08-11-09, Mike Mohill Comments on the Memorandum of Understanding with the Glendale City Employees’ Association

Tonight the Glendale City Council approved a one-year contract with the Glendale City Employees’ Union …..Excuse me, “Association”, according to Councilman Weaver. The contract doesn’t include a pay increase, but the city is going to agree to pick up increased cost for employee medical insurance premiums, of which the city usually pays 50%. The agreement will also include an increased uniform allowance and language allowing for voluntary furloughs or unpaid days off.

I believe most people who are struggling with medial costs would say if their employer paid 50% or more medical cost, it would be a pay increase, but not for the public sector employees. During last nights discussion nobody mentioned how much will it cost the city to make these employees happy? Did the premium go up to 60% or 100% nobody told the public?

Now a new precedent has been brought before we negotiate in the future. The union now has greater paid medical by the city and they will never give it back, but ask for more and more salaries and benefits.

Living on Social Security, I find it very amusing or should I say disheartening, that Uncle Sam does not plan to raise my salary for the immediate future. Furthermore, how many people in the private sector are holding off retiring way after age 60 or 65 while government workers are taking early retirement?

Having the city pick up one additional penny for the city employees’ medical cost is outrageous.

“While the new contract doesn’t have a pay increase, it is also absent of the mandatory furloughs that many local and state government employees currently face”, said union president Craig Hinckley”.

“That’s what’s beneficial,” said the union boss president Hinckley. “We are not having to give anything up”.

When all the city employees belong to a union including the city managers, what can we expect from elected officials, who act like lambs and who themselves are beholding to campaign monies from public employees’ unions. Everyone is happy and no “strike” signs abound. Everything must have gone well during the behind closed door sessions.

The fox is guarding the henhouse, so what can we expect when it comes to union negotiations?

Who truly speaks for the public, who is too busy to care about local elections or have given up on the whole process of government?

Rather than having union contracts, the city should do away with city “Associations” all together. There would be no need to give the workers 50% or more paid medical (totally exorbitant) when most people in the private sector do not receive a generous paid medical. Also, city pensions should be replaced with Social Security, as in the private sector.

By eliminating union workers we would no longer have to have our utility rates increased or more water bond obligations. The city would have the money to repair its roads, retain longer library hours, build more parks and soccer fields, allow for more community services, and maintain the infrastructure of the city.

We should elect council members who do not take money from government unions. By not taking money from these unions our elected officials would be independent.

Mike Mohill