a new contract later.

The problem with the Teamster’s representations is that, since the firefighter and police contracts are not up for negotiation at the same time, the other employees will not accept concessions unless the police and firefighters are treated the same.  This is a classic Catch 22 in which none of the unions want to begin the process of concessions.

It is urgent that the city start a process of reductions in salaries and pensions, and it should begin now with the employees represented by the Teamsters, although this may be painful for employees.

The ultimate beneficiaries are the taxpayers who cannot live with the huge pension liabilities that we have to pay now and in the future.