Indexes
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
November 13th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (161)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (70)
- Despite budget cuts, some Lodi Unified School District salaries continue to rise (58)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (48)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Public health care is a Christian option (29)
- Lodi Flames slim playoff chances vanish in setback to Tracy Bulldogs (25)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Nightmares about America's future (23)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi City Council approves contracts
Biggest city union in Lodi given 3-percent raise over 30 months
By Maggie Creamer
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:02 AM PST
When talking about labor negotiations, it is rare for people to say they are enjoyable, councilman Bob Johnson said at the Lodi City Council meeting Wednesday night.
"When things got a little bit contentious, someone made a comment to break the tension," Johnson said of the negotiation meetings.
In a 4 to 1 vote, the council approved a 3-percent pay increase for the city's largest union. The contracts are for maintenance and operations and the general services units of the union and are good for July 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2010. The contracts started this past July because the last contracts for the union expired June 30.
Councilwoman Susan Hitchcock voted against the two contracts. She said while she appreciates the work the union does, she is worried about the city budget.
"I'm concerned about what is going to happen with the economy," Hitchcock said. "At this point, I cannot approve any salary increases."
Mark Ruggiero, president of the city's rank-and-file union, said he wants to make sure the public understands city employees are only getting a 3-percent increase over 30 months. The increase started Dec. 8 when the union signed a tentative agreement with the city.
"The deal is fair for the times," he said.
Increases at a glance
The contract includes a 3- percent increase to the union employees' salaries. Here are some examples of how the increase will impact different employees. All of the numbers are based on the minimum annual salary for each position.Park supervisor
Salary before Dec. 8: $49,237
3-percent increase: $1,477
Salary after Dec. 8: $50,714
Laborer
Salary before Dec. 8: $30,645
3-percent increase: $919
Salary after Dec. 8: $31,564
Police records clerk
Salary before Dec. 8: $29,682
3-percent increase: $890
Salary after Dec. 8: $30,572
Network technician
Salary before Dec. 8: $54,425
3-percent increase: $1,633
Salary after Dec. 8: $56,058
Source: City Web site
City Human Resources Manager Dean Gualco described the negotiations as enjoyable when he gave his report on the almost yearlong process. City staff and union members met about 30 times to iron out contract details.
Negotiations were at times contentious, Ruggiero said, but he feels both sides effectively represented its interests.
Ruggiero said the city should have more money available this year because the union has fewer employees and is not hiring. He also pointed out the health care opt-out provision added to the contract will save money.
Union members will have an opportunity to get paid for opting out of the city's medical insurance. Gualco said it saves the city considerable money when an employee does not receive the city's insurance.
Employees with families would receive $692.81 per month while a person with one dependent will get $532.92. A similar provision was in contracts with fire and police department employees.
Hitchcock said the council did not have much to say during the public session about the contracts because they have discussed it in closed session before.
Councilwoman JoAnne Mounce thanked the union members for their service.
"These are the people dealing with customers on a regular basis," she said.
Contact reporter Maggie Creamer at maggiec@lodinews.com.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Dec 19, 2008 3:21 PM:
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 19, 2008 2:31 PM:
To EL RUSHBO
You summed it up nicely. The issue isn't whether they DESERVE A RAISE .. it is whethere the CITY CAN AFFORD THE RAISE.
That has been my point, but some want to make it about DESERVE when in fact it is about AFFORD. "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 19, 2008 2:29 PM:
TO COGITO
I agree on the PD and FD issue. If they had received a 3% increase (like this group did) I'd be less infuriated at the PD / FD raise.
PD and FD already are paid more, so why did they need a 19% increase? "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 19, 2008 2:26 PM:
TO MP who wrote:
"..can't believe you bloggers are upset because the peopl making the least amount at city hall are geting a 3% increase!"
If you give ANYONE an increase in these tough economic times - when the city is going to face major financial crisis in the near future - then you tell the union that they can strong arm you for increases of OTHER work groups.
Bottom line is... increases should be based on performance, cost of living - with the MAJOR consideration of ABILITY OF THE CITY TO AFFORD THE INCREASE.
As I said earlier - I would have rather seen a 3% increase coupled WITH a 3% reduction in the work force. That would have been an easy way for the city to get rid of the 3% of workers that are taking advantage of city employment - or are inefficient. "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 19, 2008 2:22 PM:
TO LODI-LAW
The issue of whether the city has ENOUGH workers is a completely different issue. Our local bumpkin politicians have completely BOTCHED running this city for the last 10 years - from the Groundwater Pollution lawsuit to present.
Because of their botched management, they have been unable to hire the necessary resources in some instance.
HOWEVER...
When you have maintenance people who go into the Lodi Armory to clean it (joint use agreement with the National Guard) and they spend two hours in there playing basketball - you have an "efficiency issue" that has never been dealt with because - management has its hands tied.
Reasonably speaking, there are some employees of the City that need to be fired and replaced with good workers. Not everyone deserves the 3% raise - yet everyone gets it. "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 19, 2008 2:20 PM:
LODI-LAW wrote:
"Do you wonder what would happen if no city services were maintained?"
What does that have to do with our discussion here?
Are you saying that these workers would have quit their job if they didn't received their 3% raise?
If the answer to that question is "yes", then I say ... good luck finding another job right now! "
fire chief wrote on Dec 19, 2008 3:00 AM:
El Rushbo wrote on Dec 18, 2008 10:02 PM:
accountable wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:47 PM:
If you go to the City web site you can
view all the current contracts with the different unions. You will see that this contract expired July30, 2006. The way the article reads, it seems as though they want everyone to believe this contract just expired July 30, 2008.
This 2006 contract states that effective July 1, 2005 they are to receive a cost of living increase of no less than 2% and no greater than 4% calculated using the most recent 12 months average from the Department of Labor April 2005.
Everyone should chill about this measly raise they just received. They have earned it! The way Im reading things, they havent received an increase since July of 2005 and if Im wrong will someone please correct me.
If this is in fact true, all you complainers ESAD! "
Cogito wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:23 PM:
T & C wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:52 PM:
mp wrote on Dec 18, 2008 5:13 PM:
As far as this cc is concerned, they justed wasted millions in infrastructure and you guys are pissin' about $100 a month. Wow!
Oh and remember. Not one council member can take credit for anything accomplishment. It takes at least three votes! "
LODI-LAW wrote on Dec 18, 2008 4:23 PM:
LODI-LAW wrote on Dec 18, 2008 4:19 PM:
Do you wonder what would happen if no city services were maintained?
One storm and crews are out all hours clearing fallen trees. clearing drains. maintaing storm pumps so the water has somewhere to go and not flood your house or roads.
un-clogging sewer mains so there isnt raw sewage running down the drains.
fixing water line breaks so you have fresh water.
Maintnace on the citys fresh water filters.
working out at white slough to keep our towns sewage plant running smooth.
maybe you should fill out a application for a their job and be a part of the solution and not the problem with this city. "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 18, 2008 3:59 PM:
As has been done at the State level, all HIRING and SALARY INCREASES should be frozen across the board because THE BUDGET IS THAT BAD!!!
This small unit is just an EXAMPLE. I am advocating fiscal conservatism across the board.
That is what would happen in private industry during tough economic times. Why should government operate any differently?
The answer: Its not their money that they spend. "
LODI-LAW wrote on Dec 18, 2008 3:47 PM:
So to the people that bring me fresh water, Keep my sewer system working, Paving my roads, Keeping my town drains from flooding, and working with my kids in city sports, Thanks and merry Christmas
Don't blame the indians when the cheif makes bad choice's "
LODI-LAW wrote on Dec 18, 2008 3:39 PM:
wondering&confused wrote on Dec 18, 2008 2:25 PM:
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 18, 2008 1:49 PM:
I have to believe that only a union government employee would say "I'm due a raise, so give it to me. I don't care if the city doesn't have the money. That's the tax payers problem, not mine".
So basically .. I don't give a S*%*t if they are due or not. We, the tax paying citizens of Lodi, can't afford it right now.
Here is an alternate idea I can live with:
Cut the work force by 3% (fire 3% of the workers) and then give the rest theri 3% raise.
Net result = the "dead wood" gets cut from the tree, and the "live wood" gets their deserved pay raise.
Anything other than that is self serving and wrong. "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 18, 2008 1:46 PM:
TO FIRECHIEF
Well, I work in the private sector and I'm "due for a raise" too ... but my choices are much more limited. They are:
a) Keep my job at my current pay
b) Lose my job
That is the difference between people like me who work in the private sector, and people who work and live off of the tit of government.
If you work for the fire department, you KNOW it is a fact that it is almost impossible to fire someone in government. Usually, managers just "promote out" the slackers and make them someone elses problem.
Eventually, those slackers get "promoted out" to be managers somewhere else! "
fire chief wrote on Dec 18, 2008 12:57 PM:
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 18, 2008 12:25 PM:
TO FIRE CHIEF
You miss the point. The whole point is .. while the rest of the NON CITY WORKERS are wondering if they will even HAVE a job over the next 30 months, you'll be enjoying a 3% RAISE!
And anyone who has been around government KNOWS that it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to fire someone, even if they do a miserable job - because the Unions have a strangle hold on government.
The fact that the union would be selfish enough to even try to NEGOTIATE a 3% increase in these times - instead of simply holding the line on an increase and negotiating for JOB SECURITY speaks volumes. "
just the real facts wrote on Dec 18, 2008 11:15 AM:
reality wrote on Dec 18, 2008 10:21 AM:
4AStrongLodi wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:37 AM:
And Mounce is just plain hypocritical. She's leaving a legacy of poor financial management (and she's a bookkeeper!), useless spending, and a lack of leadership as she steps down as Mayor. "
fire chief wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:19 AM:
concerned citizen wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:55 AM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:49 AM:
It's called LIFE. And life is not fair. Grow up and get on with your life. If you let this burn inside you it will eat you up.
As Senior Management I stand by my original repsonse to you on why firms can and should continue with some perks in tough times. Employee morale is the golden egg. "
john95632 wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:41 AM:
Now they want to give there city workers a raise. "
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:40 AM:
What might slip by many is the fact that Ms. Mounce voted for this raise too.
I thought she was supposed to be tough on the financial stuff. What gives Joanne? "
concerned citizen wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:39 AM:
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:32 AM:
Obviously Mr. Ruggiero has NEVER, EVER worked in the real world. Sports Guru, I could not agree more.
Concerned- so what? 40 nurses w/25yrs at a MINIMUM of $80Kyr = $3.2Million. What did that party cost? $50 per head X 100 guests = $5K. MY POINT-- when times are tough an organization still needs to celebrate and appreciate their employees with perks like this party. If they feel unwanted, under appreciated they will start to look for new jobs. Even if just ONE of these upper management folks left it would cost far more than $5K to replace him/her. I'm guessing by your reaction you might be one of the 41. "
stucknlodi wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:12 AM:
concerned citizen wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:10 AM:
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:00 AM:
..Mr. Ruggiero, YOU should understand that most of the NON-CITY EMPLOYEES who live in Lodi will be struggling JUST TO KEEP A JOB over the next 30 months, much less worry about getting a raise!
This demonstrates the "me first" attitude of government unions, and their inability to realize that their workers ALREADY have an extra ordinary benefits and retirement package (compared to the rest of us working stiffs) - yet still want to get "more for themselves", even if our ship is barely staying afloat due to the economic crisis.
KUDO'S TO SUSAN HITCHCOCK, who apparently is the only Council member with any common sense! "
SportsGuru wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:58 AM:
Well, congratulations to my fellow Lodians. We have elected a City Council that is COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO THE ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THE MOMENT!
Yesterday, the Fed lowered the prime lending rate to 0.25% .. the lowest it has ever been. Since lowering interest rates has been a key strategy to control inflation - this means that WE NO LONGER CAN MANIPULATE THE PRIME RATE TO CONTROL INFLATION.
This means that if inflation begins to rear it's ugly head, we won't have our best weapon to fight it.
Meanwhile, the Lodi country bumpkin city council people are voting raises to city employees at a time when we can't afford to raise any costs whatsoever.
I'm literally stunned.
Mr. Ruggiero, YOU should understand that most of the NON-CITY EMPLOYEES who live in Lodi will be struggling JUST TO KEEP A JOB over the next 30 months! "
Comments on this story are now closed.