|
Publications | ||
Minnesota AFSCME Members OK Winning ContractJune 30, 2009 ![]() SUPPORT THE CONTRACT! – Minnesota Council 5 members show their support for a new two-year contract during a Negotiations Assembly on June 6. Photo Credit: Jennifer Munt Minnesota state employees represented by AFSCME Council 5 have overwhelmingly ratified a new two-year contract that beats back threatened wage cuts, health insurance take-backs and furloughs. About 19,000 state workers represented by AFSCME, including executive branch, corrections and radio communications workers, faced up to 48 hours of unpaid leave over the next two years plus a 1.5 percent wage cut over that period. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) had proposed the furloughs to help close a $6.4 billion budget deficit (reduced by nearly $2 billion after the state received stimulus funds from the Obama administration). “We refused to let Gov. Pawlenty balance the budget on our backs,” said Eliot Seide, executive director of Council 5 and an AFSCME International vice president. “No furloughs, no take-backs and a step increase – that’s a pretty good deal when you’re bargaining with a GOP Presidential wannabe during a budget crisis and a recession.” The furloughs would have amounted to a 10 percent pay cut, Seide noted. While avoiding furloughs imposed on public employees in other states, Council 5 members won step increases of 2.5 percent in 2010. They will also keep their health insurance benefits at current levels. Also, the contract postpones a 6.7 percent employer-paid health insurance increase to the second year, thereby helping state agencies to minimize layoffs. The state also agreed to make a $125 contribution to each employee’s “Benny Card,” which allows workers to pay for eligible products and services from their medical-dental or health reimbursement accounts. Council 5’s pre-contract efforts included a member-driven campaign to oppose a wage freeze, a member pledge card drive, an effort to win support from local businesses and an ad campaign to support fair taxes on the wealthy to save public services. |
|
||