Union Agreement Divides Southampton Town Board
A settlement between the Southampton Town employees’ union and Supervisor Jay Schneiderman has not only split the town board but also has the town highway superintendent calling for reconsideration. The superintendent, Alex Gregor, will need to sign off on the agreement before it is finalized.
On March 22, despite objections from the board’s two Republicans, Mr. Schneiderman, an independent, got the approval he asked for by a 3 to 2 vote. But Mr. Gregor, who is serving his second four-year term and ran on the Democratic and Independence party lines, must sign the agreement because he is considered a co-employer, and he has made it clear he doesn’t support it.
The settlement stems from a complaint filed with the Public Employees Relations Board late last year over the current contract’s exclusion of certain employee titles, mainly supervisory or clerical, from the Civil Service Employees Association’s bargaining unit.
While the settlement does add 34 administrative titles to the contract, it goes much further. It approves raises for six titles, accelerated pay raises, and more overtime in emergencies such as snowstorms, and offers more training for workers. It would also reduce employee contributions to family health insurance plans, in some cases from 20 to 10 percent, but not at all for some on individual plans.
Councilwoman Christine Scalera called it a one-sided deal that could cost the town a half-million dollars in the first year alone. She estimated the financial impact on the town at $500,000 in 2016, with more in years to come.
Mr. Schneiderman, however, called it a fair package, one that is “well within the town’s financial abilities and corrects a lot of longstanding inequities.” He said Southampton had asked a lot from its employees during the recession, and now the town was on good financial footing. John Bouvier and Julie Lofstad, his running mates, supported the supervisor, giving him the votes he needed to pass the resolutions.
In a memo to the town board before the meeting last week, Mr. Gregor called for a more transparent negotiation process and said over 200 members of the union had been left out of the discussions. Councilman Stan Glinka and Councilwoman Scalera shared that sentiment. Ms. Scalera said she had received several phone calls from members of the union telling her they had been left in the dark and felt labor relations had been undermined.
“You were cut out of the process. You were not part of the negotiations,” she said in a statement to the membership before the vote. Several dozen town employees had gathered, some wearing blue C.S.E.A. shirts. “Are you okay that six titles were put on a special salary schedule, including that of the union president?” she asked, referring to Laura Smith.
Mr. Glinka, who has worked in banking for 22 years, said he calculated Ms. Smith would receive a 23-percent salary raise over the next five years, an increase he had never seen before. “It doesn’t sit well with me, supervisor,” he said.
Ms. Smith, who disputed the claim about the amount of her increase, said she had gone over the settlement with the general membership at a Feb. 29 meeting when the final draft was available. Changes were still being made to the resolutions at the March 22 meeting, with several seemingly unanswered questions.
Ms. Scalera said she supported the union members and even supported re-opening the negotiations but said, “I cannot support this one-sided deal.” She said it was “wrong, and taxpayers’ interests — which many of you are — are not being fairly represented.”
Mr. Gregor, in his memo, said he thought the town would have been successful in the relations board action. There should have been formal re-negotiations if the town and the C.S.E.A. wanted to address the other issues, he wrote. “As I see it, the petition is being used as a back door to re-opening and negotiating a good, valid, negotiated contract,” he said, adding, though, that he agrees with some of the items being addressed, such as contribution to health insurance for lower-paid employees and giving value to sick days as an incentive for people to report to work.
“Settle the case, figure out how certain titles fit into the contract, and start afresh with open negotiations for a new contract. I’d like to help. I’ve been here longer than all of you,” he said in his letter.
Yesterday he maintained that he had been “spoon-fed” information and given “the mushroom treatment” — meaning kept in the dark — during Mr. Schneiderman’s discussions with the C.S.E.A. president.
The supervisor said he had hoped for a unanimous vote, but understood the differences of opinion in the way the process was handled. “All five of us care deeply about the workforce of this town,” he said. Ms. Scalera and Mr. Glinka said they appreciated his saying so.
Meanwhile, the settlement has not yet been inked. Mr. Gregor said yesterday he still had not seen it, and Mr. Schneiderman has not signed it either. “They might have had a dose of reality. Is it Christmas in March?” Mr. Gregor said. Later, though, he clarified the remark. He does not believe the supervisor has had a change of heart, he said, but is just holding off.