Following SEIU 721 Riverside county member’s rejection of the county’s Last, Best and Final contract offer last month, Riverside county imposed Terms and Conditions of employment on SEIU 721 represented members effective Nov 22, 2011. The Terms and Conditions were finally provided to the bargaining team on Dec. 2.
After reviewing the document, the bargaining team has discovered many areas that the county cannot legally impose on members. This includes any language that says SEIU 721 has “agreed” to something or that SEIU 721 waived the ability to negotiate for any changes outside of the parameters of these Terms and Conditions. The bargaining team is in the process of taking all legal actions necessary to enforce the right to fairly negotiate for wages, benefits, and any other condition of employment. County management continues to indicate that it does not intend to negotiate in good faith and wants to impose these Terms and Conditions on members in excess of what is allowed by law. This is clearly shown by the inclusion of reductions of benefits well into 2013, although legally they are only allowed to impose for up to one year.
Click here to download the bargaining team’s summary analysis of the Terms and Conditions.
TAKE ACTION
The SEIU 721 Riverside County bargaining team is committed to continue fighting for the rights of all members. Contact your Contract Action Team member or a work site organizer to stay informed on upcoming job actions and events at specific work sites.
Bargaining Update: Team’s Summary of Terms and Conditions
Categories: Bargaining Updates | Inland Area
Here we are at the tipping point. Ask yourself….
1) Are we going to stand up to County Management and the Board of Supervisors & take action(s) ?
2) Are we going to let them keep pushing us around ?
3) Are we going to lie down like dogs, do nothing and whimper about how unfairly we are treated ?
4) Do you have the courage to stand up for yourself & your family ? !
I do ! I will ! Let’s get these actions started !
Bargaining Team, When will we find out the County’s effective date in #15 of your summary analysis (new employees receiving retirement at a formula of 2%@60 based on a 3 year average)? Does the County have to notify CalPERS of such a change before it can become final? Thanks!
concerned that in this economic time we will lose our rights IF we stand up!!! We have to be able to negotiate something…..
Tom C.,
I am with you! Please everyone contact the SEIU office to find out what actions are already planned in your area. Together we CAN make a difference!
Let’s do this thing! It will take everyone – including the nurses & LIUNA – to really rattle the cage with these self-righteous do-gooders that aren’t really affected by all this. Shame on the Board of Supervisors. Shame on the Executive Office. Shame on Barbara Olivier. Shame on SEIU members if we take it or just let it happen. BTW, it’s taking me a long time to do the things that I used to do quickly at work! I would guess that I’m working at about 75% speed right now. I just can’t concentrate as much anymore knowing that ANOTHER shoe might drop on me and my family.
When people ask me “Who do you work for?” – my answer is “I work for my family!”.
EPMC is defined as Employer Paid Member Contributions. What’s this about shifting if from the Employer to the Employee? I want a refund!!!
I just want to know if we already gave up raises to trade the County to pay for our 8% retirement portion and to keep our 3% @ 60 perks, why do they continue to bring these issues up and force us to fight for these same battles – all over again? Doesn’t our previous sacrifices count? Is there a way that we can resolve this so that our benefits are not thrown out because of media attention or put up for “auction” every time the contract expires?
John,
Because of CalPERS regulations, the County cannot change to a new formula until all bargaining units within the Miscellaneous Plan move their new employees to that new formula. Therefore, while CalPERS allows different formulas by date of hire, it does not allow SEIU members to have a different formula from management or LIUNA if they were hired on the same day. Because LIUNA still has a contract until June 30, 2012 and because the Deputy District Attorneys have not yet come to a deal nor been imposed on, their new hires are still receiving 3%@60. Until both bargaining units have a different formula in place, either through a new contract or imposition, our new people will get 3%@60. I believe the County does have to notify CalPERS and they actually started that process back in March, even before their “experts” presented their findings regarding pension formula changes on April 4, 2011 and the subsequent “show of good faith” in bargaining.
Several members have asked how many people voted, when are you going to answer this question? If your not, please explain why! As paying members we have the right to know and there should be no secrets.
No longer am I willing to “roll over”. I am no longer “afraid” of having more taken from me. They’ve already taken enough to hurt me and my family. Now, I stand up. I say no more. And I will strike !!!
Has anyone taken a look at the DA’s proposal going to board on Tuesday 12/20/2011?. Apparently we are only broke when it comes to the general employees. I think you will be numb once you read what they propose the board of supervisors dole out to them.
Read the Tentative MOU for the DA, Public Defender, and County Counsel – set for BOS meeting on 12/20/11 Human Resources Agenda 3.28
So please follow. So in 2009 a court ruled the county illegally declared impasse and for that small window of imposed terms the county had to follow old mou and pay the workers what is owed. So our last mou had a fairness agreement that included raises or benefit increases to us if another union got them. I believe the bos knew what they were gonna from the beginning. Which obviously, as we know, they have never bargained in good faith. They imposed on us terms that had a lesser fairness clause. Almost immediately they give the da a sweat deal now that or fairness agreement is off. Further, according to bob buster via the paper, they needed das to agree to retirement contributions (probably why they got a good deal) in order to impose on liuna (something about liunss fairness clause. So, if we ever win in court, like in 2009 case, our fairness agreement should be honored. Would we get the increases the ddaa got? Maybe i’m crazy, but that makes sense to me.
Before getting angry at the attorney’s, you have to ask yourself; “What have I done to prevent the wage cuts?” or “Did I show up for the vigil that my CAT lead told me was critical?” and “Did I show up for my last worksite meeting?” If you have an excuse for doing nothing then, you have to ask yourself; “Is my excuse for not participating more important than my wages and my benefits?” If not, then make a commitment right now to get involved and make a contingency plan for your excuses. You came out in records numbers to vote no on the County’s LBFO. The line down the hall and out the building all the way to the parking lot was impressive. You have the ability to effect change and get a fair contract. The question is will you?
Has anyone else noticed that what the BOS has imposed on us is different than the LBO and SEIU’s summary of Terms and Conditions? I guess sometime after 12/13/2011, the Board removed the hired before 01/09/92 exclusion of having to pay the employee’s share of the retirement. So everyone has to pay their retirement. Also, they removed the 2.71% added step at the top of the pay scale that was suppose to take effect 07/01/2012. I have been working for the County for over 32 years and noticed that I had the retirement taken out. So I called HR. They pointed me to the “Official” Terms and Conditions on the HR website. I asked them when they were going to notify people that it changed from the LBO. All he said was he was sorry. NICE!
How can the Riverside County HR Dept. post an MOU stating one thing, then change it behind our backs without notifying their employees? This seems at the least, shady and at the most illegal!! In the Retirement Section 2-B of the MOU that was posted by both the County and SEIU in Dec., it states that employees “hired after January 9, 1992 shall pay employees contributions to PERS.” I was hired in 1989 and assumed that I would be exempt from paying my contributions as I had those terms in writing. Now, the County has changed the terms that were distributed, and all employees must pay their contributions. I would like to know how the County can do this and get away with it?!! A response from SEIU on this site would be greatly appreciated. I am sure that I am not the only one fuming about this!
Can anyone post where I can get a copy of the new imposed MOU? Since the County underhandedly changed the terms behind out backs without notifying the employees, I would like to obtain a copy of the new MOU and compare it to the old one distributed in early Dec. I can’t seem to find it on the HR web-site as noted in another post.
To find the NEW LBFO:
1, Go to the county’s intranet site.
2. In the upper right corner is departments. Click it and pick the public website for Human Resources (HR).
3. On the left side, click HR Division.
4. Under HR Divisions, click Employee Retations.
5. Here are all the MOU’s and Terms And Conditions.
6. Find SEIU and pick the second entry on the drop down, Terms and Conditions, and click go.
Simple to find, huh? It’s almost like HR doesn’t want anyone to know their dirty tricks.
Please post copies (on this website) of any recent legal claims or actions filed in any court by SEIU on our behalf against Riverside County. Are we suing them ?
Also, please post any recent correspondence from SEIU, it’s lawyers or the SEIU bargaining team sent to Riverside County and/or County Management.
We want to see copies of what actual actions are being taken.
To see Riverside County’s imposed Terms and Conditions please visit https://www.seiu721.org/2011/12/bargaining-update-24.php
The link tsilveria has points to the old imposed Terms and Conditions. Unfortunately, that is not the version the County is using.