By Thia James

Councillor calls for temporary freeze of non-union municipal wages

Aug 12, 2013 | 9:59 AM

Coun. Tim Scharkowski wants to temporarily freeze wages for non-union civic workers in managerial positions until their unionized co-workers reach new agreements with the City of Prince Albert.

At tonight’s city council meeting, he will be putting forward a motion that will freeze the wages of ‘out-of-scope’ city employees – including those who work for the Prince Albert Police Service and the Prince Albert Fire Department. He’s also asking for the matter to be reviewed during the 2014 budget cycle before the new contract is negotiated.

Less than 100 city employees would be affected if Scharkowski’s motion was to pass. He estimated the average salary among these workers would be $80,000 to $90,000.

He said he’s making this motion because the city is more or less obligated to negotiate with unionized workers, but with the other workers, the city doesn’t have a “specific contract set with them for anything.” And with the implementation of the base tax increase to fund roadwork improvements in the city, he said he’s taking the opportunity to put the wage increases for these workers on hold until the base budget can be re-examined.

“So, I thought that this would be a great time to put it on the table and see if I get everybody else’s vote on it. And if I don’t, I guess I don’t. And we try to find another way to see if we can save a little bit of funds come budget negotiations again,” he said on Friday.

Riderville

Riders Have Options Heading into Tuesday CFL Draft

2h ago

Weekend hockey

PAGC set to host largest Senator's Cup tournament to date

2h ago

VAISAKHI MELA

Hundreds flocking to P.A. for Vaisakhi Mela celebration

3h ago

In the coming year’s budget cycle, the budget committee – comprised of city council and members of the city’s administration – will pore over the base budget, line by line.

Also, Scharkowski said he sees ‘out-of-scope’ workers’ contracts as indexed to the wage increases that come out of the collective bargaining agreements for the city’s unionized employees. He said it could be his misunderstanding, but he believes the ‘out-of-scope’ workers receive their pay increases based on the results of the unions’ negotiated agreements.

“It’s a lot different, that, you know, when either someone who’s doing secretarial work, or somebody who is working on the city streets and they’re making that $40,000 or $50,000 and they get five per cent compared to the guy who’s making $80- or $90- or $100 [thousand dollars], and he gets five per cent. I mean, there’s a big gap there.”

The amount of money the city would save if council voted to freeze these workers’ wages temporarily would depend on the increases the unions end up with at the end of their negotiations, he said. “I mean, the way things went last time, Fire just went straight to arbitration, and we ended up losing that one. If the police department wanted to take us straight to arbitration, and we ended up losing that one, and they both got 15 or 10 per cent, I mean, it could end up being a fair bit of coin.”

The new Ward 5 councillor made it clear this motion does not mean the workers shouldn’t be entitled to a wage increase, as he sees the importance of ensuring the wages are competitive with other municipalities.

“I want to have a little bit more control over it,” he said of the wage increases.

He said he thinks a policy that would manage the ‘out-of-scope’ employees’ wage increases separately from the unionized employees would be better. He added the only reason why his motion doesn’t include the unionized workers in the call for the pay freeze is he believes the city has an obligation to negotiate with those workers.

And the timing of his motion is key: He added the agreements for the inside and outside workers are up soon. “If I don’t put this motion forward , and say, if it doesn’t pass come Monday night, that when they negotiate in December, we’re stuck accepting whatever happens, based on the way it’s been going, [it] is a three-year contract.

That means we can’t say anything for four years.”

He isn’t the first to put such a motion forward. Other “veteran” councillors have told Scharkowski that they have brought similar motions forward, only to have those motions denied.

“I don’t know if it was just the wording of it, or what it was, but I thought, you know, I’m the new guy on the block, and I’m going to try it again,” Scharkowski said. “And what’s the worst? It gets denied, and we try to figure out what we’re going to do with [the] budget.”

tjames@panow.com

On Twitter: @thiajames