In July, Council 94 tried to ignore economic reality and rejected this deal:
1) Pay raises of zero, 2.5 percent, 3 percent and 3 percent during each of the next four years;
2) a one-day pay reduction in the current year that employees can recoup as a paid leave day;
3) escalating increases in the percentage of premium the employees will be required to pay for their health insurance.
One primary reason given for the rejection was related to the latter. Because 70 percent of the membership make less than $40,000 each year, changing the employee health-care contributions from a percentage of salary to a percentage of the health-care premium was considered to have a “disproportionate effect on Council 94’s lower earners.”
Today, the membership of Council 94 accepted this agreement:
1) Pay raises of zero, 2.5 percent, 3 percent and 3 percent during each of the next four years;
2) Employee health-care contributions that are a percentage of premiums, though in a graduated scale. For instance, those who make less than $45,000 pay 12% in the first year while those who make over $90,000 pay 25%.
3) Increase in co-pays for emergency-room care and specialists.
4) Wellness program whereby employees can reduce co-share payments by as much as $500 if they quit smoking or visit their primary care physician (before going to a specialist).
Which deal would have been better for the membership? In the end, were they well served by their leadership?