Irwin council approves new police contract
In exchange for a pay freeze, Irwin's two full-time police officers no longer will have to contribute to their pension or pay a percentage of their health-insurance premiums under a new contract approved by council last week.
The contract, approved Jan. 6, freezes the officers' pay during the first two years of the three-year deal and has a 3-percent pay hike in the third year.
The labor agreement eliminates the 5 percent the officers previously paid toward their retirement, as well as the $108 a month they contributed toward health insurance. The borough has two full-time and five part-time officers.
Council voted 4-3 to approve the contract after a lengthy debate over whether they were considering a revised version of the labor agreement that included the elimination of the pension payment or a previous version that required the 5-percent contribution.
Council members Robert Wayman, Peggie Watson, Phylis Theim and Joanna Jordan voted to approve the contract. Council members John Cassandro, Deborah Kelly and Gail Macioce voted against the deal, which is retroactive to Jan. 1.
Irwin police Chief Roger Pivirotto, who is not part of the bargaining unit that represents the police, said he was happy the two sides were able to come to terms on a new labor pact.
“The contract was agreeable to the officers and borough officials, so it's good for the community,” he said.
Tony LaRussa is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8626, or email@example.com.
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 â 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.