County wrong to break union contract
Let's be clear. Lake County is choosing to lay off 13 workers at Winchester House because the union won't give in to their demand to give back a contractual 3.5 percent wage increase. Winchester House is the Lake County skilled nursing facility for the county and these workers provide the housekeeping services for the nursing home residents. Collectively they have almost 300 years of loyal service and experience to Lake County.
The responsibility is squarely on the hands of Lake County officials who made and approved this decision.
The County and union have a contract that runs through Nov. 30, 2010, and provided for a wage increase on Dec. 1, 2009. The county claims all other employees had agreed to freeze their wages for one year. However, other employees have no union and no contract that provides for an increase. These employees don't "agree," they are just told by the employer. The union considered the county's proposal to defer or waive the contractual wage increase. The union studied the county's budget and learned that the county has about an $80 million reserve balance in their general fund and over a $5 million balance projected in reserves for Winchester House in this fiscal year. The cost of the contractual wage increase would be about $250,000 for the entire 200-person work force. But since the county had dictated to all other employees that they would receive no wage increase, they sought to dictate the same terms to the unionized employees. AFSCME representing the workers at Winchester House disagreed. AFSCME members voted against opening the contract. What good is a contract, agreed upon by both parties in good faith, when one party can declare it will not abide by their agreement? What becomes of the entire collective bargaining process if one party uses disingenuous posturing to further their political ends after a contract is in effect? Had the parties been in negotiations for an entirely new contract it might be understandable if not acceptable.
AFSCME made several proposals to the county, including seeking a guarantee that the county would refrain from any layoffs if the union agreed to wage modifications. The county rejected every one outright and sought a "take it or leave it" approach. The workers have been let go with a small two-week pay severance package and no health insurance. The contractor hired to do the work will barely pay workers above minimum wage with no health insurance or pension benefits.
While the union will seek to litigate some matters the county's message seems to be that they are willing to be the front runners in the race to the bottom.
Matthew LaPierre
Mundelein