Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 2
There was such a significant outcry that number was changed in the first step to a maximum of 40% in the
2013 contract. For a teacher was making $60,000.00 the payout went from approximately $33,000.00 to
approximately $24,000.00. Now this was applied with complete retroactivity, no one was grandfathered,
teachers that were 30, 40 years were subject to the new rule and that’s the way it was.
Then in the next step in the contract of 2016, payouts were reduced further. In that contract there was some
level of grandfathering, but it went retroactive for 20 years. So any teacher who had worked for less than 20
years now was taken for 40% of payroll to 30%., and that went back not 6 years, but 20 years. Now fora
teacher that makes $60,000.00 that payout was reduced first from 33%, then to 24%, now to about 18%. For
teachers that had only been working for 10 years it was not reduced to 30%, it was reduced to 20% of payroll,
so going back 10 years, retroactively teachers that were again with 10 years or less seniority, they now were
down to 20%. So for that portion of the teaching force we have been going from 33%, to 24%, to 18% to
$12,000.00 maximum payout for unused sick time. That is 900 employees and it is done because the School
Department was straining under the effort for paying for all this and at least initially before the initial contract
the 2013 contract, there was a big public outcry about the expense of all this.
The move was consistent with what was done back in City Hall in the case we are looking at back in 2001. But
it wasn’t just the teachers and it wasn’t just City Hall it was also in the Police Department. For the civilian
workforce in the 2003 contract, the payout was reduced from the 720 hours to the same system that was
enacted in City Hall which was 20% of the entire accrual. Now there was grandfathering in that case; in the
teachers there was none. In this case, anybody that started working after 2003 was limited to 20% and that is
what they are limited to now.
All of this was done to reduce cost because if we are thinking about the entire work force, we are talking about
hundreds of thousands of dollars across 900 teachers, civilians, and all these different places, we are talking a
lot of money over time. The effort was it that it was just too much to being out all this unused sick time. Now
for the 11 employees that we are considering, even under the new system, they will be entitled to an estimated
$190,000.00. Now that is small change. Just for unused sick time. If you pass the Ordinance as amended
that number will go to $366,000.00.
| am suggesting to you that we are not just talking about $175,000.00 which | think and | have been saying for
months is an unwise expenditure. But what | am bringing to your attention now is that this is across the entire
workforce and you will be opening the door to the unwinding of an effort that existed for about 18 years to try to
reduce costs; because other requests are going to come to you. Other groups are going to come and say —
Hey look you did it for them, now what about for us? And you are probably sitting there thinking — well come
on he is blowing smoke, he is exaggerating it is not going to happen, except it is already on your doorstep, right
here. On your Agenda is a new contract for the civilian employees in the Police Department. Guess what is in
that contract; a roll back of the change that was made in 2003.
In 2003 the contract said — going forward it is 20%; the new contract, as proposed, goes back to 720 hours. So
if you think that by approving for one group you are done, you are not. It is going to come, and if you think like
tonight if you approve this, it is all over, it is not. Because it is going to come back to you in another contract
and the argument will undoubtedly be made that we did it for one group, it is unfair not to do it for another
group. And once that happens how have you not opened the barn door, how about the 900 teachers who said
— we did it retroactively for 40 years, you are now giving it to other people? Why shouldn’t we get it back too?
So | think you are taking a step or you are threatening to or you might if you over-ride this veto that has much
broader and much larger financial implications that you have realized to this point. | think, in my opinion, it
would be financially irresponsible to roll back this almost 20 year effort to reduce City costs for the payout of
unused sick time. | am asking you now to either sustain the veto or at least table this because if you doubt
anything that I’ve said, if you doubt anything about what these contracts say, if you doubt what the teachers
have done, if you doubt what is in this contract that is on your Agenda right now, take the time to consider all
this.
