Local municipal leaders, with Mayor Joseph Solomon conspicuous by his absence, gathered at the State House Library on Monday afternoon to voice bipartisan opposition to the so-called “evergreen” …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
Local municipal leaders, with Mayor Joseph Solomon conspicuous by his absence, gathered at the State House Library on Monday afternoon to voice bipartisan opposition to the so-called “evergreen” contract bill, which passed the full House of Representatives on Tuesday by a vote of 60 to 8 largely along party lines.
House Bill 5437 would extend wages and benefits for teachers and municipal leaders while a new deal is being negotiated. Senate Bill 512, sponsored by Warwick Sen. Michael McCaffrey, was on the Senate Labor Committee’s docket Wednesday.
The Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns hosted Monday’s press conference, which featured speeches from Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza, Cranston Mayor Allan Fung and Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena, among others.
The governor’s press secretary Josh Block told the Beacon via email Tuesday morning that Gov. Gina Raimondo, who vetoed a similar version of the bill in 2017, is continuing to discuss the matter with municipal leaders and unions.
“Municipal leaders and employees have been successful in reaching compromise through collective bargaining, and Gov. Raimondo is committee to maintaining a fair and equitable process for all involved,” Block said. “In her 2017 veto, the governor outlined recommendations for improving the bill and bringing it in-line with existing policy in neighboring states. The proposal currently before the legislature is different than the 2017 bill and takes into account these recommendations.”
Rep. Camille Vella-Wilkinson, sponsor of the legislation, said Wednesday she took into consideration the governor’s objections in redrafting the bill this year. She said she narrowed the scope of the bill to wages and benefits. The measure would not apply to layoff limitations that are frequently a provision of teacher contracts, thereby giving school committees unrestricted ability to layoff teachers at the end of a contract. She feels this would serve as an incentive for the union to negotiate.
Asked if she thought by applying the roll over to wages and benefits municipalities might argue they are not subject to retroactive pay increases in the case of prolonged negotiations, Vella Wilkinson said that would be subject to good faith bargaining.
Vella-Wilkinson took issue with the characterization of the bill as “evergreen,” saying that “roll over” as it applies to wages and benefits is more accurate.
She said neither the mayor nor members of the city council and school committee about the bill did not contact her.
There was one common theme among the voices that spoke against the bill – it would “handcuff” cities and towns during negotiations.
Fung expressed that concern, saying it could be detrimental if municipalities needed to engage in concession bargaining with unions.
“This bill, in particular, would hamper many of us because it would just lead to many unions or even employees just sitting back on what they have, and that’s the real, real practical impact of what these bills, if passed, would do,” Fung said, adding that he hoped taxpayers would contact their legislators to urge a negative vote.
Fung repeatedly said he and other local leaders are frustrated, emphasizing that the bill is causing anxiety across party lines.
“This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue, it’s an issue that cuts on every single line in every city and town across Rhode Island,” he said. “We’ve had enough and we need action.”
Fung also responded to the layoffs provision in the bill, which League of Cities and Towns Executive Director Brian Daniels referred to as the “nuclear clause.” Fung said he didn’t want to have to lay people off to bring unions back to the negotiating table.
“It’s not like you’re going to have no disruption because you’re laying people off,” he said. “You’re going to have disruption in that department where layoffs are happening.”
Polisena said the town might as well “shut the lights off, give the unions the keys and give them the checkbooks” if the bill passes.
“It’s all over, ladies and gentlemen,” he said.
Polisena went as far as to guarantee that property taxes would increase if the proposal became law. He said that he and other town leaders usually continue contracts during negotiations, but added that the bill “really puts a gun to our head.”
“This is not personal. This is not an anti-union bill. This is anti-taxpayer,” he said. “I settled a contract two weeks ago with one of the unions in 45 minutes. It was nice and easy. With this, it will make it much more difficult. If this is allowed to become law, this will clearly put every city and town at a clear disadvantage when it comes to negotiations.”
Mayor Solomon was not listed on a press advisory about the meeting. His office did not respond to inquiries on Monday as to whether he planned to join other mayors in opposing the bill. Likewise there was no response on Wednesday if he supported the bill introduced Vella-Wilkinson who served on the council when she and Solomon were council members.
24 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Thecaptain
Please don't come down on Solomon. He was at a very important ribbon cutting. Let's keep our priorities in perspective.
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
wwkvoter
Agree. This is a good bill. Vella Wilkins was on WPRO getting grilled about it and when asked about the impact on taxpayers she said that the employees are taxpayers too. Good point. That just goes to show that these politicians have all the facts and they know what they are doing. So why should we stick our noses into it?
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
bendover
WELL, I am sure that Jabba the Hut had a very important ribbon cutting...Glad that vela wilkinson is now at the State House creating havoc...I would now say that Warwick has a better than average chance of Chapter 9 with rubbish like this being passed. Joe Polisena might be 100% correct and he is a former EMT and firefighter so he certainly knows both sides of these issues...We are broke and the unfunded stealth mandates get rammed down our throats. Just pathetic what is going on...
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
InTheW
Vella Wilkinson sounded absolutely lost in her radio interview. She could not even describe the bill that she sponsored accurately. The next thing she does for that non union taxpayer will be the first.
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
patientman
So if a current contract calls for 3% raises the unions know at the very least they will get a 3% raise in perpetuity. How would anyone think that's fair. Recessions happen. Revenues shrink. This will kill a few towns before the GA reverses course. And the employees & retirees in those towns will see their pensions wiped out. Be careful what you wish for.
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
Warwick Man
Patient man,
That’s not how raised work. Contractually raises are tied to a date. (Ex. 1.5% 7/01/17, 1.5% 1/1/18. Etc...). If contract isn’t reached there is no raise.
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
Warwick Man
*Raises*
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
patientman
Jimmy,
thanks for the clarification
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
Reality
We need no clarifications on Warwick Labor Contracts. We can't afford them. Scottie gave away the store to the unions and now the taxpayers are asked to dig deeper to pay for them.
Wilkinson is a disgrace. She did nothing to protect the taxpayers while on the council. Time for her to go and her bill to go down to defeat.
Mayor Solomon need to ask labor immediately for drastic concessions or if they refuse place the city in receivership.
Thursday, April 25, 2019 Report this
PaulHuff
So Solomon will tell anyone who listens about how the sky is falling in Warwick because of Avedisian. But when a really bad bill that favors unions, and is bad for the city is floated at the General Assembly he is quiet as a church mouse.
This guy is bad for Warwick. It’s his fault we’re in this mess because he and his fellow Democrats on the council didn’t act in an oversight role when it came to contract negotiations. He spent 20 years on the council and wasn’t a check and balance on the Executive branch...he was a rubber stamp.
Friday, April 26, 2019 Report this
Cat2222
The bill is a huge win for union leadership. It takes away an important bargaining tool of the municipality in negotiating (or renegotiating) contracts.If the proposed changes are in any way less than or detrimental to the employees, they will stick with the current contract even if the cities/towns can no longer afford it. I don't understand why this was even necessary when the union leadership already holds so many of the cards in this state.
Friday, April 26, 2019 Report this
wwkvoter
The sky is not falling, remember this bill also doesnt continue raises. So the membership will have no raises until that is in a new agreement. What this does is prevent for example a city waiting until the contract ends, then cutting pay or benefits arbitrarily. They have to keep it the same unless there is a two-way agreement.
The only people who oppose this must want to enact pay CUTS and benefit CUTS to their city workers, because thats all this prevents.
AND by the way, 99% of the time when a contract expires, we've gone on the last one until a new one is reached, so we were doing this already.
Friday, April 26, 2019 Report this
Thecaptain
Wwkvoter,
So when the only thing that the municipality can do to survive is to cut benefits and salary to balance a budget, what are their options if this bill is implemented?
Friday, April 26, 2019 Report this
Cat2222
No one is saying that they want to cut pay or benefits to public workers. The fact is that we can't afford to raise them and if we need to cut them because lack of funding, that option is taken away. I am not sure what writing you are seeing on the wall but the way I see it we are on the edge of a fiscal cliff. The money simply won't be there anymore and contracts will need to be negotiated.
Friday, April 26, 2019 Report this
wwkvoter
That option is still there, but it has to be agreed by both parties.
Friday, April 26, 2019 Report this
Thecaptain
Yeah,
Like they would agree to cuts. DUH
Friday, April 26, 2019 Report this
wwkvoter
They actually did, in EG in 2017
Got 4000 deductible health plan (school pays half) and lost buybacks, got zero raise first year and a couple percent in year 2 and 3, plus class size changes, have to teach more classes. Found that online just google it.
Friday, April 26, 2019 Report this
FASTFREDWARD4
Are were all finish crying.
Sunday, April 28, 2019 Report this
BeaconCommenter
If this bill passes then expired contracts will stay in place until a successor contract is negotiated as opposed to like it is now where expired contracts stay in place until a successor contract is negotiated.
Sunday, April 28, 2019 Report this
Cat2222
BeaconCommenter.
The expired contract will be able to stay in place even if the negotiations are for cutting costs/benefits. I understand that you believe that nothing new is being introduced but I believe most see this as an issue that could pop up down the road. It leaves no room nor need to accept a contract that may take away something previously held in the expired contract. Eventually, it will even itself out because it will only take a few years and no cost of living raise to be on equal ground but it still locks the contract in for a period of time.
Monday, April 29, 2019 Report this
Samuel
All Solomon knows is that this bill is Avedisian's fault.
Monday, April 29, 2019 Report this
Warwick Man
In the case of a Police and Fire Pension 1. The Cola is tied to active employee raises. There are over 400 retired members of this plan. If the city wishes to save money they simply refuse to negotiate and active and retired employees (of Pension 1) get nothing for as the city wishes. It works both ways. That’s a huge savings. This bill is nothing. Could care either way.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019 Report this
wwkvoter
jimmy u always add interesting info. does "arbitration" happen, if one side or the other wont negotiate and the contract gets "frozen" as a result?
Tuesday, April 30, 2019 Report this
Warwick Man
Yes Arbitration would be the solution. Although that may take years to settle one issue. Like I said before, I could care less if this goes through. It’s already being done, and it can be an advantage for either side
Tuesday, April 30, 2019 Report this