Posts
Comments

Of course the unions in Andover want to settle their contracts sooner than later. Who wouldn’t want that?
But there’s a difference between them and those in the private sector who have to pay for those contracts. It’s not like union members have to worry about losing their jobs if they don’t have a signed contract, unless they demand increases (and elected officials are stupid enough to agree to them) that are extreme enough to force layoffs in the new fiscal year. The only thing they have to be concerned about is how much they’re going to make.
So town officials and voters should ignore the whining about how grossly unfair it would be if the town does not settle with them before Town Meeting. Read about it here.
The problem with the unions is the same one that affects public employee unions everywhere – they think taxpayers work for them, not the other way around.
Union leaders – and some misguided officials – argue that the contracts ought to be settled before Town Meeting so voters will have the “information” they need to pass whatever property tax override is necessary to fund the contracts. And, of course, “the children” are trotted out once again as guilt-trip props.
What rubbish. Does a private-sector worker go out and buy a new home, a new car or make some other major purchase he can’t afford, and then present the bill to the boss so he will have the “information” necessary to provide whatever raise is necessary to cover it?
If officials want to ask voters to vote themselves a tax increase beyond what Proposition 2 1/2 allows, that’s fine. But they should ask. It’s a request, not an order. And elected officials should not obligate themselves to pay salary or benefit increases before they know how much money their bosses – local taxpayers – have given them to spend.

  • Scott

    Just another in a long line of anti-union columns by Taylor Amerding and the Eagle Tribune. By the way Taylor, the “What about the children” reference in every one of your columns is getting old.

  • Scott

    I stand corrected….today an Andover Teacher (in an editorial) did use “the children will be harmed” .

  • bilge rat

    Children will suffer.

    Your children will suffer.

    Our children will suffer.

    TIM VAN WEY

    OK, OK, we get it…..
    It’s for the children….
    The poor, suffering, underprivileged kids in Andover…. :-)

  • http://talk-andover-ma.blogspot.com/ Mark Merritt

    I see some practical benefit to settling some of the larger bargaining unit contract negotiations prior to Town Meeting. The financial tradeoffs and uncertainties that voters must consider are complex enough without adding further ambiguity from unsettled negotiations.
    Andover voters indeed make the final decision about how much they will be taxed for the services they desire, but it has not been the town’s practice to ask voters to explicitly decide the level of salary increase that bargaining units should receive.
    I suggest that the designated negotiation teams should strive to reach fair and equitable agreements, and that town voters should decide what services they are willing to pay for – having a clear and realistic understanding of what those services really cost.
    Andover voters have a recent history of denying requests for operating budget overrides, yet approving appropriations for increasing numbers of staff. Even if barganing units were to agree to zero salary increase for the next three years, the current financial predictions indicate that there would be insufficient revenues to sustain the current number of employees and associated services without an override.
    While salary increases can certainly have a significant impact on the magnitude of the current budget deficit, the contract negotiations are not the key financial issue facing Andover voters. The key issue is how much to increase revenues (through fees and property taxes) and/or decrease staff and services across all the departments of the town.

blog comments powered by Disqus