Contract and Retirement

So, for those of us that were unable to attend the contract and pension meeting today, what was discussed?

I was very shocked that only about 20 or so showed up to this meeting. You are the majority and that is unfortunate. This is our future we are discussing. Please make it a point to show up at these meetings. There was a lot discussed and really to much to go over in this open forum. Try and get with someone that was there and go over what was said.

This is our future we are discussing. Please make it a point to show up at these meetings.

Thanks, but I was shagging calls. Attending was not an option for me.

Again that is why I said get with someone that was there and ask them to go over the meeting.

Who are the negotiators gonna be?

Who are the negotiators gonna be?

Who did you vote for?

So, all along I have been told by BW that the COLA associated with the pension plan is only available to us as:

- a 2% COLA
- at a cost of 10+% of our paycheck (more than double our current contribution)

This set up would allow everyone in the plan to get the full COLA. Folks getting ready to retire (like BW) get the same amount as folks that will pay in for the next 20 years.

I find out yesterday that this is not the only possibility. The other possibility that the city suggested is a 'prospective' COLA. This arrangement would allow for a 2% COLA at a VERY AFFORDABLE contribution. The difference is, you only get the COLA for what you contribute. In other words, if you have 5 years on, and spend the next 20 years contributing to the COLA, you have 25 years for your retirement, but the COLA would only be for the years you contributed (20).

What this does is make it very affordable (say 2% not 5+%) and it prevents someone getting ready to retire from living off of everyone else's contributions.

But, how many people have heard about this alternative plan? It is my understanding that the city is very willing to work with us on the second plan. It sounds like a fair plan, but our reps have not brought us any mention of this plan.

The numbers for how much this version of the COLA will cost have not been calculated, because the reps only paid for a study that would most benefit someone getting ready to retire...

I think some serious questions need to be asked before we enter into negotiations...

The previos poster is absolutly correct and the question that should be raised is why has this not been brought to our attention and I will tell you why it is because this does not benefit the BW's of the agency.

We as a department will NOT agree to a 5% increase in contributions. Yes this will be great in teh long run but not in the immediate when they will be taking another approx. 300.00 fromo my paycheck a month. And considering this way only benifits a small number (7) or so employees and that I have to pay for them to have a COLA is not going to happen.

With the prospective way the city wins and we win. Our contribution will drop by almost half say 2.5 to 3 % and the city to match.

I can handle 2 % not 5% and I know some will say just tighten up here and there to make you finances work but I am not giving up my things so that I can pay for someone else to retire. Plus my budget along with many others is about as tight as it can get.

At our payscale people dop not realise is that our economy is not getting better it is getting worse. Just yesterday Oil prices went up another 11.00 which was an all time high. Then you want me to try and suck up another 300.00 a month so that maybe I can retire in 20 or so years. GOOD LUCK

We need to look at all angles and see what fits the masses not the few.

Again sorry for the spelling errors. Please do not correct them for me.

One of the problems is that no one is standing up to BW on the board! BL just sits there so he is a terrible excuse for a negotiator let alone a rep. I saw the email of the proposed negotiators. I haven't had a chance to ask but why aren't people like CB and HC on the list? They seemed to have kept BW under control on the last process. I just dont see anyone on the list that will tell BW NO! Before you bash me I dont have the time to be on the team or else I wouldv'e put in for it.

I would be able to handle the second cola option..but there is no way I can afford the first. I have maybe 300 dollars left over after paying my bills, baby supplies, food, and gas. Half that remaining 300 goes to my babies education fund and that leaves me with 150 left over. Take that away just so BW and the other 100 and unders can retire to their max? No Way! I understand you need to look out for yourself..but the Board, PBA members, and other seargants need to step up and stop this hulking mad man from forcing something that 90 percent of ALL members already voted no on.

This is a great thread. Just a couple of things to clarify:

Remember, the pension enhancements and associated negotiations are separate from contract negotiations. I THINK, and I might be wrong, that the folks we voted for are for the contract negotiations.

Also, the difference between the prospective and retroactive pension enhancements has to do with the multiplier, not the COLA. We are asking for an increase in our multiplier AND a COLA. The retro/pro refers to how the multiplier affects people currently employed but ready to retire.

In other words, if we do a RETRO pension enhancement, 38, 39 and all the guys getting ready to retire enjoy the benefit of the new, higher multiplier - without ever having paid a dime toward the benefit. The RETRO enhancement would go back and "recalculate" all of a person's years of service at the higher multiplier. That's VERY expensive for the pension plan. It's basic math, if the City is going to give those folks a benefit THEY did not pay for, the money has to come from somewhere - YOU!

If we do the PRO multiplier, then we pay a much, much, much smaller price for the benefit because we are giving the money to the City to invest for us over the next "X" number of years until we retire. 38 and others in his group would NOT receive the benefit of the new, higher multiplier. But at the same time, the rest of us do not have to pay astronomical prices to cover his significantly improved retirement.

Remember, whether we vote RETRO or PRO, everyone will still receive and benefit from the COLA - including BW and those in his seniority bracket. This has to do with the multiplier. What BW wants is for us to fund his 26 or so years of service at a higher multiplier, which he did not pay for.

If I'm mistaken on this, I sincerely apologize. However, I'm pretty sure that I'm right.

Again, this is a phenomenal thread, but try to make sure the information we post here is as accurate as possible. A lot of people will use this as their source of information. (That said, I hope I'm right!!!!)

Last thing - remember when voting for people to represent you that it is not important to pick the loudest mouths, but it is very important to pick the smartest thinkers. Someone who has absolutely no idea what they are doing and just goes into the negotiations kicking and screaming and demanding the moon and the stars is going to hurt us in the long run. We need calm, collected, cool-headed people who understand this process. We also need people who have taken the time to legitimately educate themselves on the financial ins-and-outs of this process and what we need to maximize our financial security and long-term benefits.

Pension plans and benefits are highly complex creatures and frankly, opinions don't mean jack $hit in this process. We need people who know what they are talking about and know what they are doing. There SEVERAL of those to choose from in the list BW put out to us in the email.

A lot of people will use this as their source of information.

That is pretty sad. We need new representation. I shouldn't have to come to LEO Affairs to get the "real" information on retirement and contract info.

Like some of the others have said, a prospective plan is affordable to me and would get my vote. A retroactive plan is too expensive, not fair, and I will fight it.

I am going out on a limb but based on the writing style....lol I know....I think I know who "Couple Corrections" was. To bad you did not add your name to that list of prospective negotiators. I know it would be a drive for you, but myself as well as most of the dept would have voted for you.

Thanks for the info. And for BL, BW, and even CG...it would be nice if you guys either sent out more emails with ALL the relevant info...a newsletter...or something.

The above poster (couple corrections) is correct in his comments. The negotiations comittee is for the contract and contract only. The pension enhancements are a total seperate issue and are handled by CG. So if you want what we all want bend his ear so that he can make things happen.

BW and BL positions are both done as of Oct 1 as I understand it and I have heard that BL is not runing again so we will have new people in charge which may help.

The COLA is the Firedepartments baby and that is what they want. The 3.5 mult and 95% is what we wanted. The FD stated they would support us if we support them. The only problem with that is the cost of the COLA and I agree as well as just about everyone that I have spoken with that a RETRO COLA will not pass.

There are several people that are just waiting for these enhancements to go through so they can hit the drop. Then we get to all pay for their 2% for the rest of our careers. I DO NOT THINK SO.

The PRO is much more cost effective for all and the older folks get what they put into it from this point further. Meaning they have to work an extra couple of years to contribute and then they get the COLA for what they put into it. This is why they do not want that toeven be heard.

I agree give us all the facts and then let us decide don't just say you have an apple and tell us to be happy with it when you are holding an orange in the other hand that we may want more.

Yes it is very difficult to speak to BW and make him see our side but he is only one voice and not the masses. Get involved speak your opinion and make things happen. I think the people on that list are good people to pick from and like (couple corrections) stated pick the smartest thinkers and level headed people.

And I am hoping that if the people get it that I want to get it BW will see he is the minority not the majority.

One of the problems is that no one is standing up to BW on the board! BL just sits there so he is a terrible excuse for a negotiator let alone a rep. I saw the email of the proposed negotiators. I haven't had a chance to ask but why aren't people like CB and HC on the list? They seemed to have kept BW under control on the last process. I just dont see anyone on the list that will tell BW NO! Before you bash me I dont have the time to be on the team or else I wouldv'e put in for it.

Are you kidding me? More has happened since BL has been a rep than I can remember happening in the last 15 years. Ignorance is probably the reason BL is considering not running again. I don't know I haven't talked to him about it. Maybe he understands Robert's Rules of Order, or maybe he's learning or wow maybe he knows what he's doing. I see him here all the time on OUR behalf. Negotiations haven't even begun and you're whining that just shows you don't know what you're talking about. BW is and has done a great job again know what you're talking about.

Butch has done a great job... and before we begin bashing him, let's remember that he has done a lot for us. He also has earned his spot at the table. We could all do ourselves a favor to listen to the people who have been dealing with our employer (the City) for 20+ years... they have a lot to offer. I don't want to see this turn into a new guys against the old guys contest. No one will win. We need to find the middle ground that makes everyone happy, provides the maximum benefits for all of our futures, but doesn't break anyone's back in the meantime.

Sarge... we just can't afford the enhancements you're talking about. It's way too much money for us. Most everyone is all for improvements to the pension, but taking an extra $300 a month out of our pockets will put a lot of us in a really, really bad spot. Let's look at some of the other plans, namely the prospective enhancements.

Again, don't confuse the multiplier with the COLA. They are separate issues and affect the pension in different ways. Get with I274 if you have questions. He has a very solid understanding of this package.

Keep it civil so we can have a good discussion here.

BW could have 2000 years of experience and be in line to run for president of the United States...if he refuses or neglects to give me, one of the people he represents, ALL the information on ALL the possible plans available...than I do not want him. I should NOT have to log onto LEO affairs to find out about this second type of pension plan. There should be a complete newsletter or email sent out with all the facts. Period

BW could have 2000 years of experience and be in line to run for president of the United States...if he refuses or neglects to give me, one of the people he represents, ALL the information on ALL the possible plans available...than I do not want him. I should NOT have to log onto LEO affairs to find out about this second type of pension plan. There should be a complete newsletter or email sent out with all the facts. Period

+1

Okay. 'Nuff said. We are in the process of electing people to represent us for the contract negotiations. Choose carefully.

As far as the pension stuff goes, let's not cry about how bad one person's representation is, and instead, actually do something to make sure we're informed and a part of the process.

Multiple people have expressed their displeasure with the lack of information coming in regarding the pension enhancements. Let's get back to the issue and focus on making sure these pension enhancements don't bone us to the point where we can't afford to pay attention.

BTW, FD has invited all of us to stop by their stations and disucss the pension enhancements with them. They say they have a very different point of view on these matters. Keep in mind the retroactive multiplier is what costs so much money, not the COLA by itself. I'm not a huge fan of the COLA (there are better ways to invest your money), but the COLA is not what's threatening to double our contributions... it's the retro-multiplier + the COLA.

Stay informed!

True it is retro anything that is what is going to cost us so much money. Please like the previos person stated get informed and stay on everyones back and ask questions.

Are you kidding me?? This state sucks for representation to its officers. Go up north if you want to live good, have a great wage and retirement.