AFSCME District Council 48

Workers
Serving
Milwaukee

Prohibited Practice Complaint
Filed Against Milwaukee County
    A Prohibited Practice complaint against Milwaukee County was filed with the state of Wisconsin January 11, 2002, by AFSCME District Council 48 after Supervisor Karen Ordinans, chairman of the County Board, sent a letter on that date to all county employees, union and non, discussing future board action on the pension furore.
    The letter, labeled an "inter-office communication," titled "Wage and Pension Package Update" and sent to all county employees, reported that the County Board had hired lawyers to provide counsel on the issue and yet simultaneously sought to assure county employees that the board would not take precipitous action in the matter.
    The letter itself was a precipitous action. AFSCME contends that it is a direct violation of Wisconsin Statute 111.70. The statue makes it a Prohibited Practice for an employer or an employer's agent to communicate directly to represented employees rather than through the legally recognized exclusive bargaining agent on matters concerning wages, hours and working conditions, all mandatory subjects of bargaining under the state statute.
    District Council 48, AFL-CIO, is the exclusive bargaining agent for the preponderance of union employees who work for the county. Pensions are delayed compensation, and pension plans emerge from comprehensive contractual negotiations between the county and its union employees.
    This particular pension plan, it should be noted, was approved by the county for its non-represented employees before it was ever presented to a union-represented bargaining unit.
    Sending such a letter was doubly troubling since it continues a pattern at the County Board of action and then denial of understanding the consequences of that action. In the public anger over revelations of how the pension plan, through its backdrop provisions, could make millionaires out of County Executive Tom Ament and other chief administrators, many supervisors said they did not understand the details when they approved the pension plan.
    Similarly, in conversations with AFSCME officials after the letter was sent, Ordinans said she didn't realize her letter represented a Prohibited Practice despite her background as a labor negotiator when she worked for District Council 48. Yet, as the complaint to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission points out, the letter positions the board as the only player to debate and take action on the pension issue.
    Council 48 believes this communication by the County Board through its Chair will only add to the confusion and anxiety of our members, who will question why their legal and exclusive bargaining agent is being by passed by and ignored in this matter.
    The executive director of District Council 48, Richard Abelson, has made it clear:
    He is notifying members that the provisions of the county pension are contractually protected. They cannot be taken away, abridged or modified without the union membership ratifying that action.
    District Council 48 has no intention of opening up the contract until the entire contract expires in 2004. At that point each party can put on the table whatever proposals it wishes.
    Some historical balance is also apparently necessary at this point:
    The backdrop provision in the pension plan (which allows some long-term employees to take partial lump-sum pension payments while still collecting monthly payments) and other pension enhancements had already been approved by the County Board for both elected and non-represented employees before these proposals were presented to and agreed to by any bargaining unit.
    When news coverage about the potential size of some pension returns broke in January of 2002, several supervisors denied fully understanding the financial consequences of the pension plan they had approved. However, the first backdrop beneficiary was a nurse supervisor in January of 2001. Moreover, union representatives had raised concerns and held active conversations about the pension plan and its details with supervisors, including Ordinans, throughout 2001.
    The unions did indeed welcome the pension plan for its members, whose pay averages $15 an hour. Union employees thus will not generally enjoy the sort of windfalls that could befall high-salaried administrators.
    The pension plan was more than the union had expected the county to offer and it represented a real gain for long-term employees in an environment where unions had traditionally given up benefits and taken wage hits over the years to help keep county costs down. More than 10 years ago, for instance, District Council 48 agreed to give up a key provision in its existing contract. It agreed to eliminate health insurance for future (after that contract date) retirees. That represented a huge savings for the County and the pension.
    At the county, employees are not vested in the pension until 10 years of service, which is a significantly longer time frame than in many private industries. Moreover, there is nothing but the pension as retirement benefit for county employees -- no profit sharing, stock options, or employer-matched 401K type plans.
    Our members should be reassured that the pension benefits they expect remain on target through the life of the current contract and that District Council 48 will oppose any illegal or backdoor attempts to intimidate, coerce or deny compensation that was bargained in good faith and approved by membership, the County Board and the County Executive.