Printable View
This just doesn't pass the smell test.
Unioni contracts can be amended or broken unilaterally.
But nonunion workers just HAVE to get paid due to city ordinance, which people have been arguing doesn't mean anything to the state?
This is the kind of shit that undermines cries of being broke.
Sounds like they need to change the law. Bing may have decided it's cheaper to cut the checks than deal with the legal expenses from all the lawsuits that would have been filed had they not been paid.Quote:
The payments were eliminated for union members in 2009.Bing reiterated the need to get rid of longevity pay across the board as recently as July, when contracts were imposed on city workers as part of the city's consent agreement with the state.
Isn't this the kind of ”low-hanging fruit” our leadership was supposed to have dealt with well before now. Thebiggest reason the Mayor and a majority of the Council approved the consent agreement was so the City could impose its will on union employees unfettered by contract obligations. But they didn't change the rules for NON-union employees. I do hope there is more to this story because that just doesn't make any sense.
So, it looks like the mayor did try to stop the payments. But, the payments couldn't be stopped on short notice. I wouldn't expect 'short notice' to be two months.Quote:
The mayor's office late Thursday issued a statement that says:"He {Bing} remains committed to ending longevity bonus payments for City employees while the City remains in financial stress."
The statement goes on to say 697 union and 451 non-union employees received the bonus checks. It also says the administration brought a resolution to City Council this summer and it was rejected. A second attempt was approved in September but an ordinance amendment to discontinue payments for non-union employees will go back to council in January.
The statement blames no person for the "mistake" but quotes the Mayor as saying "One of my frustrations is that the City processes are antiquated and the length of time needed to bring about change is often inefficient and counterproductive."
Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/...#ixzz2FGGK9ltn
697 union employees got bonuses this year even though they were eliminated in 2009
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...-end-next-year
I would. I know two new City of Detroit employees who've been waiting since March/April for their checks to be directly deposited to their bank accounts. The City needs better technology or more employees AND better management of the resources it DOES have. All take money the City doesn't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by RO_Resident
I only wish PEEP'S would realise that if you sign a CONTRACT...then LIVE by IT!!!
WTF!!! Corporations pay out BIG money to CEO's who they signed contracts with and nobody bat's an EYE. then when the workers bitch...everyone say's...those greedy workers, where do they get off wanting their fair-share.
The concept of public employees unions is out in Yellow Submarine Land. Who are they adversarial with?[[ Ringo speaking here) I guess we blue meanies just give ourselves a huge flippin' slice o' pie!
Amazing that the City did this at this juncture.
Union employees shouldn't be eligible. Pay for unionized employees is set by contract -- they shouldn't get discretionary bonuses. I see no problem with treating non-union workers differently than their union brothers.
The powers that be might have been trying to send a subliminal message to the Union members. "See, you don't need Unions, we take care of our own".Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mile&seneca
No City Worker of any city should be paid a bonus. If they want to earn bonuses they should work in the Private Sector where the wealth is made to pay their wages. They are already getting paid more than the workers who pay their wages.