Comment Up
Lake Worth Pension Explanation
Today I received an anonymous letter with no return address. I have received letters marked as such before but this one is different. Normally an unsigned letter would go immediately to File 13 or the PBSO depending upon its content. However, I believe this to be a sincere explanation as to what is going on with our City of Lake Worth employees pension options and what occurred years ago.
What I do not understand is how some employees were "grandfathered" in to the original plan and others who were in the city's employ were not. What were the circumstances? Why has it taken all these years to finally negotiate? Is it because there is no present Union contract?
Perhaps the writer of this letter can explain further. But in the meantime, and for all of you who are not familiar with the circumstances, you might want to read the letter by clicking the link above.
51 comments:
The pension plan changes were made under BCM Stanton.
Thanks, Wes. You're always right on top of things.
The BCME did the right thing for the city by going to a Defined Contribution Plan. However, my question is, why are some still on the original plan and some are not who were working at that time? There had to have been conditions, tenure, etc. in order for this to occur.
Ok, union...you know the answer.
15 years living here in this town and all I've seen and heard is nothing but a perpetual issues and problems 10 times more than any other town. I feel sorry for those good people that have gotten involved in this town and the issues, but at the same time I don't feel sorry for some that ruined this town.
Lynne, the "grandfathering" works like this: if before Oct 1 2010 an employee was vested in the plan (10 years) and was within 5 years of retirement age either by the rule of 75 or by age, you were grandfathered. If an employee was not vested, not within 5 years of retirement by age or rule of 75' you were not grandfathered and would therefore be under the 30 year plan that we are now fighting against. Hope this helps.
Lynn,
If you go on Lake Worth Locals Facebook , nick explained it to a T on Tammy Pansa's post.
Yes, the standard comment. It was the previous administration fault. Doesn't that excuse ever get old. This administration should, but won't, correct the situation and be fair to ALL employees. Did the previous administration also give huge raises to top management. Don't think so. Employees could not afford pay to play or kiss the trio's asses they just got screwed royally.
The letter is completely true! This is getting big!
Hopefully they sent that letter to the City... Not that it will make a difference bc they ALL with exception of McVoy ignored Nicholas Petrinos letter sent directly to them. We are lead by a bunch of spineless two faced fake jellyfish!
People that are unwilling to put their names out their is like speaking behind a wall. If the employees hope to win they need more support from their own peers.
She made up a number saying if you had this many years your plan stays if not sry but you wasted your time working here... But legally even if you were working a day before it changed your contract was solid. Lets just hope it gets worked out and we can all turn our focus on positive attitudes and helping eachother out =)
Does the city even care about this bad press? Nope just go cut a ribbon somewhere smile and wave
Do the right LW and lets put the past behind us. All of this back amd forth just proves how far the city is willing to go to show their employees mean as much as the dirt under their shoes.
Lynn will you be at the next negotiation? You should hear how the city responds when talk about when honoring their promise is brought up.
I wonder who sent it. If your gonna take that amount of time to write id say put yo name on it but they didnt write Nick back and he sent it to all them directly
Another well written letter with facts not opinions!
Its sad that a number was pulled outta a hat that deemed your worth to this place. Everyone who signed in before the change has a right to be grandfathered
Hi Old dude-
Thanks for the explanation.
If the Union felt this was all unfair, why didn't they do something then about it? Why now?
Whatever mistakes were made in the past is the past. The city has an opportunity to create a bright future. Why not choose that path? So far they are choosing not to but the 19th is less than 2 weeks away. They still can make a positive change. Give hope to all the dedicated employees. Don't allow their dedication to be lost in vein. "The meetings are recorded"
Lynn you should do a poll. Whether the city will honor their word n promote morale back or continue the same ol one sided bs on the 19th negotiations. It would be intetesting to see the public results.
Jack Seddon and Brenda did PLENTY to stop this from happening at the time, To the point of legal action. Dont you remember the protest at City hall that was on the news by the employees? Ms.Stanton looked out the window and told someone, "All those people are going to lose their jobs come March 2011.
There are only 4 employees that i know of, had more then 17 years when the change occurred to 30 years and was grandfathered in with the 20 and out plan. One employee only missed it by a month or so, and was denied, but then a year later was allowed to keep her 20 year plan.
YES it was mandatory to enter into the pension system at time of hire, you could go into the DROP plan after 20 years of service and actually retire, exit the pension participation and still remain an employee.
There was not limit to the DROP plan at that time. Stanton was fuming about Electric Dept employees, into the drop plan 10+ years years making more money then her!
The DROP system is supposed to be only 5 years, When you enter the DROP you have to retire totally in 5 years.
I am a retired LW employee...
Power plant IBEW members benefited from being grandfathered in by their chief mechanic. He negotiated the change for himself and those similar to his situation. My understanding was that this was a finite group of employees. The PEU Union did not have the affected group of members close enough to those parameters that old dude stated.
Still, the point remains that the city is using the raise to coerce the unionized employees to acquiesce to either the current 30 year plan or the cash balance plan that the city wants to impose on new employees. There were a few instances where the union dropped the ball on this issue a few years back. The union won an arbitration case stating that the city could not unilaterally impose the 30 year plan and to return the pension to status quo with the opportunity to bargain. The city rejected this recommendation from the arbitrator and proceeded with the 30 year plan. The previous union lead negotiator and the previous HR director came to an understanding on the contract and all provisions except the pension.
The elements of a 30 year pension, however, were included in the 2013 PEU contract if you look at Article 22 Leave, Section 2 (Sick Leave), part F (pension qualifying retirement means) on page 31. In the contract it states: b. A participant who retires on or after October 1, 2015, and has: 1) Ten (10) or more years of continuous service with the City and sixty-five (65) years of age or older; or 2) Thirty (30) or more years of continuous service with the City and fifty-five (55) years of age or older.
The union hasn't talked about this either but the ball was dropped from the previous negotiation. When the city ignored the arbitrator's recommendation about returning the pension to status quo, that provision in the expired contract above should not have been included. Furthermore, when the city balked at discussion of grandfathering in the remaining employees under the 20 year plan, meeting with union lawyers probably should have been the next step as to make the legal argument that what the city did was an unlawful act. As it stands, the notion that the union is bargaining in good faith since they have not used lawyers doesn't really matter. The IBEW union has used lawyers and they still have a 30 year deal for their raises. Subsequently they are negotiating their next series of raises and hoping beyond hope that the PEU Union takes the city to court. They will piggyback off of any favorable PEU deal, while getting raises and other amenities. If the city at the next negotiating meeting refuses to budge on the 20 and out for employees that were with the city prior to 2010, what else is left to really talk about? The city could've took out their article 31 provision that didn't exist in the previous contract and had a deal that the employees would've accepted. How many meetings do you need to suggest that the city will not come off of its position? This is an impasse, going on a full year of active negotiations with NO change in bargaining position from the city. They have no reason to budge and are saving money at the employees expense while the IBEW Union works out their next raise. Sad.
The PEU and IBEW union did win the dispute over the health insurance plan that Stanton changed. Health insurance was suppose to paid for by the city,for single people and they made the employees pay for medical.
I received a reimbursement check for my paid insurance policy a year after i retired.
At the 19th meeting should be it. If the city doesn't agree to honor contracts. no more meetings... take it to impass!
At the time the plan was imposed (not negotiated) because the city was able to prove financial distress, or they were able to prove, on paper that they could not pay. The union and the employees did not agree, however, the plan was imposed, with the understanding that if things got better, and it looks like they have, we would negotiate a new contract which would benefit all. This has not happened and apparently the city does not want to recognize the prior agreement.
The city won its arbitration case of financial distress, but they lost their case that it allowed them to unilaterally impose their pension plan without bargaining. The union actually vacated this decision to attempt to negotiate a new contract, a mistake to concede without an agreement in place that made those employees whole who were affected. Best case scenario other than the city being consistent in honoring their prior agreement is to take that arbitration case and the current facts and take the city to court.
Exactly. We are not in a financial stress anymore. The city did what it needed to back then to get back on its feet and it did. Now that they are back they don't want to do the right thing they have the screw you attitude and it will blow up in their face. If Nick Petrino speaks on the 19th they better watch out because all their dirty laundry will be put out on 1st street! Honoring the people who stayed here is NOT to much to ask.
Have been reading all these comments with interest. Cities are not like businesses. If the terms of a contract become too expensive, and the union members don't come to terms with the employer, it can't just leave and go to China or Mexico. The terms must change as there is only so much the residents and tax payers can pay. At the property tax level, it is capped by law.
The part that does irk me is the built in raises that senior managers have in their contracts. Minimum of cost of living or X% every year for example while they would never consider that for the employees.
We have heard for some time now on this blog and elsewhere that the city's pension plan is under-funded by a lot. Something has to give. If the city can't afford to honor extremely generous contracts penned decades ago, what is the answer? I don't hear much flexibility from the employees and we don't hear anything from the city's side except that they have to do something.
Disgruntled employees? You think it is just here? Do you think the same employees will be happy-go-lucky if they get everything they want? It is in our human nature to continue to strive for better. What will it be next?
Simple... why doesn't the city not under fund it, they all pay 7.8% of their paychecks for what then? Its not a pot of money that sits their, its a growing pot with interest accumulating. Why don't they put aside the same project funds for the employees? Why didn't the management receive a 4% raise instead they got 15% plus in raises? This doesn't add up... In addition how can you @ 9:04am state that they employees aren't being flexible? The Union only wants to grandfather 40 or so employees who have worked in their plans for 6 plus years under their said contract, what they thought they were in. All new employees are going to be in a new plan whichever ever it will be it just needs to be fair to make people want to work for Lake Worth, the 20 contract will die with all the pre 2010 employees. You write about human nature, have you been reading any employee comments? They all state they don't want anything more than what they signed up for. Most could careless about the 4% raise they just want the contract they have been CONTRIBUTING TOO, that's all. The Union is not being unreasonable, the city is and how does it look that the City is REFUSING to give up the financial records???? Do some research buddy!
If you saw the contract that the union previously had, and the recent one that was voted down, you would know the employees are not only not getting everything they want, but are in fact losing more benefits each time they negotiate a contract. The union really has given at every turn, and at some point you have to stand your grand for what is right, both legally and ethically. These contracts aren't as extremely generous as you think, the minutae lost in all the talk about the pension and a 4% raise that wouldn't even bring most employees on par with other municipal employees if you're to believe the classification study the city spent your tax payer dollars on and quickly discarded. Human nature in this case is to acknowledge that the city has had poor spending practices and to work with them on making a more sustainable organization, while at the same time honoring an agreement with tenured employees that hasn't been proven by the city as of yet to send the city into financial oblivion. Compromise is made between two sides, capitulation is what the city has been demanding of these employees.
If he takes the podium hes gonna air out all their dirty laundry. They better be squeaky clean!
@9:47--I would doubt that very much. Mr. Petrino is a very intelligent man who will focus on the issue, not the dirt if you will. He is there to win the debate.
lynn,
you know as much as all of us that when he takes the stand trilo, andy Maxwell and Bornstein are going to be complete jerks to him from start to finish.
I just can't imagine that happening.
I understand what he doing is honorable but truth is the nail thats sticks out gets hammered. I think alot of people will show up to here it, r u goin Lynn?
how can he speak if its not on the agenda? Do they allow comments from the public at the end?
There is a section called Public participation of non-agendaed items and Consent Agenda...usually near the beginning of the meeting.
I will definitely be there.
got it thanks. Im gonna show, I hear a lot about all the employee issues but ive never seen one actually speak about it.
All this public support and if the city stands firm on their course it will show they care as much as the public as they do us.
if the city leads the negotiation with allowing those employees to keep theyre earned contracts it will be a monumental leap for employer employee relations. if not I can see Mr. Petrino ripping them a new one when he stands to speak. from reading everything it seems he only wants what was promised as well as everyone else. its the right thing to do or is the city to poor because of all the raises management received. definitely shows favoritism, hey I cant afford your pension but I will happily accent a outlandish raise. thank you... not good ldub.
If the Union loses those employees contracts, say Bye Bye to the Union. Everyone will resign contribution.
Jamestown, Our intent is to find a way and move forward with this pension negotiation and if the City is willing to work with us we will.
Now that the City hired a finance Director, we hope she may bring some light on their inconsistency and lack of transparency in the finance department.
This is not about a win satiation but about finding a sustainable pensions agreement that our members are happy with.
The taught of not having a union at Lake Worth is scary because we are dealing with some despicable management's team. I will tell you this it would be HELL for employees coming from the office of Hr Director aka Pit Bull. We must have faith and stand united I believe we can make the City do the right thing.BULLY WILL NOT STAND FOREVER.
@ Blogger & Jamestown : Itl be interesting to see Mr. Patrinos speech. Maybe it will help the cause if negotation doesnt go well. I still dont see why the employees pensions are on the line when the management got more than the 4% in raises? Do you all think the union and his employees will be at the commission meeting for support?
We will put it out there and this is a united front that they will show going forward.
how is united when only one man is willing to stand?
This it is more than one person I assured you. Those people who were against this unfair treatment came and show their concerns and vote no,yes we may be short on backbone but we can make this work,I believe in our members then and I still believe in them to do the right thing.UNITED WE WILL STAND.
I know Nick, hes my buddy and I tell you hes always had enough backbone to carry everyone on his shoulders.
i received an anonymous letter with no name or return address on it. The letter stated there was a woman in Lake Worth that ran a blog that did not contain one shred of truth. Should this be investigated?
Hey Lynn whatcha think the outcome of his speech will be??
LOL--Actually that blogger is a guy--they got it all mixed up--they usually do.
He might not have to give a speech. It all might be decided that morning. They know what they are going to do right now.
Mr. Petrino and Ms. Anderson have raised such an awareness about whats really going on, hopefully he has stuck his neck out far enough that he wont have to speak and the city chooses to do the right thing. All of us r praying his voice encouraged them. We will know by 1pm on the 19th because i heard from a another co worker that heard his speech and it will shame them if he reads it aloud.
Post a Comment