Thursday, August 18, 2011

City of Deerfield Beach: To be fair or to be yourselves...

I wrote this on May 26, 2011 prior IUPAT voting and accepting the 5/5/10 Union Agreement, which basically leaves the non-uniformed up the creek without a paddle.  If the employees took time to actually read the agreement, instead of relying on information from City man who have recently retired at the age of 44, and had the City adjust the retirement clause so that certain individuals who may not have had 25 credited years, say they only had 24, those individuals could retire at any age, say 44, and receive full benefits as if they had 25 years.  Do you anyone who fits that description?  Anyway, what else did this vote give away something like employment handbooks, so now the City can basically do what it wants and employee grievances are now being handled by the state instead of the CODB Human Resources Dept. (OK, I admit I didn't verify this section, but from what I have heard this is the jist of the new agreement).  To the Employees that are now screwed, I say you deserve this because you didn`t fight yourselves.  To those that benefitted royally, I say congratulations.  Great job fleecing your fellow man and woman, just so you could get your thirty pieces of silver.  Happy retirement!!!

Anyway, this post is just to reiterate that the City does not care anything about being fair, not to the employees and definately not to the residents.  They only care about themselves.  If you look at the disproportionate way a 5% deduction affects individuals at different pay scales, you see that those at the top of the scale (City Managers, Assistants, City Clerks, etc...) the 5% deduction means a choice between Aruba for the Summer or Jamaica with a family of 4.  For those at the lower end, which many of the non-uniformed employees are it`s the choice between keeping their lights on or putting food on the table.  Then you add in the City`s pay your fair share tax and then what are these individuals left with.  Themselves and their kids out on the streets.  I guess they can go live in Tam O`Shanter or one of the City parks cause they will have lights.  If the City really wanted to be fair.  It would make those highly educated highly paid individuals on the City Staff actually earn their pay by finding innovative and new ways to generate revenue instead of relying on the old standard of taxes and layoffs. Especially when the need really only arises due to the salary hikes and wasteful spending habits of those who we hired to save us money and make the City fiscally responsible, Ironic, huh!!!

Thursday, May 26, 2011


All I have to say is 5% of $24,000 (-$1,200) and
5% of $45,000 (-$2250)5% of $75,000 (-$3750)
5% of $120,000 (-$6000), and
5% of $160,000(-$8000)

Which grouping can stand to lose 5% and not have it make much of an impact on their standard of living?

Now, give back youraises and add the additional cost of insurance for you and your dependents.

Is it still fair?

Add in the additional 10% imposed by the Utility tax and the ever increasing cost of gas, food, and basically everything else.

Is it still fair, now?

Just to be clear, I am not advocating that the Union just disregard all fair offers.  I am just suggesting that some additional scrutiny is used when determining what is fair. 

How about asking the City to look at all viable cost saving avenues, that could help stave off lay-offs by lowering budget expenditures.  Combine that with innovative ideas for new revenue streams and voila!  All jobs are safe!   Or we could continue doing it the way the City Management and City Commission is doing it and using the workers as a savings account.  The choice is up to you...the thing is Savings Account usually dry up if not replenished with funds. So if they are cutting, cutting, cutting guys will back in the same situation in 275 days or at the end of this contract, which ever comes sooner, and then what will be fair?

*I just wanted to point out that a blanket tiered pay cut was suggested by this blog on April 6, 2011 and in a meeting with Burgess Hanson and Kevin Klopp and at the City Commission meeting during the Public Section on April 5, 2011 , and on this blog April 8, 2011.  Now, I am not claiming credit for this decision, because I am sure others can claim the same, but I do know for sure that it was being discussed before April 14, 2011.  IJS  Not like it matters anyway, the thing that matters is that they listened and the Union can take it for it is worth.  

Good luck guys, I hope you get the contract you deserve and not one that benefits a few for a few months longer.

And before ya'll jump down my throat...I understand the concept of an empasse and special master...Union does not mean unity, but with unity does come strength and hopefully you guys muster some up and fight for what you deserve.  Your counterparts in other departments, always that a fire siren I hear???  Oh, no I was watching Backdraft.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Everyone is welcome to comment, but all comments represent the views of the poster and not this site.