Search This Blog

Thursday, October 10, 2013

MY TAKE - Wallingford council rejects union contract

As reported in the Record Journal article, during the Town Council meeting where seven of nine Councilors voted down the negotiated contract the sentiment that was echoed a few times was “there was no zero percent wage increase” as well as “we’ve been negotiating across the three years (with the zero in the mix) at about 1.8 percent average on the wage increases” (this one came to 2.07 percent so it was .27 percent too high for some people’s tastes.)

Allow me to stop the spin on the “there was no zero percent wage increase” – the last contract had one; I asked the question twice for the record.

Arbitration over this tiny amount could cost up to $20,000 in legal fees and we could be compelled to pay this out anyway but the big sticking point was that last year – that 2.25 percent wage increase even though in bargaining unions of similar size across the state, an increase close to 2.25 percent is normal.

Linda Winters, business manager - $127,079
Sharlene Wong, food service director - $90,594
Randall Backus, director of information technology services - $104,005
Mark Deptula, supervisor of buildings and grounds - $105,245

So what is the difference of .27 percent in wages?

You add the salaries together from the above and the total is $426,923

If the contract had been passed, wages in the contract would increase expenses by $26,502 over the three years. The contract would have saved $5,573 by removing the insurance premium cap so the overall cost increase impact was $20,929 on the school board.

That is $6,976 each year.

So let’s go back to the “big issue” – that 2.25 percent wage increase. “I could get on board with this if that last year was 2 percent”. Two Councilors effectively said that.

The difference in cost of $426,923 at .25 percent for that final year?


Wallingford in now going to spend in the neighborhood of $20,000 in arbitration for the matter of $1,067.

No comments:

Post a Comment