Minutes 09-29-09
MINUTES OF THE BLUE COLLAR MEETING BETWEEN
THE SEIU FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICES UNION,
AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
HELD IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING CONFERENCE ROOM, AT 3:30 P.M.
ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2009, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PRESENT:
For the City of Boynton Beach
For SEIU
Sharyn Goebelt, Human Resources Director
Lori LaVerriere, Assistant City Manager
Marylee Coyle, Assistant Human Resources Director
Tim Howard, Assistant Finance Director
Michael Low, Deputy Director of Utilities
Carl Booth, SEIU
Mike Osborn, SEIU, PSU
Don Roberts, SEIU, PSU
Sharyn Goebelt, Human Resources Director, opened the meeting at 3:32 p.m. Self.
introductions were made.
The City requested the meeting with the Blue Collar Union. Ms. Goebelt felt the City and the
Blue Collar Union had a successful bargaining session, and worked well together. Both parties
were polite and cordial and showed respect for one another. She indicated they were hearing
rumors.
Ms. Goebelt explained when they left the room on September 21, 2009 they had an agreement,
they shook hands, and they had a commitment. They agreed to every single article in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, which she had with her, and they were signed by Mr. Booth,
as the representative of the Blue Collar Union, and Ms. Goebelt. The rumors were there were
concerns and the City wanted to hear what the Union had to say because the City felt, out of
respect for one another and as a team, it should come to the table if there are issues. The City
was open to hear what the issues were. The City felt they had a commitment, and Ms. Goebelt
wanted to know from each Union member if they had a commitment to ratify the agreement.
She inquired if they were in support of it, because when they left on September 21, 2009 the
Union did support the agreement.
She asked Mike Osborn if they had a commitment from him. Mr. Osborn responded they had a
commitment that day until he found out she lied to him about different articles.
Ms. Goebelt asked Mr. Booth if they had a commitment. Mr. Booth responded they had a
commitment from the Union.
Ms. Goebelt asked Mr. Roberts if they had a commitment from him. Mr. Roberts responded he
did not know what took place that day because he was in Tampa. He could only go by what
was said and what took place in the Commission meetings after the fact and from what he
heard.
1
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29,2009
Ms. Goebelt asked Mr. Osborn to tell her specifically how he was lied to. Mr. Osborn
responded, specifically he asked her if Police and Fire were getting raises and he was told they
were not. Ms. Goebelt responded that was correct. She had the minutes from September 9,
2009. When they had the conversation, that was what she said. Mr. Osborn pOinted out the
next night the MOU was passed by the City Commission and they were, in fact, receiving raises
on September 30, 2010. He had this from the Police Department's Union and the Fire.
Ms. Goebelt explained that was public information. Mr. Osborn agreed but stated they asked
Ms. Goebelt about it at the table, and she said no. Ms. Goebelt responded she had what she
said that day at exactly 1 :57 p.m. She responded that she indicated that day, that they gave the
City a verbal for the year, and they agreed to no increase although they would like to be moved
to their Step on September 30. She emphasized that was exactly what that MOU was.
Mr. Osborn further explained Ms. Goebelt lied to him about the beeper and on.call. Ms. Goebelt
explained she was offended being called a liar, and that she did not lie to him. She defended
she does not lie, she does not lie in her personal life and she would never lie at the table and
she would never lie about anything. She requested Mr. Osborn not call her a liar because she
was offended. Mr. Osborn agreed to not call her a liar and Ms. Goebelt thanked him for that
courtesy and said she appreciated it. There could be a misunderstanding, but she did not lie to
him about anything.
Mr. Osborn asserted Ms. Goebelt indicated the White Collar Union agreed to the language the
Blue Collar Union accepted when, in fact, they had not. Ms. Goebelt offered to check that. The
language Mr. Osborn was referring to pertained to taking language out about having to be at
work for four hours and they would discuss that in labor management. Mr. Osborn conveyed
Mr. Low had said, if you take it out you have to be there the whole day because that was the
policy. Mr. Osborn thought then that was not the policy, but he did not want to say anything.
Ms. Goebelt requested Mr. Osborn slow down his talking and further requested hearing why Mr.
Osborn felt there was an untruth about the beeper. Mr. Osborn responded because at first she
indicated the White Collar agreed to the language, when in fact, it had not. Ms. Goebelt
explained it was possible she was mistaken, and she would be able to verify that but she would
need time to go back to her notes. There were two agreements with over fifty articles and it was
possible she misspoke. Ms. Goebelt clarified she could not say if she did or did not, but she
could say she did not intentionally lie about anything.
Mr. Osborn clarified the issue was the White Collar had language indicating they did not have to
be at work that day. They could be on vacation and still be on call. That was the language in
their contract that they Tentatively Agreed to, not the language the Blue Collar has. Ms.
Goebelt responded she would have to look. She believed they had to be there four hours. Ms.
LaVerriere inquired if they actually T A'd the article it was discussed and they agreed to it. Ms.
Goebelt did not have the White Collar agreement with her. Mr. Osborn explained they settled
their contract on Monday, and on Wednesday Rob Eichorst told him it was not TA'd until that
day. That Monday when they were in negotiations it was not TA'd. Ms. LaVerriere explained
there were certain things they had to come back on and TA but they just had to look at the
record. Ms. Goebelt responded she would look at the record and she had detailed notes from
every meeting. She was willing to share all of that with Mr. Osborn and she was not hiding
anything from him and she was not lying.
2
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
Mr. Osborn explained at the same meeting Mr. Low indicated if they took the language out of
the contract and left it the way it was, they would have to be at work all day in order for them to
be on call that night. Mr. Osborn had two memos from Kofi Boateng dated August 20, 2009
referencing the four hour deal. It did not say they had to be there all day, only four hours.
Mr. Low responded that document was withheld since it was under discussion and not formally
signed because of negotiations. Mr. Low explained he specifically told the department that in no
way could that issue be dealt with because it had to be handled under negotiations because it
had been brought up in negotiations. Mr. Low agreed the draft document was circulating until
he stopped it. He advised it was part of negotiations, and you can't negotiate separately on an
issue if it is part of negotiations.
Mr. Osborn explained the negotiations do not go into effect until the contract is ratified and the
City departmental procedures do not take effect until the contract is ratified. There was nothing
in there, and that was where he had the problem originally. He had taken a day off and they
would not give him his on-call beeper pay for it. Then Kofii wrote a memo stating employees
had to work all day in order to be on beeper starting that date. Then it was rewritten after it went
to Labor Management. The Fire Chief even agreed, it was not a question of whether an
employee was on vacation or not, it was a question of whether the employee was available after
hours for being on call.
Mr. Osborn explained then the memo from Mr. Boateng was emailed to him. It was noted the
memo was not signed, but it was carbon copied to everybody. Mr. Low explained Mr. Boateng's
signature was not on the memo because it was withheld by him. Mr. Osborn contended Mr.
Boateng's signature was not on the last one emailedtohimeither.Mr. Low explained he was
not present when the last one was sent out because he was on vacation, so he was not part of
the original issue. Mr. Low assured Mr. Osborn, and invited Mr. Osborn to speak with Bevis
(Pigott) or anybody else to ascertain that when the negotiations started and that issue came up
within negotiations with the Union's first proposal to address the issue, that he immediately told
them it was part of the negotiations and anything that is being negotiated must be negotiated
across the table.
Ms. Goebelt explained the City was very confused.
Mr. Booth explained he would indicate where they were at and what they were up against. Mr.
Booth inquired if Ms. Goebelt had the minutes of the 9th and the 21st. He explained the issue
with Fire and Police receiving an increase of some kind was brought up again, but he was not
sure what it was.
Mr. Osborn said on September 29, Ms. Goebelt told them from across the table, it was a
proposal from those Unions and the City would not agree to that. Ms. Goebelt disputed that she
said the City wasn't going to agree, because she would not know what the City would agree to.
Mr. Booth contended that was what Ms. Goebelt told them across the table. Ms. Goebelt
pointed out she was not at either one of those tables, and she couldn't have said that. She
clarified she told the Union what she knew they were asking for. She indicated she said the City
was not going to give an increase to either one of them and they didn't. They (Fire and Police
Unions) agreed to freeze their wages for the year. She requested the Union please understand
the Police contract expired on September 30, so they will be commencing negotiations probably
early this next summer to address . . (inaudible). . . where they'll be.
3
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
Mr. Booth inquired whether they would get an increase.
Ms. Goebelt responded it was not an increase. She requested the Union understand Police and
Fire were different. Ms. Goebelt indicated she could verify they were not getting a pay raise.
The MOU said on September 29 they would move to where they would have been, but their
salaries are frozen, the (inaudible) with the raises, which will be bargained again next year.
Police and Fire are on a salary progressive plan and are in the middle of their contract. It was
completely different than White or Blue. White and Blue contracts expired. They did not have
the same type of agreement and they have salary progression plans. She indicated they could
not be compared to the Blue or to the White because they were different.
Mr. Osborn inquired if he could read something to Ms. Goebelt.
Ms. Goebelt responded he could, and requested the discussion be kept calm because she was
not present to argue. She was present to work.
Mr. Osborn explained the document was from the Police Union, about five paragraphs down,
"Simply put, you all receive your hourly rate increase to be on track to where you should be at
the end of the current contract. The increase to all members will be a small investment for the
City to pay for one day during the last year of the contract, thus providing the City with their
year's salary savings for all bargaining unit members." But simply put, you will receive your
hourly rate increase. Mr. Osborn explained he was reading from the PBA's contract negotiations
to the PBA workers.
Ms. Goebelt inquired if the document was from Toby Athol, because she personally met with
him, and he agreed that all that was, was a starting point when they negotiate. They were not
getting raises. They were frozen for a year, and he personally told her that. She did agree that
they would be moved to that Step on September 29 but they would be negotiating probably
starting in the summer. All that was was a starting point for negotiations. There is absolutely no
guarantee that these individuals are going to stay at that level for the next year. Ms. Goebelt
indicated if they did, there would be layoffs in the City. Ms. LaVerriere indicated it was a
positioning point for them for negotiations next year.
Mr. Osborn responded the PBA reps and PBA Attorney, Gary Litman countered with an option
for the City to give all bargaining unit members, their respective hourly rate increase which
includes the October 1, 2009 and the April 1, 2010 pay matrix increase on the final day of the
existing contracts. Mr. Osborn explained they would be receiving not only their evaluation, but
they were receiving their two percent from October and whatever their evaluation score was on
September 30. Mr. Osborn asserted it was a pay increase.
Ms. Goebelt asked Mr. Osborn if he understood that they were not getting an increase and if it
was clear to him their salary was frozen for the entire year. Mr. Osborn understood but asserted
they were getting pay raises. Ms. Goebelt asked Mr. Osborn if he agreed the entire year their
salaries are frozen and they are not getting a raise. Mr. Osborn responded yes, but not for the
entire year. Ms. Goebelt reiterated it was a positioning point for contract negotiations on
September 29 and their contract expires. Mr. Osborn understood their contract expires on
September 30 and they will receive these wage increases on September 29.
Ms. Goebelt inquired if the Union's argument was they (the Police) will get an increase for one
day. She inquired if that was what the point was.
4
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
Mr. Osborn countered they were increases and asked Ms. Goebelt if they were not (increases).
Ms. Goebelt responded there was no guarantee they would stay at that rate. They had to
negotiate - their contract expires.
Mr. Osborn responded the following year there was no guarantee they would stay at that rate.
Ms. Goebelt inquired if (the issue) was the one day?
Mr. Osborn stated again, they were receiving the raises and asked Ms. Goebelt if they were not.
Ms. Goebelt responded she did not believe they were getting the raise. She believed it was a
positioning point for negotiations. They (police employees) were going to be moved. It was just
like being at the starting gate of $10 per hour versus $12 an hour for negotiations. They are $10
all year. On September 29 they go to $12. That was what it is. All three contracts expire and
the Fire contract has wage reopeners. It has one more year and they have a wage reopener.
There were no guarantees for fiscal year 2010/2011 that they will have increases. It was an
unknown. It had to be negotiated.
Mr. Osborn explained there was no guarantee because they were receiving it in the 2009/2010
contract.
Ms. Goebelt responded that did not guarantee they would stay at that Step. That was what
negotiations were. It was a positioning point. Mr. Osborn asserted it was a raise, and they
could call it whatever they want. It was still a raise.
Mr. Roberts wanted to get the issue straight. This was how much they were asking for, and it
was a pre-proposal, and had nothing to do with what they would receive on that date.
Ms. Goebelt responded what she was saying was what was on paper right now that had been
agreed to, and she had letters from both unions that they ratified it. They are all set to go next
year with the wage freeze for the entire year and that what she was saying was exactly what it
said. They have all bargaining units rate of pay frozen for the period of October 1, 2009 until
September 29, 2010. Both parties agreed there are 30 days in September. Mr. Osborn
explained the salaries were not frozen for the full year.
Ms. Goebelt read, the cost of living and merit raises referenced in Article 12, section 1 and 2
(inaudible), shall resume on September 29 without back-payor retropay for the time period of
the freeze. She explained all it did was position them at a higher level to start negotiating from.
There was no guarantee they would stay at that level. Their contract would expire, and they
would probably start negotiating early in the summer. There was no guarantee they would get a
raise for the following year. They were being moved to the Step on their Step plan on
September 29. That was what was agreed to and everything was all ratified. The majority, just
about everyone, voted yes.
Ms. LaVerriere inquired of Mr. Booth, that in his experience and Union background if he
understood how they positioned that.
Mr. Booth responded the problem was it was done in a City Council meeting the day after they
finished. He clarified the stewards were not the ones telling employees to vote no. The
5
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
employees were coming to the stewards saying they would vote no. What the employees saw
was the City Council that essentially, and however you want to term it, that gave the Police and
Firefighters a raise. However the City wanted to term it, they are getting an increase on the
29th of September and the Blue Collar isn't getting anything. Second to that they gave the
deferred comp back to the folks at $120 something thousand. That was what he was up against
in trying to get the employees to accept what this was. Mr. Booth had no idea whether he could
convince them to accept the contract or not. He indicated he would not advise the employees to
vote no, but he would advise they have to vote their conscience.
Ms. LaVerriere inquired if Mr. Booth felt fundamentally, they misrepresented. . .
Mr. Booth responded he did not know if they misrepresented, intentionally misrepresented, but if
the contract expires on September 30th and you're giving them something on September 29th,
you are giving them something within the year's period of time. Whether it is on the last day or
on the first day.
Ms. Goebelt responded she had it in the minutes that she said that. She did not lie, she told
them they want to be moved to their Step on September 30. She asserted she said it and she
did not lie.
Mr. Booth responded they needed the minutes from the 21st. (Talking over one another.)
Mr. Osborn stated that was why he asked her point blank.
Ms. Goebelt responded it was her understanding that they weren't getting a raise. They were
moving to that Step at the end of the year.
Mr. Osborn stated that was why he asked her pOint blank - he quoted he said, "I heard that they
were getting a raise at the end of the year and you said no they're not."
Ms. Goebelt was told they were frozen for the entire year and she still believed that. They are
frozen for the entire year and their starting point for negotiations for the next contract year, they
would be at the Step where they would have been: but they didn't get moved on October 1 and
April 1. That's all. They are not getting a raise. They are being moved to their Step on
September 29 and Mr. Osborn could call it what he liked but that was what it was. Their
contract expires. They have no agreement and they are different than White and Blue because
they have a Step plan.
Mr. Booth responded he understood and he understood the difference in a Step plan and the
way these employees get paid with the pay ranges (inaudible), but he inquired if she understood
what he was up against. He explained this was what was there. It was in the paper and out
there. It is public record and public knowledge.
Ms. Goebelt explained they never tried to hide that. She had been saying that since early
September. It was not new news.
Mr. Booth explained the problem is they need to get the minutes of the 21st because when they
caucused, that's what they thought they heard her say. the City was not going to agree to that.
6
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
Ms. Goebelt responded in her opinion they are not agreeing to no. She asserted she never said
they weren't getting moved on September 30, because she wouldn't have known. She told
them what they were asking for. She wasn't in either one of those sessions and she was at the
Commission meeting just like Mike was. She indicated she absolutely did not know deferred
comp would be reversed and that she had no idea it would. How would I know.
Ms. LaVerrieri clarified that was a Commissioner saying she wanted something brought up for
reconsideration and they have no idea what she was doing and they can't talk to her about it.
Mr. Booth understood that but indicated they were trying to sell something to the workers on the
no increase because the City's financially (inaudible). They talked about all kinds of financial
things that were in there. You didn't get everything they asked for to start with (inaudible) but
they got some and they agreed to them. But then after they were agreed to, there were other
things that happened.
Ms. Goebelt indicated she did not think it was after because she said it in early September.
Mr. Booth explained Ms. Goebelt said it in early September, but they didn't have an opportunity
between the day they finished on a Monday and Tuesday night's Commission meeting to get all
the people involved in that. A lot of folks don't talk until every thing is done. It was never his
practice to go out and start telling people what proposals are, because if you start telling what
proposals are, then they think that's what's happened at the table and it doesn't. It just causes
more confusion when you do that. So when you get to the end you try to tell them and that's
what we're up against basically. Mr. Booth acknowledged what he told her on the phone the
other day. He called Mike to talk to him and he said no, I got guys coming to me that they read
what was in the paper and stuff and they're upset. If everybody's going to take a hit, we'll take a
hit, but not everybody's taking a hit.
Ms. Goebelt and Ms. LaVerriere responded everybody was taking a hit, they are all frozen.
Mr. Booth understood, but they don't feel like they're taking a hit if they're going to get their Step
anyway next year.
Ms. Goebelt responded she did not think they were guaranteed they're getting their Step. They
were getting moved to commence negotiations. That didn't mean they're going to stay there.
There was no guarantee. She asserted to sit there and say they were going to get their raise on
September 29 was not accurate because they do not know what's going to happen.
Mr. Booth countered the City was going to give them their Step.
Ms. Goebelt indicated they were going to move to commence negotiations. That was all.
Mr. Booth indicated the City may try to take it away from them depending on what financial
shape the City was in at that point in time.
Ms. Goebelt answered she could guarantee it (the City) would not be in good financial shape.
The City did not want to have layoffs, but it was not looking good. She did not think people
understood how dire the situation really was. They did not want to be in a position of impasse.
That was the Union's call if they want, and they had that right. She indicated she could advise
right now they have Police and Fire in writing who agreed to take a wage freeze. It was putting
7
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
our employees at risk. They were putting their members at risk and raises could definitely mean
layoffs. If not ratified, they would have to meet again. The City made some concessions they
may have to reverse. It was a very serious situation.
Mr. Osborn inquired if Ms. Goebelt was threatening the Union that if they did not pass it, they
would take everything back. Ms. Goebelt responded she was absolutely not threatening them.
She was telling them how the process works, which Mr. Osborn was aware of.
Mr. Osborn responded they did not have a process and they would come back to the table.
Ms. Goebelt added and they decide whether to declare impasse or not. That's what happens.
They would come back to the table and decide. They didn't want to and the City absolutely
does not want to.
Mr. Osborn indicated they did not want to go to impasse either, and that was why they went
ahead and made the considerations they did and lost everything (inaudible.)
Ms. Goebelt responded if she did not care about going to impasse, she would not have had the
meeting. She added she did care. They all cared and the team cared. They (the team) met
yesterday and talked about what went wrong and looked at all the different issues. She had no
idea the Union had any problems with the on-call and all that.
Mr. Osborn responded he had no problems with it when they went that day until he found out
later on that he was lied to.
Ms. Goebelt responded to Mr. Osborn he was not lied to. She explained if she told him
something wrong, she made a mistake.
Ms. LaVerriere interjected to Mr. Osborn it was a really serious accusation to say to someone
lied and he should be considerate of that, but what the City would do was look back at the
record and if it was anything, it was a misspeak because half the time they are trying not to mix
up Blue and White. She recalled what they talked to about the White Collar and they agreed to.
Mr. Osborn explained he felt like he was lied to. Whether their opinion was that way or not, that
was his opinion and he was entitled to his opinion.
Ms. LaVerriere agreed Mr. Osborn was entitled to his opinion but he should keep it professional.
Ms. Goebelt explained she knew they had the language in the White that before, they had to
work four hours to get on call except for crime scene (technicians). That was not lying. She
explained Mr. Osborn was saying they did not have to work and that was not true. They had to
work four hours. She inquired if that was what Mr. Osborn was referring to. She indicated she
was trying to understand what he was talking about.
Ms. LaVerriere clarified Mr. Osborn was saying that the City said it was TA'd and it wasn't.
Mr. Osborn responded she said it had already been TA'd on it. They already agreed to it, when
in fact they hadn't.
Ms. LaVerriere explained they would check the record on it.
8
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
Mr. Osborn advised that article was not TA'd until the 23rd.
Ms. Goebelt explained if she made a mistake, she apologized. She indicated she did not lie and
she indicated it was a misunderstanding.
Ms. LaVerriere explained before they even do that, they need to check the record because they
may have had the discussion at one point and T A'd the following meeting because a lot of them
(the articles) had to be typed and fixed and then come back so it may have been a mistake.
Ms. Goebelt said it may have been a verbal agreement and she would have that.
Ms. LaVerriere responded its black and white on the recording.
Ms. Goebelt addressed Mr. Osborn and explained there was no reason to be so angry over it. It
certainly was not intentional, even if was a mistake. The bigger issue was if they wanted to
come back to the table, why did they did not tell them.
Mr. Osborn responded he could not come back to the table, they had come to an agreement.
Ms. Goebelt pointed out she called a meeting to come back to the table.
Mr. Osborn explained they have a tentative agreement and he was planning on upholding that
tentative agreement and taking it to a vote.
Ms. Goebelt responded if that was what they want to do. She was just saying and reaching out
to him, because their goal was to get the contract settled.
Mr. Osborn asserted that was their goal too. They made 23 concessions, and he listed 14
concessions they made in the contract to try to keep it from going to impasse and try to relieve
fiscal things with the City. He asserted they have taken a big hit and what she didn't seem to
understand was that Police and Fire didn't have to take anything because they were still under
contract.
Ms. Goebelt explained their contracts weren't open and those issues could not be prevented.
Mr. Osborn explained what management had to take was given back to them the day after Blue
Collar TA'd.
Ms. Goebelt responded that was not true. Every manager had their cell phone allowance cut,
their car allowance cut. She expressed Mr. Osborn did not have all the information. She signs
EAR's every day.
Mr. Osborn explained the $123,000 they got back that night was more.
Ms. Goebelt asked how they could be held accountable for that.
Mr. Osborn responded he was not holding her accountable, and then said he could hold her
accountable because with the $123,000, anyone of you (management) were willing to take the
hit too but none of you did. In that meeting, Mr. Bressner got upset when Commissioner
Rodriguez told him it was not part of his salary, and Mr. Bressner said it was.
9
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
Ms. Goebelt explained it was salary
Mr. Osborn relayed Commissioner Rodriguez asked him what his salary was last year, and he
said $165,000. He asked him what his salary would be next year if you don't have this and Mr.
Bressner responded $165,000. So $123,000 of financial hit to this City because the millage
rate.
Ms. Goebelt responded it was not a financial hit. It was negotiated wages that people were
agreed to be paid as part of their salary when they were hired. She could show Mr. Osborn
every year a document she receives from the City that's part of her wages. So he was saying
she should take a pay cut, but Blue Collar shouldn't.
Mr. Osborn explained the over time that they gave up in conciliation in this contract was part of
his wages, and they gave it up. They were willing to give it up.
Ms. Goebelt explained they were all pitching in and making sacrifices. Everyone was. Mr.
Osborn countered $10 a week on a cell phone allowance? Ms. Goebelt explained hers was $20
and the auto allowances were over $150 for many people. Cuts. Some people completely gave
up their allowance. She indicated she thought Mr. Osborn needed to do a public records
request.
Ms. Coyle explained this was the negotiation for this particular bargaining unit. From the first
day they thought the common goal was to avoid layoffs. They came up with a tentative
agreement that did that. She thought this friction of what might of happened the day after, that
just happened to be a Commission meeting night. .
Ms. Goebelt explained the City has excellent benefits and she inquired how many other cities
give bonus days, just for coming to work. There were four a year, which were changed to three.
The City could have said they were taking them all. She indicated she did not want to hash
through that. They already met, already had many meetings. Four of the articles were TA'd.
Now the opinions were changing on some things.
Ms. Goebelt announced there have been no lies. She had the article where she said they want
to be moved, and she had the minutes. She did not know what else to say except the City
wants to settle the agreement and settle the contract. Their goal was to come to terms with
their Union and settle a contract so they can get on with the business of the City. That's what
the taxpayer dollars are paying for: to work and not to sit here and argue about it.
Ms. Osborn said their goal was the same thing, but they had to look at it from their employees
point of view. This was no different than GM and Chrysler going to Congress and asking for a
bailout and asking for help to save their companies because they said the Unions were bleeding
them dry because of their wages and all their benefits and everything else. When Congress
asked them how did you get here, they all said in our private luxury jets. That's the way their
employees were looking at it. They were giving up a lot and more than anybody else. It was up
to them now to make up their mind whether they want to give up what they feel is (inaudible.)
Ms. Goebelt inquired who was "them". Mr. Osborn answered quite a few employees. Blue
Collar Unit employees. He explained if you looked at the savings off the Holidays from the Blue
Collar Unit, it was going to be considerably less than what the savings would have been to do
away with some of these other programs
10
Meeting Minutes
Blue Collar and SEIU
Boynton Beach, FL
September 29, 2009
Ms. Goebelt pointed out it was not just Blue Collar, and he should realize its all management,
general employees. She added she had said at the table several times those of them that work
the 10-hour day have been receiving eight hours of holiday pay and taking two hours vacation
since they went on a four day work week. When the holidays are on the weekend, they get
eight hours in their leave bank and the other employees are getting 10. The general employees
were experiencing the same pains as they were asking for concessions . . . .
Mr. Osborn recalled they had asked for numbers of how much the proposals would save the
City through the reductions and cost of stuff and they never got a total like they asked for in the
first meeting.
Ms. Goebelt requested he tell her exactly what they want and suggested she speak with Tim
who was their finance person.
Mr. Osborn answered they asked how much the savings would be with the holiday issue. It was
going to be a total of $95K (inaudible.)
Ms. Goebelt clarified the $95K was overtime for police and fire. It was only $25k for the rest of
the employees. The $95K included the total. Mr. Osborn explained if you split it into thirds, the
Blue Collar Union, a third of 25 was a fractional savings and they took the hit. The Union came
to the City with other ways to consolidate monies but the City was not interested, and that was
part of negotiating. He emphasized they took the concessions for the benefit of the City. When
it comes time for the workers to vote next Tuesday, they will be voting their opinions, not his.
Ms. Goebelt explained they wanted to meet with the Union because they were concerned, if
there was anything they could do or any questions they could answer, and they would do
whatever they could because their goal was to have the agreement ratified. She thought it was
very important they pass the agreement and she asked for their commitment and support like
she did when they left the room on September 21st. She repeated Mr. Booth agreed on record
they had a commitment.
Ms. Goebelt explained the City Commission also has to ratify the agreement.
Ms. Goebelt thanked the Union for their time and closed the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
t1 &dh)~.10LC)JLUcLJ
Catherine Cherry U
Recording Secretary
11