City replaces crossing guards with security company www.privateofficer.com
WARWICK R.I. Dec. 29, 2007 — The city’s crossing guards will lose their jobs as of Feb. 15, and the city will fill the positions with nonunion employees who will receive no health-care or pension benefits, Mayor Scott Avedisian said yesterday in announcing a solution to an issue that has dogged the city for more than a year.
Avedisian, who had negotiated for months with the current guards, who are represented by Local 1033 of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said that it was time to find another option now that the City Council has rejected a tentative agreement he had reached with the union.
Although that proposal had offered some savings by including no raises for three years and keeping staff levels at a minimum, the City Council was unanimous in its opposition this month, with board members saying that the benefits were too rich for employees who work fewer than 20 hours a week.
The crossing guards, who are city employees overseen by the traffic division of the Police Department, receive health insurance, sick days and a union pension, and life time health insurance for retirees who worked for more than 10 years. For the past year and half, the guards have been working under the terms of their old contract, which expired in June 2006. As Avedisian sought to reach a new pact with the crossing guards, their benefits package drew public fire as a prime example of a costly public service that might be better handled by a private company.
Part-time municipal crossing guards and their benefits packages were in the crosshairs in Cranston four years ago when former Mayor Stephen P. Laffey used that city’s unionized crossing guards (who had benefits similar to Warwick’s) as an example of fat in government spending. Laffey and the City Council eliminated the guard positions and hired a private company — NESCTC Security Agency — to do the job.
The Cranston guards were represented by the same local of the Laborers’ Union, and the union is still fighting to get the jobs back. An appeal is pending in Superior Court.
Donald S. Iannazzi, business manager for Local 1033, was not available for comment yesterday, but Avedisian said he expects that the union will take the city to court over the issue. He said that his administration is well within its rights to fire the guards after bargaining in good faith and coming up with a tentative agreement.
The bottom line, Avedisian said, is that the contract proposal did not pass muster with the City Council, and the administration now must find another way to provide the service.
Before crafting the plan, Avedisian said that the city explored privatizing the service.
It received only one bid, earlier this month, and that was from NESCTC.
In analyzing that bid, which was rejected, Avedisian and a team of administrators began to explore ways to save even more money by retaining the crossing guards as city employees.
“I have nothing negative to say about the union or the negotiations, even though we didn’t agree,” said Avedisian, who has been criticized in recent months for persisting in trying to settle with the union. “Once the council rejected the contract and we went out to bid, it left us with the ability to look at what we were getting and to see what other options we could come up with.
“No matter what option we choose, we anticipate that the union will take the city to court. The decision to hire guards on a per-diem basis and to reject the bid to privatize will save our taxpayers a considerable sum each year.”
NESCTC’s bid offered to provide the city with 23 crossing guards at an annual cost of about $212,200, Avedisian said. By comparison, his new proposal would provide the same at a cost of approximately $183,200 per year.
Although crossing guards currently cover 23 locations near or at schools, the city currently employs 18 guards, with a couple of them doubling up on their assignment.
Avedisian said it has not yet been decided how many would be hired under his new plan, but if the number stays at 18, the savings in contrast to the NESTC bid would be even greater.
Avedisian’s plan would pay the new guards $40 per day. They currently earn between $39.50 and $42.25 per day depending on seniority.
One thing that will not change, regardless of whether the city privatizes the service or hires new employees, is that retired crossing guards currently receiving a pension and health benefits will continue to do so. City personnel director Oscar Shelton said that there are now nine retired guards who qualify for those benefits.
Avedisian said he does not need council approval for his new plan because it does not involve a contract that would require ratification. And despite the likelihood of a legal fight from the union, he and Shelton said they are moving forward with the plan, and he provided a timeline:
Avedisian, who had negotiated for months with the current guards, who are represented by Local 1033 of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said that it was time to find another option now that the City Council has rejected a tentative agreement he had reached with the union.
Although that proposal had offered some savings by including no raises for three years and keeping staff levels at a minimum, the City Council was unanimous in its opposition this month, with board members saying that the benefits were too rich for employees who work fewer than 20 hours a week.
The crossing guards, who are city employees overseen by the traffic division of the Police Department, receive health insurance, sick days and a union pension, and life time health insurance for retirees who worked for more than 10 years. For the past year and half, the guards have been working under the terms of their old contract, which expired in June 2006. As Avedisian sought to reach a new pact with the crossing guards, their benefits package drew public fire as a prime example of a costly public service that might be better handled by a private company.
Part-time municipal crossing guards and their benefits packages were in the crosshairs in Cranston four years ago when former Mayor Stephen P. Laffey used that city’s unionized crossing guards (who had benefits similar to Warwick’s) as an example of fat in government spending. Laffey and the City Council eliminated the guard positions and hired a private company — NESCTC Security Agency — to do the job.
The Cranston guards were represented by the same local of the Laborers’ Union, and the union is still fighting to get the jobs back. An appeal is pending in Superior Court.
Donald S. Iannazzi, business manager for Local 1033, was not available for comment yesterday, but Avedisian said he expects that the union will take the city to court over the issue. He said that his administration is well within its rights to fire the guards after bargaining in good faith and coming up with a tentative agreement.
The bottom line, Avedisian said, is that the contract proposal did not pass muster with the City Council, and the administration now must find another way to provide the service.
Before crafting the plan, Avedisian said that the city explored privatizing the service.
It received only one bid, earlier this month, and that was from NESCTC.
In analyzing that bid, which was rejected, Avedisian and a team of administrators began to explore ways to save even more money by retaining the crossing guards as city employees.
“I have nothing negative to say about the union or the negotiations, even though we didn’t agree,” said Avedisian, who has been criticized in recent months for persisting in trying to settle with the union. “Once the council rejected the contract and we went out to bid, it left us with the ability to look at what we were getting and to see what other options we could come up with.
“No matter what option we choose, we anticipate that the union will take the city to court. The decision to hire guards on a per-diem basis and to reject the bid to privatize will save our taxpayers a considerable sum each year.”
NESCTC’s bid offered to provide the city with 23 crossing guards at an annual cost of about $212,200, Avedisian said. By comparison, his new proposal would provide the same at a cost of approximately $183,200 per year.
Although crossing guards currently cover 23 locations near or at schools, the city currently employs 18 guards, with a couple of them doubling up on their assignment.
Avedisian said it has not yet been decided how many would be hired under his new plan, but if the number stays at 18, the savings in contrast to the NESTC bid would be even greater.
Avedisian’s plan would pay the new guards $40 per day. They currently earn between $39.50 and $42.25 per day depending on seniority.
One thing that will not change, regardless of whether the city privatizes the service or hires new employees, is that retired crossing guards currently receiving a pension and health benefits will continue to do so. City personnel director Oscar Shelton said that there are now nine retired guards who qualify for those benefits.
Avedisian said he does not need council approval for his new plan because it does not involve a contract that would require ratification. And despite the likelihood of a legal fight from the union, he and Shelton said they are moving forward with the plan, and he provided a timeline:
Layoff notices, effective at the close of business Feb. 15, will be mailed next week and the jobs will be advertised. Application screening and interviews will take place through January and early February, and the new crossing guards will be on the job Feb. 25 — the day students return to school from their midwinter break.
Shelton said that he believes that the union guards will stay on the job through Feb. 25 although he has not received any official word from Iannazzi since the union leader was informed of the new plan.
Council President Joseph J. Solomon yesterday said he had not seen the details of Avedisian’s plan but would support any move to save taxpayers’ money. “Although I’m sure our guards do a fine job,” he said, “when the contract came to the council we had to consider how heavily the cost would weigh on taxpayers.”
Solomon said that Avedisian’s proposal is an endorsement of an ordinance he introduced a couple of years ago that requires council ratification of all municipal contracts. It was the council’s rejection of the crossing-guard contract that caused the mayor to come up with this creative solution, he said.
Solomon said his only initial concern is that the change should not take place until the end of the school year for the benefit of both the guards and the children who have come to know them.
Avedisian said there was no point in waiting. “I did not want to be seen as dragging my feet or not paying attention to the council’s action,” he said.
Councilman Robert Cushman had no praise for the mayor. He said he has many questions about the legalities and practicalities of Avedisian’s proposal. Regarding the elimination of health and pension benefits, he said, “At least he’s finally seeing the light that we can’t afford lifetime health care and such. Thank God. It’s an epiphany for the mayor.”
Shelton said that he believes that the union guards will stay on the job through Feb. 25 although he has not received any official word from Iannazzi since the union leader was informed of the new plan.
Council President Joseph J. Solomon yesterday said he had not seen the details of Avedisian’s plan but would support any move to save taxpayers’ money. “Although I’m sure our guards do a fine job,” he said, “when the contract came to the council we had to consider how heavily the cost would weigh on taxpayers.”
Solomon said that Avedisian’s proposal is an endorsement of an ordinance he introduced a couple of years ago that requires council ratification of all municipal contracts. It was the council’s rejection of the crossing-guard contract that caused the mayor to come up with this creative solution, he said.
Solomon said his only initial concern is that the change should not take place until the end of the school year for the benefit of both the guards and the children who have come to know them.
Avedisian said there was no point in waiting. “I did not want to be seen as dragging my feet or not paying attention to the council’s action,” he said.
Councilman Robert Cushman had no praise for the mayor. He said he has many questions about the legalities and practicalities of Avedisian’s proposal. Regarding the elimination of health and pension benefits, he said, “At least he’s finally seeing the light that we can’t afford lifetime health care and such. Thank God. It’s an epiphany for the mayor.”
EMAIL US; adminassist@privateofficer.com
Send us news, comments or questions
COME SEE OUR NEW MYSPACE PAGE! myspace.com/privateofficernews
ADD YOUSELF TO OUR FRIENS!
0 Response to "City replaces crossing guards with security company www.privateofficer.com"
Post a Comment