Voluntary Separation Agreement

The Voluntary Separation Program (VSP) agreement landed in my inbox last evening.

The actual contract agreement signed by qualified individuals is the same for AFSCME union employees as for non-AFSCME IMRF/management/“Chapter 3” employees. Due to the AFSCME side letter and the difference in required numbers of service years for the two groups, I had gotten the idea they were different, so having the agreement cleared that up.

I’ve also discovered that the employees who qualified and took the VSP are prohibited from being rehired to full-time city positions for two years — which was one of the mysteries that prompted me to ask for more information about the VSP agreement in the first place.

The real story, however, is that the VSP, which was arguably sold as a substitute for an Early Retirement Incentive (ERI) under IMRF (and for which the city does not currently qualify) was offered to employees as young as 36. Continue reading Voluntary Separation Agreement

The First Step

One of the citizen commenters at the council meeting last night brought up the City of DeKalb’s Management Pay Plan. She was scandalized by the leap from Step 1 to Step 2. It is easy to see why. Grade One starting pay, for example, is $18.158 per hour but on the first anniversary it jumps to $21.199. That’s a 16.75% increase. After that, annual increases are a more modest 2% per year and in fact they call it the “Two Percent Pay Plan.”

What the commenter seemed not to know is that all city contracts take a big jump from Step 1 to Step 2 (or Step A to Step B).

In 2008, the Police Contract (p. 35) started a patrol officer at an hourly wage of $26.69, which increased to $29.08 at Step B.

The AFSCME contract schedule (p. 40) pays a Building Supervisor at a rate of $28.291 the first year and $33.20 the second.

A new fire fighter makes $23.979 hourly to start, then goes to $29.524.

Caving?

Good for AFSCME. The union did its job.

AFSCME members voted Wednesday night on a proposal where they will take a wage freeze for one year, and in return, the city will not lay off any workers through the remainder of the contract, which expires Dec. 31, 2010.

I think it would have been fairer to the rest of us if the no-layoff period and the wage freeze period had ended up the same, considering how this affects flexibility in dealing with the financial crises; but, at least they’re holding firm on th — oh, wait.

In addition, AFSCME’s health insurance premium costs will not go up in 2010, Biernacki said. Currently, employees pay 15 percent of the premium, which was supposed to increase to 20 percent on July 1, 2010.

How does the city’s continuing to pick up that 5% of the premium for 70 employees affect the purported $480,000 in FY2010 savings achieved with a citywide wage freeze? The question must be asked and answered before Council can vote on the proposal. I tried to look at Monday’s meeting agenda online to see if it is addressed in a memo but not only did the agenda not load properly, it messed up my browser.