Unions protest work rule changes Nutter is applying to some
MAYOR NUTTER moved forward Wednesday in his effort to make major changes to work rules for non-union and supervisory city workers, despite vocal opposition from the city's union leaders.
MAYOR NUTTER moved forward Wednesday in his effort to make major changes to work rules for non-union and supervisory city workers, despite vocal opposition from the city's union leaders.
The Civil Service Commission approved changes that would grant raises to those 5,500 workers, but also allow the administration to furlough them without pay and make overtime rule changes.
Union leaders complained that Nutter was unfairly including union-represented supervisors in that group. Leaders of Local 2186, a unit in District Council 47 that represents 900 supervisors in city departments, complained that they should be removed from the new regulations until they can have the terms vetted at a public hearing.
"We believe the mayor is using the Civil Service Commission to impose terms," said Cathy Scott, president of DC 47, which represents the city's white-collar union employees.
Shannon Farmer, the city's outside attorney, said the city does not have to bargain with Local 2186 and is obligated only to meet and discuss terms.
The city has been trying to negotiate concessions from the city's blue- and white-collar unions for years with little success. Those units have been working under expired contract terms since July 2009.
Many view Nutter's latest moves regarding nonrepresented and supervisory workers as an effort to pressure the unions to accept his proposals.
Also, on Wednesday, Scott said members of Local 2186 filed suit against the city claiming that they have been unfairly subjected to the terms of a revised Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP).
City Council reformed the controversial retirement perk a year ago, delaying entry into DROP for nonuniformed workers and lowering the earned interest rate for future participants. The city's blue- and white-collar unions sued and the changes have been put on hold for their members, said Scott.
But Local 2186 has not been covered by the hold. Scott said the suit contends that the changes violate state pension law.
