More than a few members of the union representing county service workers are unhappy with terms of a proposed two-year contract that eliminates pay raises over the next two years but preserves longevity pay for new hires.
To them, the contract pits older, dues-paying members against workers who have yet to get the job.
Leaders of the Service Employees Union Local 1107 are sending out emails and holding about 18 meetings, like one Friday afternoon, to give more information about the deal to its 5,000 members.
Some members, though, think it’s propaganda.
Q: Like who?
A: Like Clara Thomas, a District Court clerk who has worked for Clark County 12 years. She was a member of the union’s Contract Action Team, which meant she attended county/union contract talks last fall and relayed information to other union members. At a downtown coffee shop last week, Thomas said many more members are angry, thinking the union should have taken the deal the county offered in October.
That offer eliminated longevity for future hires but offered merit raises of 1 percent in the first year and 3 percent in the second year. The union wanted to keep longevity for future hires and came back with the deal now under consideration: eliminating merit raises in the first two years but preserving longevity for new hires. Longevity pay for current employees will be frozen for one year, meaning workers will still receive longevity pay, but the rate won’t increase for two years.
The deal will save the county about $20.4 million and, officials say, reduce the odds of more layoffs.
Making $42,000 a year, Thomas thought the merit raises looked good. Bills are going up, after all — the Southern Nevada Water Authority promises to add new fees, NV Energy just won rate increases through the Public Utilities Commission and the price of gasoline seems to rise each spring.
On top of that, $23 of Thomas’ paycheck — about $600 per year — goes to the union.
Q: Isn’t she angry at the county? After all, they’re the ones looking for concessions.
A: “I don’t blame the county, they’re just doing their job,” she said. “But why didn’t our negotiators see it? Saving longevity for new hires? They need to be worrying about dues-paying employees.”
Another court clerk, Jackie McGowan, said she quit the union but her pay and benefits are still determined by the union contract. She can’t vote on the proposal but said she sees nothing in this deal that makes her want to join the union again so she would have that right.
“I don’t see the incentive to join,” she said.
Q: What is the union’s argument for taking this deal?
A: Its website gives the answer. Voting “no,” it says, will send negotiations to an arbitrator.
“Unions in Nevada have done poorly” when contracts get to that step, it says. “The risk is too great to take.”
It adds that a fact-finder “will have the option of taking Clark County’s initial proposal of a 1.5 percent across-the-board wage cut.
Voting “yes,” the union says, means the SEIU will be one of the few unions to save longevity for future hires. No pay cuts would ensue. Longevity is preserved, though it would be frozen for current employees who would get the same amount for two years.
Q: What else does Thomas say about longevity pay?
A: She’d be willing to give it up for new hires because as the economy gets better Clark County will obviously be fighting, once again, to find good employees. When that happens, the union can negotiate to get longevity back.
Q: Does she really think members might vote no? And if they do, what happens?
A: “I know it doesn’t happen often,” she said. “But it might.”
If that happens, negotiators go to arbitration, which has been set for the end of February.
Q: When do union members vote?
A: Thursday and Friday.
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy