Ballot issue to end City paying employee share of pension pick-up to be before Council
The following piece of legislation was given to members of Toledo City Council on Friday from the Bell administration; it is expected to be discussed at this week’s Agenda Review. If passed by Council the issue would then go on to be decided by Toledo voters at the November 2010 election:
Providing for submitting to the electors of the City of Toledo the question of bargaining to eliminate payment by the City of employees’ share of retirement pension contributions, adopting a new City Charter Section 53A; and declaring an emergency.
Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Toledo, two-thirds of all members elected thereto concurring, that:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Article XVIII, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution and Section 5 of the Charter of the City of Toledo, this Council authorizes and directs that the following proposal to amend the Charter of the City of Toledo be submitted to the electors of the City of Toledo at an election to be held at the usual places of voting in the City on Tuesday, November 2, 2010:
That Section 53A of the Charter be added to read as follows:
“Section 53A. Pension Contributions. Subject to the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4117 and to the provisions of Ohio law regarding employee pension plans (Ohio Revised Code Chapters 145 and 742), the City will not continue, beyond January 1, 2011, to pay any employees’ statutorily mandated shares of pension contributions as set forth in Ohio Revised Code Sections 145.85 and 742.31, unless required by the terms of a valid collective bargaining agreement. In negotiations for any new collective bargaining agreement or successor collective bargaining agreement occurring after January 1, 2011, the Mayor shall bargain to end any provisions that would require the City to pay any employees’ statutorily mandated share of pension contributions. Subject to the provisions of Ohio law as set forth in this Section (or any subsequent revision to existing law), after January 1, 2011, neither the Mayor nor Council shall approve a collective bargaining agreement that imposes upon the City an obligation to pay employees’ statutorily mandated shares of pension contributions.”
SECTION 2. If the foregoing proposal receives the affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting thereon, it shall be effective immediately.
SECTION 3. It is the desire of the Council that the ballot for said question shall be in substantially the following form:
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall Section 53A be added to the City of Toledo Charter to require the City to bargain to end the practice of paying the employees’ share of employee pension plans in all future contracts?
_______ YES, for the proposed Charter change
_______ NO, against the proposed Charter change
SECTION 4. The Clerk of the Council is authorized and directed to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Elections of Lucas County no later than September 3, 2010.
SECTION 5. This Council requests, and authorizes and directs the Clerk of Council to request, that the Board of Elections of Lucas County cause to be duly given an appropriate notice of the election to be held on November 2, 2010, on the foregoing amendment to the Charter of this City and otherwise provide for such election in the manner provided by the Charter and general laws of the State of Ohio.
SECTION 6. The Clerk of Council is authorized and directed to cause the full text of such proposed Charter amendment to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Toledo, with the first publication to be made at least fifteen days prior to the election to be held on November 2, 2010, as provided in Article XVIII, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution and Section 731.211 of the Ohio Revised Code and Section 5 of the Charter of the City of Toledo. If the amendment is approved by the electors, the Clerk of Council is further authorized and directed to provide to the Secretary of the State of Ohio, within thirty days after the election, certified copies of this resolution and the amendment, pursuant to Article XVIII, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.
“…unless required by the terms of a valid collective bargaining agreement.”
i assume that this is the provision that allows fire and police unions to continue to get their pension pick-up covered by the city. i believe they are the only ones with contracts and everyone else is still under exigent circumstances – if i am reading this correctly… same old, same old… corruption.
June 28th, 2010 at 11:37 amI don’t think there is the political will among council to get 2/3 vote on this.
June 28th, 2010 at 12:01 pmZimmy maybe for this contract but not any new contracts since it states, “after January 1, 2011, neither the Mayor nor Council shall approve a collective bargaining agreement that imposes upon the City an obligation to pay employees’ statutorily mandated shares of pension contributions.”
Jackie, this probably will pass by a majority of Council, how the voters will decide depends on who comes out against it or for it and how much is spent on it as an issue. I don’t see the City in a position to help facilitate some type of a campaign but some of the unions may campaign against it.
June 28th, 2010 at 12:05 pmInteresting if this passes. One of the main reasons that the City decided to use this method to compensate unions was because it would save money in the long run to pay the pension pick-up rather than a wage increase. The reason being that the wage increase will compound over time and cost more as the years go by.
All this brouhaha will wind up costing the taxpayers more 5, 10 and 15 years from now in higher wages.
The safety forces are protected by binding arbitration because of the no-strike provision in SERB. An arbitrator is most certainly going to grant much higher wage increases right away if the City can’t continue the practice of pension pick-ups.
June 28th, 2010 at 12:23 pmStinger, that is a very real possibility, and I agree that is how the whole pension pick up started with the very first union with an arbitrator ruling it should apply to another, then it went on from there.
The ideal scenario of eliminating the pension pick ups without just increasing wages to a similar amount could be very difficult to accomplish. It would take an administration that was tough when it came to the bargaining table.
June 28th, 2010 at 12:42 pmIn all reality the administration could be as tough as nails and will still not be able to eliminate the pension pickup without increasing wages by a similar amount.
No arbitrator will just wipe the pickup compensation off the table without granting compensation in another area of the contract.
Just sayin’
It just won’t happen in the real world.
June 28th, 2010 at 12:55 pmIf it gets on the ballot perhaps it will lose. However, I know of no other business that picks up the employee part of social security/pension costs. It just dumbfounds me that it was allowed to happen in the first place.
June 28th, 2010 at 1:04 pmHow about doing away with the pension pick ups AND not giving a salary increase?
June 28th, 2010 at 3:16 pmthe question becomes – how does the arbitration process work? who appoints the abitrators? are there guidelines they are required to follow.
in a world where almost everyone’s real income has fallen as salaries are slashed, benefits are decreased and co-pays are increased, a rational response to this ought to be arbitrators who apply similar measures to taxpayer employees.
i dislike the thought that non-elected officials have final call on these measures.
June 28th, 2010 at 3:28 pmI agree with Bucknut!! I like letting people vote on the pension pickups. Why Ohio still allows for the existence of public sector unions is mindboggling. Getting rid of pension pickups is only treating the symptoms, not the disease.
June 29th, 2010 at 8:31 amHow about letting shareholders vote on CEO compensation as well…
June 29th, 2010 at 8:37 am