Public works contract discussed at Scott meeting
After 14 months of private negotiations, the issue of the Scott public-works department contract is taking center stage in the township.
The previous contract expired at the end of 2011, but the issue didn't come forth publicly until just before the Feb. 26 commissioners meeting, when members of the public-works crew distributed fliers asking for support at the meeting.
Gary Alward, recording secretary and chief negotiator for the General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union 249, said he wanted to bring the negotiations up at a meeting because he didn't think all the commissioners and the public were getting the full story from board President Thomas Castello and Solicitor Robert McTiernan.
“I had a copy of our last proposal that we got (Feb. 25), to make sure everybody got it and move on forward,” he said. “(It was) just so that everybody knows what's going on (and) what we've been dealing with,” Alward said.
For their parts, McTiernan and Castello objected to private negotiations coming up in public.
“I thought it was a strange tactic, and I don't know what they sought to gain by it because we were not going to negotiate in public,” Castello said. “We were not going to do it, and I thought it backfired because instead of having 100 people (from the public) there, they ended up (with a small number).”
The negotiations are down to two major issues: a “call-out board” and wages.
Castello said the “call-out board,” under which employees are called out for overtime during summer and winter months, was a “big stumbling block for the past eight months” because the voluntary system currently in place needs to be upgraded.
Township officials think calling employees to plow the roads in the winter is a management decision and should not be controlled by the employees themselves, Castello said.
“If you have someone coming out for 24 hours without any sleep and somebody else is refusing to come out, that's a public-safety issue,” he said.
Alward said the union would agree to the call-out board if township officials agree to pay salary increases with full retroactivity to the beginning of 2012. He said the union originally sought a 3.5-percent wage increase, which the township countered with a 3-percent offer.
But retroactivity is the big stumbling block, as, Castello said, township officials gave the union an end-of-December deadline to settle the contract or lose retroactivity.
“It's our position that they have basically waived retroactivity at this point because they didn't resolve it by the end of the year, which is what we wanted because of budgetary reasons,” Castello said.
Alward said he received the request to settle the contract in December and didn't have enough time to secure approval. He said no retroactivity is a deal-breaker for the union.
“They will not agree on a contract unless retro is paid,” he said. “Because it is not their fault that it went this long.”
The two sides anticipated setting up another meeting soon to discuss the unresolved issues.
“It's gone on for a while, and I think we really need to get it worked out,” said Commissioner Pat Caruso, a member of the township's negotiating team.
Doug Gulasy is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-8527 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.