CITY OF DULUTH RETIRED EMPLOYEES PO BOX 16794 DULUTH, MN 55816 July 14, 2010 To: Erik Simonson, President IAFF Local 101 From: Patrick Alexander (member Ad Hoc committee Duluth Retired employees) Subject: Recent support from your membership Erik, I am pleased to write to thank you and other members of Local 101 who were very generous in supporting our group of retired city employees in our legal battle with the City over health care benefits. We understand that the monetary contributions from your active firefighters were made on an individual basis (out of pocket) which speaks highly of those individuals and their interest in supporting retirees. Thanks to all. We recently obtained a copy of a letter sent by you to Local 101 retirees. There are issues in that letter that we may not agree on but the following quoted paragraph we certainly do. “As you know, active employees and their representatives do not represent retired employees. Common sense supports this theory; can you imagine the complexity of bargaining if every change was to be passed on to those no longer entitled to representation? I am disappointed in how the city elected to address this problem. I sincerely hope that the retirees prevail in their lawsuit.” As you are aware in the past we have sent letters to your union and to the other unions representing city employees requesting both financial support and group backing on our lawsuit. You are the only active group to give us support at this time. We hope the other unions and membership will follow your lead. It is very clear to us from public commentary made by David Ross of the Duluth Chamber of Commerce and others in the community, as well as Mayor Ness and his administration, that a move is being made to defeat union contracts and to take away benefits employees currently enjoy. Some might call this an attempt of Union Breaking. We believe now is the time for solidarity among active and retired city employees to work together to preserve the benefits earned and contracted for. Unions must be kept strong to avoid losing their clout and they should stand with their retired members. We look forward to and hope for future joint meetings to support our common causes. What say you? What say the copied unions? cc: President Duluth Police Union President Confidential Unit President Supervisory Union
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 8:53:21 -0700
To: Duluth Budgeteer
Subject: Budgeteer diatribes against public retirees!
Editor/Publisher:
I realize that the Budgeteer is now in the hands of the publisher of the News Tribune, but it is amazing that the independence that the Budgeteer once was known for under the Palmer family is lost forever.
Last weeks columns, one by Swing and the other by the Chamber's Ross, illustrate how far down the hill the Budgeteer has gone. Both writers appear to subscribe to the notion that retirees are the most vulnerable and can't strike back at inflammatory statements made by them. Was it inspired by D. Ness?
Both seem to be concerned that the City of Duluth budget is being deflated by retiree costs but make no attempt to look into the many extravagant features of the present budget year as well as the past several years.
Examples such as the drift into providing certain social services, a domain previously handled by county, state and federal agencies. The City realm had always been to provide for public safety, proper roads, water and sewer construction and maintenance. One only needs to review that budget to note where a large percentage of our local tax dollars goes.
There are dozens of retirees, experts in their field as city employees, who would gladly volunteer their time to provide suggestions as to how to economize and make suggestions for efficient operation of departments which are overstaffed and/or operating in a manner displaying an arrogance which is a mirror of their boss, Donnie Ness.
Eli J. Miletich
Retired Duluth Cop
2504 Peace Drive
Duluth, MN 55811
1/11/2010 City workers should thank predecessors for benefits In response to the Jan. 6 letter (in the Duluth News Tribune), “City employee says thanks for health-care benefits,” I say, yes, he should be thankful. However, not to the city of Duluth but to those people he works with and those before him who negotiated his benefits in good faith, giving up salary increases or other benefits in their place. If it were up to the city, he probably would be paying for his health care (if it was available) and still could be at some point in the future if his fellow coworkers do not stand strong to maintain the level of benefits they still enjoy. Claudia Johnson Duluth
11/30/2009 Retired city employees worked for their benefits I’m amazed how America has changed in the last few decades. We used to be a people who strove to be the best. Previous generations looked at others who had more, and they worked hard to attain it. Somehow we’ve lost that way of thinking. Now the rationale seems to be if I don’t have something, the other guy shouldn’t have it, either. Why is the answer always the lowest common denominator? The writer of the Nov. 17 letter, “Taxpayers have compromised, retirees should be next,” mentioned a “union-entitlement mentality.” First, when in America did the word union become dirty? Through the years, unions have been responsible for raising the wages and working conditions of workers all over this country. Second, I don’t believe any retired city worker feels “entitled.” What we feel is that we bargained in good faith and gave up many things to get the health coverage we have in retirement. Back then, health coverage was not a hot topic or a big issue; the city administration probably laughed all the way to the bank over the money the city was saving. As for living in the “real world,” as the letter writer stated, I believe city retirees are there. Since retiring, the city has notified us our retirements were miscalculated and subsequently lowered and that there may be paybacks due because of this miscalculation. Now we are to lose some of our health coverage. So pardon us if we feel a little outrage. It’s very easy for others to say, “Oh, well, the city didn’t fund it properly, so give it up.” I guarantee anyone in our shoes would be fighting to hold on to what we have for as long as possible — and not as a sense of entitlement but because we worked a lifetime for it. Lynn Olmsted Duluth
1/19/2009 City administrators attempt to ignore legal contracts for health care for city retirees. Recent news articles and the News Tribune’s Jan. 8 editorial, “With or without Miletich, retirees can help solve crisis,” have blatantly criticized Eli Miletich for his part in leading a fight against current and past city administrators in their attempts to ignore legal contracts for health care for city retirees. The coverage has left the impression that Miletich has been acting alone or with just a few fellow retirees. Nothing could be further from the truth. More than 400 retirees have contributed money to a defense fund to protect the benefit earned while working and granted through contracts at the time of retirement. There are more than 800 retirees affected by the health care packages. I believe 99 percent of my fellow retirees want their contracts to be honored, as promised. I also believe they will all fund a defense treasury to insure compliance. Mayor Don Ness and his administration should recognize our benefit and stop the intimidation and threats to take that benefit away. To say the least, he is causing fear among us. His refusal to acknowledge state Supreme Court rulings on similar issues by employees, which were ruled to the benefit of the employees, continues that fear. By not accepting these rulings, the mayor continues his threat to retirees. In view of the courts findings the mayor should agree to the contracts and save both the city and the retirees court expenses. Many retirees are over 65, and Medicare picks up 80 percent of their medical costs. No one ever recognizes that. Almost all articles on this health-care issue refer to retirees as the problem. The administration for years did not fund this benefit and should have. Any blame should be placed on city administration, not on us retirees. In closing: Eli is not alone! Patrick Alexander Duluth
10/15/08 Editorial missed the point on union standing Once again the News Tribune editorial board has gotten a union issue wrong. The Oct. 3 “Our View” editorial, “The union doesn’t get it,” stated a laid-off city of Duluth recreation specialist was no longer a union member. The fact is that unless he asked for a union withdrawal card, even though he was laid off, he would still a member in good standing and entitled to all union benefits, including seniority on the call-back list when a job opens up. Perhaps the editorial board or its writers should contact a union officer before printing their interpretation of a union worker’s status. Another issue non-union citizens don’t seem to understand is retiree heath benefits. City retirees had a contract negotiated by their union. They gave up a portion of their wages to ensure health benefits after retirement. To put that into perspective for non-union citizens: It would be like a company or a government employer contributing matching 401(k) funds during your career and then, when you retired, the company or government employer telling you it had run into financial problems and now has to take back the 3 percent matching funds to balance the books. Does that sound fair to anyone? Would any sane person lay back and say, “OK, I understand.” This is what is taking place with the city trying to take back benefits negotiated in good faith with its employees. Jeff Milberger Cloquet
06/08/08
For better or worse, honor the contract
Oh, my goodness! Why doesn’t the city just honor the legally binding contract it signed in good faith with its retirees?
The City Council allowed the deal. Now we have to live with it. It’s the retirees’ earned benefit and one they, and the city, agreed to. The retirees served us well and deserve what we gave them, so the city must pay up.
Phil Tarnowski
Duluth
05/23/08
City retirees’ ‘free’ health care required sacrifice
The News Tribune never lets us down. For months, whenever doing a story on city retirees’ health and medical benefits, the newspaper consistently has made reference to the fight over free medical care benefits for city retirees. This seems to have been done to inflame the public and generate sentiment in opposition to the retirees’ negotiated, rightful benefit.
In the process of collective bargaining 26 years ago, city employees made very costly and important concessions, such as forgoing vacation days, reducing sick leave and, not the least, accepting less-than-prevailing wage adjustments. That was called good-faith negotiations. A give-and-take process arrived at an agreement. Union members in the private sector are quite familiar with this. Nowhere is a negotiated benefit labeled “free” by the newspaper other than with regard to this hospital and medical program for retired city employees.
The News Tribune owns the ink and the paper and thus can continue to spread misinformation. But as representatives of city retirees, we can serve as a truth squad wherever and whenever.
The News Tribune seems to want to correlate this benefit to whatever taxes are levied and call it an “unfunded liability,” as per the propaganda put out by city government. It’s unfunded because succeeding city administrations ignored it for years.
Now quickly let us ask why the News Tribune doesn’t compare the high rate of electricity in the area with the luxurious pension, bonus and medical benefits afforded to retired executives and the CEO of the local power company — the CEO who, coincidently, submitted the negative task force report on city retiree benefits? What is the unfunded liability we consumers of electricity will pay for these folks over the next many years?
Eli J. Miletich, Ted Griak, Bob Laflamme, Gerry Veillet
Duluth
01/07/08 Not all retirees can afford to help Duluth pay its debt The Duluth News Tribune Dec. 28 editorial, “Retirees, like rest of Duluth, must play role to end debt,” missed a very important point.
I’m glad retired head engineer Clyde Narhi was in a financial position that allowed him to give the city money back (“Retiree thanks city with $9,000,” Dec. 14). As I recall, he was a very nice man. He was also the head engineer for the Water and Gas Department. Again, no problem. I’m sure he worked hard to get where he was — making a very healthy salary — with an equally healthy retirement.
But I’d like to talk about a rather large segment of retired city employees who, like me, were on the lower end of the compensation rung. Many of us were single parents, overwhelmingly female, and worked for much less than we could have made in private industry. The lure of the city’s benefit package was great. Don’t get me wrong.
I enjoyed working for the people of Duluth for 30 years. But I retired with certain expectations and promises. For the administration to come back now, years later, and change the rules strikes me as totally unfair — and a very oppressive burden on those of us in the lower-income levels. The retiree health-care problem is so large now because previous administrations didn’t address the issue, not because of the greed of employees.
The city shouldn’t change the rules after the game is over.
Steven A. Johnson
Duluth
01/06/08 Bergson, city are breaking a promise to retirees I guess Mayor Herb Bergson can't make up his mind whether a promise is a promise or just more rhetoric.
Letters will be going out to 1,100 or so current retirees telling them that the city is arbitrarily changing the medical plans retirees were guaranteed by the contracts under which each retired ("Duluth to switch retirees' health plan," Dec. 27).
The basic unit contract says in Article 23.1(b): "The City will provide without cost to the retiree, the approved fee-for-service, (Plan 1), H.M.P. (Plan 2), Comprehensive Plan (Plan 3) or Plan 4 coverage provided to active employees." This means coverage provided at the time the contract was in force and under which the employee retired. In Article 23.1(d), the language goes on to say: "Such coverage shall be for the life of the retiree."
This does not seem too complicated. As a matter of fact, the city has tried to take away medical coverage from the basic members before without benefit of negotiation, and it lost in court. This resulted in the creation of "Plan 4," another plan that the city had to manage and which mysteriously ended up being offered to retirees under the 2004-2006 basic contract signed by (who else?) Bergson.
The city has effectively moved all active employees to Plan 3 and has sold future hires down the river by not affording them any retiree health insurance. This move evidently already has shown a reduction in the worst-case- scenario unfunded health care liability figures.
It seems the city could better spend its time and precious resources by getting back to regular business and quit throwing money away.
Randy Johnson
Duluth
01/04/08 City retirees shouldn’t be vilified for planning ahead.
It is sad that far-sighted people who sacrificed vacation days, sick time and salary increases during their working years are highly criticized now in their years of retirement. Yes, I am talking about city retiree health-care (“Retirees, like rest of Duluth, must play role to end debt,” Our View, Duluth News Tribune, Dec. 28).
We live in a world of instant gratification, but we didn’t always. People used to make serious plans for their retirement. Some even fought to give up contract benefits in order to provide for themselves later.
As the proud daughter of retired firefighter Mike Murphy, I’m angered when retired city employees are depicted as villains responsible for bankrupting the city of Duluth. Why not a little talk about mismanagement of city funds? Why not talk about pouring money, almost literally, down the drains of local attractions?
I would like the News Tribune to stop making retired city workers look like greedy, unreasonable people when, in fact, many were people who spent their working lives protecting and serving the rest of us. If my dad had been healthy enough to join the fray, believe me, everyone would have heard his voice. As it is, I’ll say it for him: This is one heck of a way to say thanks.
Sheri Johnson
Superior
10/21/07 Apology needed from arbitrator
As a member of the committee that first negotiated the employee retiree health and medical benefit back in 1982 for the city of Duluth Supervisory Unit, I’ve followed present-day City Hall-union negotiations with interest. Previously I was president of the Basic Unit, AFSCME, so I am intensely familiar with collective bargaining.
Back in 1982, none other than the Rev. Clarence Maddy, the city’s administrative assistant, proposed city employees consider accepting a permanent program of paid health and medical coverage in exchange for conceding needed, improved wages, which employees sought. He also insisted we employees make concessions on already established sick leave and vacation policies. We had some heated debates within our association, but forward thinking prevailed. Good faith collective bargaining is what it’s all about. The other city unions followed suit. The city was satisfied with the agreements, and we were moderately satisfied.
An arbitrator recently released a decision in the case of the police union vs. the city, and the union will not appeal. That’s the union’s choice. I write about a comment attributed to the arbitrator, a Stephen A. Bard: The savings as a result of his decision, “even when combined with the increased revenues from various measures adopted by the city will be insufficient to tame the gigantic gorilla that is the unfunded liability,” he wrote, alluding to retirees’ benefits.
First, the arbitration was called to consider the merits of both sides’ arguments and state arbitration law precluded an arbitrator from considering the financial status of the government entity. Bard’s comment was inappropriate and out of line.
Second, benefits for present retirees was not on the table and never will be, inasmuch as we are not members of any union. We expect an apology from Bard.
Ted Griak
Duluth
City employees blamed for politicians' failures
Baloney. That's what the News Tribune repeatedly writes about Duluth's contract with retired former employees.
The Sept. 19 story "City, AFSCME reach tentative deal" mentioned an alleged $309 million retiree health-care liability. "Duluth's crisis," the story stated, "stems from new accounting rules that require the city to put on its books the total amount it would have to pay out if all potential health insurance claims were made." First, there are no "new accounting rules." Instead, there are suggested principles by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. The key word is "if." What that means is that if all employees and present retirees were to go to a doctor, be hospitalized, have surgery, or go through an extended illness on the same day of the same week of the same month, then there would be an unfunded liability.
That's ridiculous, but great reading material for those who dwell on making government employees the culprit in error or omissions committed by the politicians elected to have some integrity in dealing with the public trust.
City employees negotiated a contract with the city back in the early 1980s in which good-faith bargaining took place with give and take by both sides. As expected, employees and retirees adhered to the agreement, expecting likewise from a succession of inept mayors who never once presented it in the budget and councilors who didn't ask questions about the obligation to fund retiree's health insurance. Who created a crisis?
The editorial also on Sept. 19 ("AFSCME deal should lower city's $300 million liability " we hope") rambled on and quoted Arend Sandbulte, the former CEO of Minnesota Power and the former retiree insurance task force chairman. Reporters might ask Sandbulte about his retirement benefits and those of other Minnesota Power executives and whether they're related to the cost of electric power for customers.
By coincidence, Sandbulte is campaign manager for a mayoral candidate.
Eli J. Miletich
Duluth
|