About 20 female court workers, up in arms over what they claim
to be unfair labor conditions, and their supporters shouted fierce
union sentiments in an informational picket line in front of the
San Benito County Court Friday afternoon.
Hollister – About 20 female court workers, up in arms over what they claim to be unfair labor conditions, and their supporters shouted fierce union sentiments in an informational picket line in front of the San Benito County Court Friday afternoon.
The women picketed to protest the court’s proposals to cut their healthcare benefits and force them to pay for their own retirement, said Cheryl Smith, a legal process clerk.
But if the court’s proposals aren’t agreed to, Court Executive Officer Alex Calvo said public services will suffer and people could be laid off because of the court’s financial situation.
The workers’ contract ended at the end of October and negotiations have been going on for about a month, Smith said. But every time workers and representatives from the Service Employee International Union try to bargain with the court, their attempts are shot down, she said.
“They come back and say we want to take things from you,” Smith said. “We want to offer you zero, zero, zero.”
SEIU organizer John Vellardita said Calvo proposed cutting the workers’ healthcare benefits, which would cause them to pay hundreds of dollars monthly for insurance.
Calvo said the court does not have the funding to continue paying for the constant increases in healthcare coverage for its employees, and that the court believes the workers should begin contributing more toward health insurance costs.
“Our proposal for the first year keeps things status quo, but for future years they would actually start seeing an increased contribution to their premium costs,” he said. “I believe we’re making a very generous contribution to their health benefits.”
Depending on the benefit package each employee chooses – there are six to chose from – some of their future contributions could be minimal and others could have to pay significant increases, Calvo said.
Smith said one employee’s family healthcare package would increase 300 percent under the new proposal.
“She would have $200 left over (from her paycheck) after paying for healthcare,” Smith said. “That’s outrageous and ridiculous.”
Vellardita also said Calvo’s latest proposal is for court employees to pay for their own pension plan, which would be a minimum of a 7 percent cut to their annual pay.
But Calvo said Vellardita’s rendering of the proposal is completely inaccurate.
Calvo said the court proposed granting employees a 7 percent increase in their base salary and the workers would begin paying 7 percent into their retirement fund. Currently the court pays both the employee and employer share into the workers’ retirement fund, which amounts to 15 percent of their base salary, Calvo said.
“The reason this is proposed is because a number of employees are reaching retirement age and retirement benefit is based on the average of the three highest (paid) years,” he said. “By doing this we’re increasing their base salary so when they do retire they will have an increased benefit. The benefit is to them when they retire.”
Calvo said the proposal saves the court money in the future. As the workers’ salaries increase over the years they will be paying the corresponding increase in their retirement instead of the court paying it, he said.
“In the long run they will be having to pay more and they’ll also have an increased retirement benefit on account of that. Short term it will be a wash,” he said. “It’s a really complex issue to try to get across. I’m not sure they completely understand it. I’m not sure John Vellardita completely understands it given what his comments were.”
The workers don’t want to pay anything into their retirement, but want to keep their pension plan as it is, said Jeanene Rasmussen, a court clerk. But she said she believes the court is withholding pertinent information regarding its finances and won’t show the workers its budget.
“It’s really vague what they’re trying to do. They want us to sign without all the information,” she said. “They’re taking away one of our benefits of working here.”
Calvo denied keeping the court’s budget from the union and said he has shown employees the document. Because the court is a public agency, the budget is open to the union whenever they want to see it, he said.
The court is funded entirely by the state and has a budget of $2.3 million, he said. Employee salaries and benefits make up 85 percent of the court’s expenditures, he said.
“If they believe we have money we’re holding back, we’d be happy to have them point it out to us. We don’t have a history of holding money back. We have a history of rewarding our employees,” he said. “But we also have to work within the constraints we have. It is not fiscally responsible to grant salary increases we can’t afford that would lead to layoffs. We won’t do it.”
Vellardita said the change in the workers’ pension plan is not a “wash,” but a fundamental change to their retirement package.
“That’s a very disingenuous explanation,” Vellardita said. “It’s a concession demand for these workers to pay for their pension in lieu of the fact that the court doesn’t want to give them any COLA (cost of living adjustments).”
The union is proposing a moderate cost of living increase and maintaining the workers’ health insurance, he said.
The workers’ hope taking their plight to the public will show the management they’re united and determined to prevail, Rasmussen said.
“We’re willing to compromise, but we’re getting nothing from the court,” she said. “We just want people to know that this is what we’re trying to do.”
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or [email protected]
