Union officials, city still at odds

Photo

Ivan Maldonado

By David Skolnick

Youngstown police union leaders say they’re done talking with the city administration.

YOUNGSTOWN — You wouldn’t know that members of the city council, the administration and employee union officials were in the same meeting, based on what each said after it ended.

The Tuesday session had been called to discuss ways to cut city spending to avoid layoffs.

Several union officials said the two-hour-plus meeting created a greater divide between unions and management.

“We’re done talking to them,” said Doug Pesa, secretary- treasurer of the union that represents Youngstown police patrol officers.

But Mayor Jay Williams called it a “very productive meeting.”

Councilman Jamael Tito Brown, D-3rd and chairman of the finance committee, said that the meeting was “informative,” though he wanted to hear “a little more dialogue.”

Union officials say they were bothered that the city administration wasn’t willing to speak to them until Tuesday, the day after city council approved a budget.

The city’s 2009 general fund budget calls for $860,000 in personnel cuts that could result in laying off as many as 35 workers, most of them in the police department, by the end of April.

The other key cut in the budget is not filling 14 vacant positions, saving $874,230 a year.

Williams’ latest suggestion to the unions to avoid layoffs is the elimination of “special pay,” which would save $1.5 million annually.

“Special pay” includes longevity (payments given to workers for the number of years they’re employed by the city), clothing allowances, bonuses for not using sick pay and for having college degrees, among other benefits, Williams said.

But before Williams could bring up his proposal, the meeting abruptly ended when the mayor asked for the parties to meet behind closed doors.

A reporter from The Vindicator asked if those discussions would include reopening employee contracts.

While some council members and members of the administration said no, others — including Law Director Iris Torres Guglucello — said yes. That was met by a loud no from almost all 18 officials from city unions in the meeting.

“There will be no talk of reopening negotiations or concessions, period,” said Edward Colon, the patrolmen’s association president. “We can’t consider anything until we have all the budget information. They tried to back us into a corner and deliver an ultimatum [on special pay givebacks.] You give the impression you want to work and then make a threat.”

Colon, Pesa along with other labor leaders — including Cicero Davis, president of the union that represents clerical and secretarial employees, and Enrique Suarez, president of the union that represents wastewater workers — said the meeting was a waste of time.

They said the meeting was an attempt to force the unions to give in to concessions without first implementing cost-saving measures they suggested a year ago.

They also said the city should have worked with the unions a year ago to avoid the financial problems it faces now.

Williams says he disagreed with union officials’ contention that the administration refused to discuss the city’s financial situation for the past year.

As for Williams’ giveback proposal, Pesa said: “We won’t make concessions. We won’t give back wages and special benefits.”

Patrol officers — even those who could lose their jobs if layoffs occur —are united in refusing to make concessions until the city administration first looks at proposed cuts suggested by its unions, Pesa said.

The administration addressed those proposed cuts — including the reduction of fuel, cutting overtime and reducing entry-level pay for management — in a letter Tuesday.

Some of the suggestions met with support by the administration, but the cuts aren’t enough to stop layoffs, Williams said.

While the meeting came to an abrupt ending, Williams said, “The objective of the meeting was accomplished. The only thing that would have transpired had the meeting continued would have been to present data supporting the ‘special pay’ concession proposal.”

Williams pointed out that proposal was reported in an article Tuesday in The Vindicator.

“There was no expectation that a decision was going to be rendered in the meeting,” he said. “The only expectation was that the unions would be better situated to make a fully informed decision in addition to keeping the lines of communication open.”

But that “expectation” may not have been achieved.

“We’re done considering concessions and done talking to the city,” said Frank Bigowsky, the patrol officer union’s grievance officer. “They ambushed us. We can’t talk to them in good faith. They were trying to get us to commit to reopen contract negotiations.”

The meeting was supposed to be informational, he said. Instead “it was a clear attempt to sneak in a contract reopener.”

skolnick@vindy.com