For the last four months, Ventura County members have been holding rallies and speaking at Board of Supervisors meetings about the need for management to share in the sacrifice and not cut services or put families at risk without taking cuts themselves. On Dec. 15, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution which implements a 3% pay shift in pension costs onto Management and other Non-Represented employees.
“It’s definitely a step in the right direction for the county”
SEIU Local 721 Receives Last, Best, and Final Offer
On December 10, Ventura management presented the SEIU bargaining committee with a “last, best and final” offer. The County’s latest offer only contains their definition of “pension reform”, shifting 3% of retirement costs from the County to employees. The proposal removed language for ceasing 401-k matches and did not include any mention of furloughs/unpaid days or suspension of the merit increases. However the County is not legally required to negotiate those items and could implement them next year if the economy worsens.
Bargaining Update Dec 14 2009.pdf
Next Steps
The SEIU bargaining committee has been developing plans to address the County’s financial problems and solutions for real “pension reform.” Members are encouraged to attend an upcoming meeting and have a voice about protecting services and families in 2010 and learn more about the County’s proposal.
Please RSVP for one of these important meeting by calling 805-644-8291 or clicking on the meeting closest to you:
Jan. 6, 2010 at 6:00 pm at the Thousand Oaks Sheriff Station (2101 E Olson Rd in Thousand Oaks 91360)
Jan. 7, 2010 at 6:00 pm at Ventura’s Poinsettia Pavilion (3451 Foothill Rd in Ventura 93003)
Since the management is not implementing this action until June 2010, I would hope that SEIU members would not have to have this implemented until June 2010.
We need more details posted online about the county’s proposals and the SEIU bargaining committee’s ‘developing plans’.
What exactly is the county’s “last, best, and final offer”? Please post this offer in excruciating detail, on this site. What exactly did they say about pension reform? How do they justify shifting 3% of retirement costs from the county to the employees, and what if anything does that have to do with shoring up the pension system. Crying out for management to ‘share the sacrifice’ does nothing to answer these questions, it only signals surrender to their mysterious plan.
No doubt, a better-informed membership will be more inspired to attend meetings.
I hope everyone really takes the time to think about what this means: “members picking up 3% of our retirement’ . For one it will take more money out of your check along with all the other increases that may happen, secondly, the more the employee pays into the pension then that portion the county isn’t bound to give us that portion of our pension. A pension is different from a ‘retirement’. There is a difference in the legislation one protect the member (having a pension) and the other doesnt’ (retirement).
As Letty mentioned above, the county can still impose the freeze to our merit increase, their 401K match, and furloughs etc.
If we allow the county to to change anything in our pension; this will not be the end of it, only the beginning. I truly hope that members will make this a priority in their lives, because this is about our future and our ability to be able to provide services to the public without having to apply for those same services; however there are county member employees who are eligible for food stamps, wic, etc., already.
This is our contract and if we do not avail ourselves to this process, then we only have ourselves to blame. We understand that we will need to make some type of concession(s); however, not with our Pension.
Take care,
Carolyn Lucille Consoli
Community Services Worker III
Public Health
We can’t expect our negotiating team to get us a better pension deal than management just got from the Board of Supervisors. To prevent our household budgets from declining and if we want to save the American middle class, we need to build our movement until we have massive turnout at rallies, deep political involvement, skillful alliance-building year-round, expert public relations, mutual-win bargaining, and widespread willingness to participate in job actions.
There should be a time limit to the shifting of the 3%. Say one or one and one half years then revisit the issue at the next contract. There must be some time limit or we will never regain the amount sacrificed.
PLEASE answer the following questions and inform the Ventura”s membership of ALL pertinent costs/details related to funding retirement so that we know what we’re really fighting for, which should be balance and fairness:
1. Do fire and sheriff (safety) personnel pay any portion of their retirement costs? If so, how much? And, what percentage of retirement benefits are paid out to fire and sheriff retired personnel?
2. How much has management typically been required to pay toward retirement costs?
3. Has the County identified what the major problem is in funding retirement costs?
4. Has the County demonstrated that shifting costs to non-safety employees will significantly impact the major problem in funding retirement?
5. If the County has not demonstrated #’s 3 and 4 above, isn’t this shift in costs to employees more likely a political move driven by political motives for Board of Supervisors’ re-election etc.
6. Can SEIU demand/request that the County’s actuary (person who computes risk and probabilities) provide evidence to SEIU as to what kind of impact shifting retirement costs to employees will have on retirement unfunded liabilities, or what ever the County identifies as the major funding problem?
7. There are County executives and managers who are currently, and those who will be receiving 6 figure retirement incomes, well over and above $100,000./ yr. SHOULDN’T REFORM START AT THE TOP !!!!!
Please remove these public member comments. The County is monitoring what our members are telling our union. It puts our bargaining teams at a disadvantage.
I’d like to get more clarification on the difference between a Pension vs Retirement, as mentioned by Ms. Consoli, legistation wise.
Doesn’t the County of Ventura offer both a pension which the County picks up most of the cost now, then the retirement is the 401k and the County only matches 1.5%? Isn’t the 3% applies to the pension only?
Hi Diane,
I’m a member of the Contract Action Team for the Ventura County Contract. Many of your questions have been addressed by our bargaining team at membership meetings and in several bargaining update flyers. A lot of members share/shared your concerns. I know that we all have busy lives at work and at home but it’s important to attend these membership meetings especially if you care about our collective future and the future of our ability to serve our community.
We do have a coalition of unions which have been meeting with our union reps and bargaining team. We need solidarity and involvement. I think all of your questions are great questions and I think it would be great if you would attend the upcoming meetings in January.
Time is definitely of the essence and hopefully you and other members will get involved although it would be more useful if all of us stayed involved all year round.
I hope to see you at the next meeting. Take care and Happy Holiday’s to you!
Carolyn Lucille Consoli
Public Health
Community Services Worker III
FYI to each post –
I am new to this blogging and as a member of the Bargaining team will make a bigger effort to be on this blog. I will be checking the post periodically from now on to respond to your comments.
Jennifer, if it is imposed on us it would not happen until June 2010.
David and Steve, We have met with the Coalition of Unions and we are working together in solutions to assist the County in a reform that works for workers and not just for the county.
Carolyn, thank you for your comments.
And I hope to see you all at the next bargaining update meetings. The bargaining team really appreciates the feedback, ideas and questions.
Thanks,
Letty
In response to Diane: I will answer the best to my ability: But if you come to the membership meeting these can be best answered there:
1. Do fire and sheriff (safety) personnel pay any portion of their retirement costs? If so, how much? And, what percentage of retirement benefits are paid out to fire and sheriff retired personnel? At bargaining we were given a matrix of the break down of each union. We can provide that at the membership meeting
2. How much has management typically been required to pay toward retirement costs? ZERO this is the first time they have had contribute.
3. Has the County identified what the major problem is in funding retirement costs? Yes, we provided this info at the last membership meeting.
4. Has the County demonstrated that shifting costs to non-safety employees will significantly impact the major problem in funding retirement? no, they are looking at 3% from all workers.
5. If the County has not demonstrated #’s 3 and 4 above, isn’t this shift in costs to employees more likely a political move driven by political motives for Board of Supervisors’ re-election etc. It still a political move even with an explanation. If you have ever been in a court room the guilty will say “guilty your honor with an explanation” does not matter still guilty. The explanation the county has is not the solution. SEIU and other unions have a better solution to the problem and they are not listening.
6. Can SEIU demand/request that the County’s actuary (person who computes risk and probabilities) provide evidence to SEIU as to what kind of impact shifting retirement costs to employees will have on retirement unfunded liabilities, or what ever the County identifies as the major funding problem? yes
7. There are County executives and managers who are currently, and those who will be receiving 6 figure retirement incomes, well over and above $100,000./ yr. SHOULDN’T REFORM START AT THE TOP !!!!!
Totally YES!!!!
Pension is fully employer driven
Retirement is employee driven we receive employer contributions what we are fighting to keep.
We have offered 1% and a sunset date. It has been rejected/declined.
Thanks David for the comments and look forward to doing all that together.
In Brotherhood and Sisterhood
The details are not many all they want is that we contribute 3% more to our retirement. Which will reduce your take home pay by that much. Your gross will stay the same a 3% reduction in fringe benefits That was the last, best and final.
Is it legal for an employer to take money from an employee to partially pay for a benefit (i.e., retirement) provided by the employer without the employee’s personal permission (union agreement or not)?
I disagree. This forum reaches a far greater audience than ‘in-person’ meetings do. And it inspires active, thoughtful contributions to a discussion that might not flow at the meetings.
This is a room in which 5000 members can meet daily, learn at their own pace, and contribute to the discussion – management’s biggest nightmare.
Let management follow along! They already know the details. They know our options and motivations better than we do. None of this discussion will surprise them. Most importantly they know that most union members are uninformed and uninvolved.
And put this discussion at the top of the SEIU721 home page, not buried under Campaigns! This is front-page stuff. It took 20 minutes for me to find a link to this discussion the first time, and it still seems hidden.
Want member involvement? Publish the details for everyone to easily discover: transcripts of all discussions with management, any union related statements by the board of supervisors, links to board meeting videos.