Shiawassee Commissioner Screws County Employee
July 31st, 2006 | by christine |oh, I wrote that wrong. My bad.
Shiawassee Commissioners Screw County Employees
After Shiawassee County representatives insisted that the county was broke and could not offer raises to county employees, the Shiawassee County AFSCME represented employees reached the following three year agreement:
Shiawassee County non-rep employees also received 3 personal days, 0% raise for 2006.
However, after Margaret McAvoy’s power grab, all non-reps were awarded a 3% raise for 2006. Since 1 day = 1%, and the non-reps have already been awarded 3 days, the non-reps effectively received a 6% raise for 2006.
Some elected officials are saying that the classification of “non-reps†includes them as well.
Shame!
Shame!
Shame!
Visit the AFSCME blog here.
If you like this post, subscribe to my new email newsletter.
16 Responses to “Shiawassee Commissioner Screws County Employee”
By Tina J on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
That’s why I think it is wrong to have a ‘contract’ employee play such an intregal role in negotiations with other employee units.
It would be hard, even in the best of circumstances to not have the appearance of conflict when negotiating the best possible scenario for the County, then following up with the best possible scenario for yourself. Regardless of intent, it looks, bad, bad, bad.
By Kay Lauro on Aug 1, 2006 | Reply
So, the union people get less of a raise than the non-union people. Am I reading that correct?
This also would be the negotiations where Ms McAvoy gave her little speech about how dissappointed she was that they were asking for raises, they already had such wonderful benefits, they should be happy with what they had????
Well………you know she saved the county a lot of money with that logic. She has to be rewarded for saving the county so much money.
It really doesn’t matter that she gains so much at the cost of so many………….
or does it?
By christine on Aug 1, 2006 | Reply
@Tina, you are right, Margaret (or anyone in her position) should never have been in those negotiations.
@Kay, yes you are reading that right, and yes, that’s where Margaret allegedly declared “how dare you ask for a raise when the county is broke!”
I’m not sure of the chronology, but initially the non-reps were given 3 days instead of 3%, same as union. But then during the power grab, as you know, they received 3%. Of course, the union has already accepted 0%, after 6 months of negotiations in which the county reps misrepresented the county’s financial situation. Disgusting.
By Kay Lauro on Aug 2, 2006 | Reply
During the commissioners meetings where McAvoy’s raise was approved, they also approved the raise for the “non reps”. I’m assuming that is the county employees who are not represented by a Union. They said there were r41 of them.
Now these people (and McAvoy) get 3 personal days, plus 3% plus another 3%.
—————————
AFSCME represented employees reached the following three year agreement:
3 personal days, 0% raise in 2006
1.5% raise in 2007
2% raise in 2008
How many county employees are in this group?
If the county misrepresented their financial status to gain this agreement………..Well a contract based on fraud could be declared null and void in a court of law and it would sure serve them all right if this group of people took them to court on it.
——————————
Then I understand the sheriff’s dept are represented by the teamster’s union.
How many there?
By David on Aug 2, 2006 | Reply
What’s the problem? The “union” agreed to the 0% raise so they should be happy, they got what they wanted. Just another case of the union screwing it’s members, kinda like the UAW. Union leadership got THEIR raises, of that you can be sure. So what’s it take for the couty employees to de-certify?
By christine on Aug 2, 2006 | Reply
David, welcome to my blog, it’s great to have you here.
I would agree with you regarding the union getting what they wanted, if in this scenario, they came in and asked for 7% or 8%, and the non-reps got 5% and 5%.
The screw & the shame is the way that the county deceived the union. The county said they could not afford any raises this year. Not even 1%. Margaret McAvoy told the union reps they should be ashamed for asking for a raise when the county was “broke”. (I’m paraphrasing slightly because I don’t have my notes, but she used the words “ashamed” and “broke”)
I believe the county was deliberately deceitful because of everything the board has done in the past couple of years. They deceived us with Margaret McAvoy’s “reclassification”, they deceive us with at least some of what’s going on with Gary Holzhausen, they deceived us when they claimed that the animal control laws are state mandated, or the pool fines are state mandated.
I have no reason to believe that they negotiated in good faith. Certainly not when the county union’s contract was ratified in June and Margaret McAvoy’s letter asking for a $11K raise + all kind of benefits was dated March 31.
/cb
By Kay Lauro on Aug 3, 2006 | Reply
All this deceit and I really don’t see why these union people cannot or should not take them to court for it. Some of those words may have been left out of the contract, but there seems to be enough witnesses to the facts of what was told to these people to coerce them into such an agreement. A contract based on fraud can and should be declared null and void.
Jack Johnson made an interesting comment in his letter to the editor. “Usually thes classifications start out at the bottom of the new classification and have to work their way up over 3 years.” Is my understanding correct?
They moved McAvoy straight to the top. Which is why Fuja made some remark about her previous years of service.
I have serious doubts if that re-classification was even legal. For sure not within “policy” for anyone else.
McAvoy wrote her own job description - if I caught that right.
I suggest every county employee do the same. I’m sure everyone of them has taken on additional duties in the last few years.
Get a copy of their current job description and
a copy of the next couple levels up.
They might discover that they are already doing the work of at least one classification higher ( on the Rye scale) and deserve to have their job reclassified - just as much as McAvoy……..no more than McAvoy
By Kay Lauro on Aug 3, 2006 | Reply
I mean they deserve it MORE than McAvoy does.
She did it by hook or crook and she, of all county employees, already had wonderful benefits she should have been happy with.
By christine on Aug 3, 2006 | Reply
@Kay - and contrary to what Fuja said, they have denied reclassifications in the past. They can do what they want, when it comes to that kind of thing. Which is pretty obvious, considering the behavior we saw last week.
By Tina J on Aug 4, 2006 | Reply
Just notice on the Shiawassee Forums that ‘concerned citizen’ called Jack’s letter in the Flint Journal ‘weak’. Of course, he didn’t read the letter in it’s entirety. The Flint Journal edited the heck out of it. But you can’t please all of the people all of the time. I just know he took a lot of time and effort to work on that letter, he is thoughtful, deliberate and looks at every side before forming opinions. Some are right, some are wrong, but never for a lack of information.
Tina
By christine on Aug 4, 2006 | Reply
@Tina, you know that sometimes “weak” is another word for “lack of anger” or something similar. Language speaks to people differently. Jack’s letter seems watered down after some of the other colorful posts that are out there. (or “in here” on this blog
)
My letter (to be posted in the upcoming weekly) was probably considered “weak” too, though not nearly as sensitive or thoughtful as Jack’s.
@all others — Tina is referring to this post: http://www.shianet.org/cgi-bin/forum/shiaopen.pl?read=16664
By Tina J on Aug 4, 2006 | Reply
You are probably right about the intensity of some, and the ‘weakness’ of other posts and letters.
I guess that there is fine line between effective anger and just ranting. I personally like to see controlled, logical, thoughtful anger than a rant with no action behind it. But that is just my opinion .. I do respect others opinions and their style when adressing particular issues. I respect action in all forms. That is why I hold your blogs in high regard.
By Kay Lauro on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply
“they deceived us when they claimed that the animal control laws are state mandated”
Did a search on Shiawassee Animal Control and this came up…….
I didn’t pay attention before……
When did they claim animal control “laws” are state mandated? Do you have any info on that?
By christine on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply
@Kay, I was told that during the 2006 primary campaign, Jerry Walden defended the animal control laws & pool fees by saying that they were “state mandated”. However, I never personally talked to him about this.
By Kay Lauro on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply
Animal Control Ordinance IS NOT state mandated.
I don’t think pool “fees” are either.
Maybe inspections….but “fees” is all on the county.
By christine on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply
Yeah but your average constituent doesn’t know that. He only knows that the county is charging him for something. And if a commissioner wants to weasel his way out of something, he can usually say “the state mandates it.”
However I never saw Walden actually say that. I think he is more likely to say “I don’t know, let me ask Margaret McAvoy or some other highly paid advisor who makes decisions for me.”
Just my opinion.