This evening City of Hayward workers spoke before City Council to demand that Hayward Administrators restore cuts made to workers’ pay and benefits. Hayward Administrators are refusing to restore the cuts that were made three years ago, even after a judge found their actions to be illegal.
“A 17% cut in take-home pay forced people to retire from jobs that they loved,’” said Gil Hesia, Senior Utility Leader and President of City of Hayward Maintenance Chapter. “Bargain with your workers fairly.”
City of Hayward workers’ contract expires at the end of June, and they’re making sure they’re united to hold Hayward Administrators to their promises.
Megan Bucci, Senior Secretary and President of City of Hayward Clerical Chapter said, “We’re looking forward to getting to the table and negotiating a fair contract. This time the City says that they want to bargain in good faith—and we’re going to hold them to that promise.”
On Monday, January 22, the City of Hayward chapter of SEIU 1021 welcomed two new officers to the Maintenance unit: President Gilbert Hesia, a Senior Utility Leader, and Alvin Ahquin, an Equipment Operator.
Both spoke to members at the lunchtime meeting, stressing the importance of solidarity and supporting the Bargaining Team as contract negotiations begin with the City.
As we prepare to bargain for a good contract, it is very important for every member to make sure their contact information is up to date.
The only way we will get what we need in our next contract is by standing together, stepping up, and winning it. If you want a good contract, you have to get involved.
Sign up now to get text alerts and email updates. Never miss a bargaining update or an upcoming action to support our elected Bargaining Team.
Stay informed. Stay involved! Join the private Facebook group that is only for City of Hayward SEIU members.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
For the latest updates, go to: www.1021convention.org
The convention will be a transformative event, where members will gain greater clarity, energy, motivation and direction to step more fully into their power, with grace, vision, courage and knowledge. This is an opportunity for chapter building, engaging and developing potential leaders, hence making it a priority for staff and elected officers.
Q: What are the qualifications to be a delegate?
A: To be eligible, a member would have to had paid dues for any 4 months in 2014 as well as either January or February, 2015.
Q: Can fee payers participate in the nomination and/or delegate election process?
A: Yes, once they sign a membership form, then they can nominate and vote.
Q: How many delegates can each Chapter elect?
A: Every Chapter gets 2 delegates automatically. After 300 members, each chapter will have 2 additional delegates. For every additional 150 members, a chapter will have 2 additional delegates.
Q: What is the period of time for completing elections?
A: April 20-July 20, 2015
Q: What is an “uncontested ballot”? (Previously referred to as “white ballot”)
A: When there are more or an equal number of delegate slots as candidates, that is referred to as a uncontested ballot and the chapter does not need to hold a full election.
Q: How are alternate delegates selected?
A: In case a delegate can’t participate due to scheduling, illness, etc. Chapters should select alternates even if the delegate election for that Chapter is uncontested or the Chapter does not elect the full number of delegates which it is entitled to.
Here are the rules for selecting alternates: All Chapters are encouraged to select at least two (2) alternates. Alternates need to be ranked by votes received (e.g. the highest vote total becomes Alternate #1, second highest voted becomes Alternate #2, etc.)
In Chapters with “uncontested ballots” (where there are more or an equal number of delegate slots as there are candidates, thus making an election unnecessary), Chapters are still encouraged to select up to two (2) alternates and designate these as Alternate #1 & #2.
Convention Delegates, who become ineligible or unable to attend, shall notify the 1021 Convention Election Committee in writing no later than 8/20/15. An Alternate or Alternates will then be credentialed and seated. Delegates who notify the 1021 Convention Election Committee after 8/20/15 will not be replaced by an alternate.
Q: Which chapters may select honorary delegates? How will honorary delegates be selected?
A:Workers who have recently organized with Local 1021, but who have not ratified their first collective bargaining agreement may select honorary delegates. The process for selecting honorary delegates will be as follows: two (2) honorary delegates will be elected at upcoming membership meetings.
If you are a Delegate:
Q: How will delegates register for the convention?
A: Once the delegate certification form is turned in, the delegate will be sent a welcome letter by e-mail and mail which gives them directions on how to register. (That is why it is critical that their contact information is on certification form).
Q: Do we pay lost time for delegates attending the Convention?
A: Yes, follow the local’s lost time policy. Anyone working from 12:01am on Saturday through 11:59pm on Sunday will receive lost time.
For example: If a delegate works anytime on Saturday or Sunday they may request lost time. So for instance if a member has a shift that starts 11pm on Friday September 25th but goes to 7am Saturday the 26th they may request the time off for their Friday shift and they would receive lost time per the guidelines specified in the policy.
Q: What are the rules around Friday night hotel stays for delegates?
A: Delegateswho travel 75 miles or more (one way) are qualified for Friday night lodging. All Delegates are entitled to Saturday night lodging (there is no required miles to qualify).
Q: What are the rules around the hotel stay on Saturday evening?
A: All delegates are encouraged to stay at the hotel regardless of how close they live to the venue. The local will pay the cost for double occupancy. Depending on room availability, they may request a single room but would need to pay the additional costs.
HAYWARD, CA — City Workers who have lost 17% of their incomes due to imposition earlier this year donated 280 toys at Hayward’s City Council meeting Tuesday night — one toy on behalf of each SEIU 1021 member that works for the city.
The toys are being donated in the name of Doris Rodriquez, a former Hayward City Councilmember, who passed away this week.
“Doris worked tirelessly on behalf of working families and improving the lives of children of Hayward,” said Gil Hesia, President of SEIU Local 1021’s Maintenance Chapter for Hayward.
The toys will be donated to the South Hayward Parish, where Rodriquez was a board member. Several charities — including Salvation Army, Glad Tidings and La Familia — will be distributing the toys to some of South Hayward’s poorest families.
The toys were presented during the public comment period at the Hayward City Council meeting Tuesday night.
Rodriquez stood by SEIU 1021 members and spoke out in several council meetings against the City Council imposing a 17% paycut on its workforce earlier this year. The council voted unanimously in February to impose cuts.
“Since imposition, we understand the hardship of having to go without necessities,” Hesia said.
Join Hayward workers in protest against imposition TONIGHT! Tuesday, Feb. 18, 5:30 PM @777 B St., Hayward, 94541
Today, the Hayward City Council is holding a hearing to impose their own terms and conditions on Hayward’s city workers. The Alameda County Democratic Party, the Alameda Central Labor Council, members of the community and their own employees — all have urged them not to do so.
The Hayward City Council’s move unilaterally forces a one-year contract on their workers instead of finding a framework for an agreement, bypasses the ‘fact-finding process’ as well as rules for collective bargaining.
Assistant City Manager Kelly McAdoo’s claim that the city has made multiple offers that was rejected by union leadership is patently false. If the employer was truly willing to sit down and work with their employees, they had more than 8 months to do it.
A neutral, third party factfinder (similar to a mediator), selected by both the City and Union, concluded that the City of Hayward has the ability to begin wage restoration. Rather than take the 70-page document seriously, the city rejected the recommendations and one day after the report went public, posted the notice of an imposition hearing.
City officials misused the bargaining and factfinding process as a means to an end — to impose a concessionary contract. They distorted labor and financial realities in order to justify a 5% cut to workers’ pay and wages on top of the 12% they already took from workers.
That is a total of a 17% cut in take-home pay for many who are among the city’s lowest paid employees. That additional cut equals several hundred dollars each month and could be a lost home, car or college tuition.
City officials dragged their employees through a time-consuming and ugly labor dispute. Labor, community and political organizations urged the council to do the right thing and get back to the table. On Jan. 8, 2014, the Alameda County Democratic Party passed a resolution urging the City Council to reach a fair agreement with their workforce.
The resolution, submitted by Supervisor Richard Valle, Assemblyman Bill Quirk, Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski and State Senator Ellen Corbett, reads in part, ‘the Alameda County Democratic Party stands with the workers in the City of Hayward in the fight for a fair contract and calls on all parties involved in the dispute to reach amicable resolution to this difficult situation through honest negotiations at the bargaining table, and to pursue a solution without resorting to imposition.’
There is room for both wage restoration while also helping the city’s long-term finances. That solution needs to be civilly agreed upon by the city and the union, as proposed in the fact-finding report. The union has offered to accept the report and put it to our members for a vote.
I urge the Mayor and City Council to vote ‘no’ to impose and immediately get back to the table to work on a fair agreement.
SEIU 1021’s Hayward chapter represents more than 350 city workers, from librarian assistants, water sanitation and water treatment workers, street maintenance and road crews, crime scene technicians, 911 dispatchers and administrative staff.
HAYWARD — A factfinding report from a neutral, third party recommends the City offer employees wage increases over a 3-year contract. Although the report repudiates the city’s ‘last, best and final offer’ — which includes a demand of a 5% cut — late Friday, Feb. 14, the City posted notice of an action item to consider imposition of these terms during their Tuesday, Feb. 18 City Council meeting.
SEIU Local 1021 members and community supporters plan to attend in full force to oppose the imposition and to urge the City Council to work with the framework the factfinding report. Join Hayward workers at 5:30 PM for a rally to oppose imposition! 777 B St., Hayward, CA 94541
City employees and community supporters plan to attend in full force to oppose imposition and to urge the City Council to work with the findings of the fact-finding report. Imposition means unilaterally imposing contract terms on city workers.
“We have tried to work with city officials over and over, but since July 2013, they have refused to meet with us nor move off their original position of ‘no.’ That’s not bargaining,” said John Stead-Mendez, Deputy Director of SEIU Local 1021 and lead negotiator for the Hayward bargaining team. “The report represents a good compromise, which we can accept. We are calling on the city to get back to the table to hash out a fair deal, using this report as a framework.”
Rather than the city’s demand of 5% in concessions, the factfinding report recommends the city begin to restore wages over the life of a three-year contract. Workers have lost 12% in wages and benefits since 2010.
The fact-finder was selected by both parties to examine proposals from both sides during a three-day hearing. The report is a recommendation to the City, but the City still, even after the report was released to both parties 10 days ago, refuses to meet. The union has requested to bargain with the City since July but city management has not responded. SEIU 1021 members are currently working without a contract, which expired on April 30.
The fact-finding panel’s recommended deal includes (p29):
• Year 1 (FY 2014): $750 signing bonus for employees in exchange for the Clerical unit making 20% contributions to dental insurance premiums and 50% contributions to vision insurance premiums.
• Year 2 (FY 2015): 1% raise on July 1, 2014 and an additional 1% raise on January 1, 2015. The panel also recommends the City reduce its maximum contribution to health insurance premiums to the family rate of the fourth-highest plan available through PERS, starting in January 2015.
• Year 3 (FY 2016): 2% raise on July 1, 2015 with an additional 2% raise to be paid in Feb 2016 if the City sees 8% revenue growth from FY 2013-2015 and provided there are no further changes to CalPERS pension actuarial assumptions.
• The panel does not recommend the clerical and maintenance units contribute to retiree health benefits
Key quotes from the report:
The City’s use of ten-year financial projections is misguided, “The Panel has concentrated its focus on the first five years of the City’s 10-year plan due to the inherent unreliability of projections further than five years into the future” (p20).
The City has under-projected revenues, especially property tax revenue, “City Finance Director Tracy Vesely indicated that further unanticipated increases in property tax revenue in FY 2013 were tentatively causing her to upgrade her projection of FY 2014 property tax revenues by $2 million over the 10-year plan. The $2million also would be added in projections for later years” (p21).
Despite some recent equity adjustments, the consequences of concession over the past few years has meant workers’ compensation has trailed behind inflation, “The panel finds that the CPI does not support the City’s position, particularly with regard to maintenance workers, since FY 2013 concessions have actually decreased the employees’ purchasing power despite the appearance on paper that their wages have surpassed inflation. In addition, some employees received small or no equity increases” (p10).
Maintenance and Clerical staff would pay a larger burden than police and fire for retiree medical benefits, “The comparability evidence does not support an employee contribution for retiree medical insurance. In addition, if required of the Maintenance and Clerical units, the police and fire units would be contributing a smaller portion of the normal cost of their retiree medical benefit than these units” (p28).