Fate of the Workers Association Contract Proposal Remains Unclear

The fate of the proposed Lower Merion Township Workers Association contract will be decided by the Board of Commissioners next month, but whether the four-year labor will be approved or rejected by the board remains unclear, according to a recent poll of commissioners which was conducted by Patch.

The proposed 2011-2014 Workers Association contract was July 28 in a close vote by the union’s 206 non-uniform, township employees, but it still needs the approval of the Board of Commissioners on Sept. 21.  The board’s Administrative and Human Resources Committee and the full board had been scheduled to vote on the contract on Aug. 3 but postponed the vote.

In order for a proposal to be approved by the Board of Commissioners, a majority of the commissioners who are present is needed, Board President Liz Rogan said in an e-mail. 

This means the proposed union contract would need eight commissioners to vote “yes” if all 14 commissioners were present for the vote.

When commissioners were interviewed by Patch about the contract this week and late last week, five said they were in favor of the union contract, three said they were opposed to it, four said they were undecided and two commissioners did not return phone calls requesting interviews for this story.

Supporters of the Contract

Democratic Commissioners George Manos, C. Brian McGuire, Steve Lindner, Rick Churchill and Jane Dellheim, all said they are in favor of the contract.

“I think it’s a good contract,” Manos said.  “I think there’s been good compromise on both sides. It definitely will save money in the long run.”

The Workers Association has been working without a contract since January. When the union is working without a contract, union employees continue to receive their current salaries without raises, and benefits remain the same, Manos said.

“While they aren’t getting raises, if the cost of their benefits go up, the township has to pay it… There’s a definite cost, an increased cost in benefits, if they continue to work without a contract,” Manos said.

If approved, the new contract would cost the township about $2.1 million in salaries but save about $1.4 million in health costs.

Noting those figures, Manos said Township Manager Douglas Cleland and the union had “accomplished something very significant” with the contract.

“What this package does is switch things around,” Manos said. “It changes the formula from less pay and more benefits to less benefits and slightly more pay.”

Lindner said the health care concessions, which workers agreed to as part of the proposed contract, will outlive the life of the contract.

“We’re fundamentally changing the greatest unknown and that’s healthcare costs,” Lindner said.

Lindner said he is also worried about workers going on strike if they continue to work without a contract.

“The other side of it is, we haven’t had a strike… That’s something people just don’t think about that we should be concerned about,” Lindner said.

C. Brian McGuire called the contract “a pretty good deal” because the “entire cost of the entire contract is 1 percent more than it would be without one.”

Over the course of the four-year contract, the additional cost to the township would be slightly less than $700,000.

“We’re not going to get much better than that,” McGuire said of the 1 percent increase. “It’s important to note you never negotiate a contract that is less than working without one.”

McGuire said Township Manager Douglas Cleland had researched the issue by looking at other municipalities and their union contracts.

Churchill said the township needs to recognize the workers’ hard work.  The township has asked its workers to “sacrifice” and “make do with less” during the past two years because it has not been hiring new employees to fill vacancies, Churchill said.

“I think this is a fair contract for them,” Churchill said.

Another supporter of the contract, Dellheim said the union workers “gave up a lot in order to have this contract. New people coming in, they’re not getting the same benefits.”

Opponents of the contract

But not all of the commissioners plan to vote in favor of the contract.  Commissioners Jenny Brown, Scott Zelov and Philip Rosenzweig—three of the four Republicans on the 14-member board—said they were opposed to the contract proposal.

“I’m opposed to this version,” Brown said of the proposed contract.  “I don’t believe the terms are reasonable and sustainable.”

Brown, who is running for Montgomery County Commissioner, said she does not fault the Workers Association for wanting to get the best terms they can, but it is the commission’s responsibility to say when the terms are not reasonable and she believes “this contract as a whole is not reasonable for the taxpayers” or the township.

“I don’t think it’s the best thing for the workers either,” Brown said.

Brown said the township would have more money to spend on hiring additional employees or paying employees more “if we are not overly generous with the benefits but fair and reasonable.”

“We cannot continue to offer benefits that are no longer found—you know, widely found—in the private sector,” Brown said.

Zelov said, “I can’t support the proposed contract. I think further negotiations are needed.”

The proposed contract eliminates longevity bonuses for new hires but it “does not change in any way longevity bonuses for current employees, and in my view it should,” Zelov said.

The contract also reduces the township’s healthcare costs, through higher employee healthcare co-pays and employee contributions, but it does so primarily for new hires, Zelov said.

“If the current benefits are too high for the future workforce, why aren’t they too high for the current workforce?” Zelov said. “I think this is a missed opportunity, and it’s not as fair to taxpayers as it should be.”

Rosenzweig said he is opposed to the contract because it maintains “an absurdly rich benefits package,” does not eliminate longevity bonuses for all employees, and it contains wage increases and a “$1,300 bonus.”

In lieu of pay raises this year, under the proposed contract full-time employees would receive $1,300 lump-sum payments and part-timers would receive $300 lump-sum payments. In 2012, employees would receive 2.5 percent raises and in 2013 and 2014 they would receive 2.75 percent raises.

Partisan Politics?

There are contrasting views on whether partisan politics is present in the dialogue about the proposed union contract and other issues which have recently come before the board of 10 Democrats and four Republicans.

At an Aug. 3 board meeting during which the union contract was discussed, Republican Brown, along with three other Republicans and one Democrat, voted against delaying the discussion and vote on the union contract until September. (The Democrat, Commissioner Cheryl Gelber, told Patch she voted against the postponement because she had wanted the public to have the opportunity to discuss the issue before the board decided whether to delay the vote.)

At that meeting, Brown said the union deserved a vote that night.

“Certainly, the minority voters came prepared tonight,” Brown said at the Aug. 3 meeting. “I think you should have come prepared as well.”

Later during that same meeting, Commissioner Daniel Bernheim, a Democrat and the newest member of the board, said there is “too much partisan bickering. Every time I hear someone saying minority, majority, I want to cringe.”

Without being asked about it during a phone interview with Patch, Commissioner Brian Gordon commented on what he views as partisan dialogue at the board meetings.

“It’s interesting to see the national trends, including obstructionism and rancor, are playing themselves out on the local level,” Gordon said. “I’m referring to the partisan dialogue which is now present in every meeting, in every dialogue” which has financial implications.

Brown, when asked by Patch if she viewed the board’s dialogue as political, said, “I don’t see it as political in anyway, as in parties, Republican and Democrat… I see it as a continued disagreement between those that want to spend more and those that want to spend less.” 

Undecided

Commissioners Gelber, Bernheim, Gordon and Rogan said they are undecided about the contract.

Gelber said she would like information on how the Workers Association contract compares to union contracts from other municipalities, and she is still trying to obtain that information.

Bernheim said prior to the last board meeting, there were 20 or 30 e-mails asking questions about the contract and its implications.

“I don’t know how someone could make a decision then without more data,” Bernheim said.

Bernheim said before he makes a decision on the contract he wants to “crunch and test the numbers.”

“I have contacted opponents and proponents of the contract and invited them to meet with me,” Bernheim said. 

Bernheim said he is looking to see what the actual numbers are with the contract “so we can make sure we’re being as fair as we can.”

Gordon said he is reviewing the labor agreement carefully and plans to meet with neighbors and David O’Connell, president of Lower Merion Citizens for Responsible Budgeting, to “look at the cost implications” of the contract. O’Connell spoke against the proposed contract at a Board of Commissioners meeting earlier this month.

In a telephone interview, Rogan said she is undecided but called it a “good contract.”

“I’m looking forward to the discussion,” Rogan said. “I’ll decide when I get there. I’m inclined to support it. It saves the taxpayers a ton of money, more than any other contract we’ve had.”

The estimated cost of the Workers Association contract to taxpayers is less than $700,000 over the four-year term, compared to the expired 2007-2010 Workers Association contract which cost the taxpayers about $4.4 million over four years, and the current three-year Fraternal Order of Police contract for 2010-2012, which will cost taxpayers about $2.4 million over the three-year term, Rogan said.

Two commissioners—Paul McElhaney and Lewis Gould Jr.—as well as George McElhaney, the president of the Workers Association—did not return Patch’s phone calls seeking comment for this story. 

George McElhaney and Board of Commissioners Vice President Paul McElhaney are brothers.

Township Manager Douglas Cleland, who helped negotiate the contract and was praised for his work by several of the commissioners who were interviewed, declined to be interviewed for this story. Brenda Viola, a spokeswoman for the township, said Cleland was referring all questions to the Board of Commissioners because the contract is now in their hands for approval.