![[Masthead]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (7)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
GoogleAfter five months of negotiation and a four-hour mediation session in late December, 30 employees within the sheriff bargaining unit will receive a 6 percent salary increase in 2010 as part of the three-year contract.
In the remaining two years of the contract, those employees, which include jailers and communication center workers, will receive 3 percent raises across the board.
Kirk Hatting, president of the sheriff's bargaining unit, said the 6 percent salary hike is a big number considering today's economy, but he felt it was a fair step.
Hatting said the communication center has had a lot of employee turn around in the last 18 months, some because of pay and some who weren't the right fit for the job.
In Plymouth County, jailers and communication center employees are making $3 to $4 less than what neighboring counties are paying, Hatting said.
"Just because the economy's like this, does that mean we shouldn't be paid a fair wage based on what other counties are making as well?" he said.
Even with the 6 percent raise, because some of the sheriff bargaining unit employees' salaries were so much lower than the average, that amount won't bring them in line with their peers, Hatting said.
An uncertain economy also affects jail and communications center bargaining unit employees in that their services are needed more often, Hatting said.
"When the economy's like this, we're busier than ever," Hatting said. "Domestics are always up. Civil papers are up. All of those types of things fluctuate our work to make it busier."
Hatting said members of the sheriff bargaining unit are concerned with the economy and are trying to do their part which is why they agreed to pay an additional 3 percent in health insurance.
Instead of the current 7 percent, they will now pay a 10 percent contribution and their co-pays will increase from $15 to $20, Hatting said.
Following the supervisors' unanimous decision to approve the sheriff bargaining unit's contract, Chairman Jim Henrich said the supervisors weren't 100 percent satisfied with the outcome.
However, he said, they wanted to avoid paying legal fees to go through binding arbitration with the sheriff's bargaining unit, choosing instead to put that money toward salaries.
"The thinking was what we would have saved in lawyer fees offset what we had to give up," Henrich said. "We could give that money to our people rather than giving it to somebody else outside the area."
The 6 percent increase for members of the sheriff department's employee bargaining unit was also the supervisors' attempt to bring workers' salaries up to meet that of their peers, Henrich said.
"We wanted to be fair to everybody and we wanted to be fair to the taxpayers too," he said. "It was a tough position to be in, but all in all I think we came out pretty good."
Along with the sheriff bargaining unit contract, the supervisors also gave their stamp of approval on a three-year contract with employees of the secondary road bargaining unit.
Each of the three years, 2010-2013, those 37 workers will receive 3 percent raises in their salaries.
Secondary road bargaining unit members will also pick up more of the cost of health insurance at 10 percent compared to the current 7 percent, according to the contract.
"It just took a little time," said Curt Sitzmann, president of the secondary road bargaining unit, speaking of negotiating the agreement. "I think everybody's pretty happy."
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
10% contribution towards their medical premiums and a $20 co-pay, and your arguing about that? You are very fortunate, you have great coverage, heck you HAVE coverage, that is something alot of us cant even afford to purchase. But I suppose that is because all the retail jobs and such here in this county arent up to par with neighboring communities wages............riight.
About time those hard working people get a raise...
5 months of negotiation with an attorney, how much did that cost the county? Why are the supervisors not dealing with this? This is what they get paid for. As far as the raise, $3 to $4 dollars an hour less than what neighboring counties are earning is ridiculous. Why are other employees in this county getting a fair to above average wage versus the people who dispatch our fire/ambulance services and deal with the murderers, child molesters, burglars, etc..etc.. I don't imagine they close the jail and 911 center because of a "snow day". As far as health insurance, most jobs provide it as a benefit. Keeps the employees healthy and coming to work everyday. I understand some people don't have health insurance, but that is not the fault of these people. Several good paying jobs in the LeMars area offer it.
I have an idea.......Plymouth Co. can save money by REDUCING the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS from five to three. The wages and insurance savings from two less supervisors would add up, wouldn't it? Let's see if board is willing to be as fiscally responsible as they want everyone else to be. The 6% the Sheriff's Office received is well deserved for what those people must endure. Walk a mile in their shoes and see for yourself.
I think it is important to be fiscally responsible. Do we see the economy growing enough to be able to provide raises at this time? Are we going to raise taxes just for the raises? Compounding due to "keeping up with the Jones' in another county" seems pretty lame. But I guess that is better than wasting it on something that must be removed in the near future...
Skewed logic provides skewed results. Gues you are in favor of a pay raise in tough economic times even though producing companies still cannot afford to provide raises.
Let's use LocalYocal logic and give all government employees an 80% raise from funds we don't have, raise taxes to pay for it, and then this 80% will filter back into the economy! I don't see that working, sorry.
I believe there are balances that need to be in place. I am not for 'big government' but merely basic gaovernment that covers the public need. That's why it is there, we (the people wayyyyy befor me) decided that they wanted a ruling body that would provide a basic structure to lives of the public.
A socialistic way that our country has adopted seems to me a good thing when it comes to schools. One attends school on taxpayer funding until the basic education is completed, additional training is at one's own expense. I believe the same should be for medical, a basic amount that covers the needs, anything additional would be at the expense of the individual. I've never gone into the funding of that. I will say that I was unable to afford health care for the past couple years due to its increased monthly dues. I now do have health care (same policy and coverage for less that half the cost of getting it on my own). Amazing.
Again you make many assumptions about my views, and usually way off from what i am saying.
the exaggeration of 80% was to show that there is a definite problem spending money that does not exist and would have to be raised by taxation to maintain, chasing and eating a tail, enveloping into destruction. Staying within a budget during bad economic times is not only prudent, but also stabilizing. It allows for the "producers" to catch up and stimulate growth. Increasing pay must come from somewhere, it isn't a magical gift that appears.
We are all paying for the mistakes made by a few hundred thousand people. We are in this recession and will slowly work ourselves out. However, if we do not remain focused, our recovery will undoubtedly be extended. The punishment is to us all from the few.
So, your 10% increase would help how? and this would reduce the amount of funding to services needing to be provided in the budget by 10% coupled with the Culver cut of 10% would leave roughly 20% less overall without adjusting taxes. So are you suggesting the job needing to be done is less costly? Or maybe the building maintenance and infrastructure are less? I don't see this math going in an equational direction.
How would your math work? Or maybe a economic downturn is irrelevant to government employees?
By the way, yes I asked for a raise in the last couple years... This last year my employer sold his business and employees to another business and I ended up with a pay cut, serious one. I found a different job at an employer that pays better and has more respect for their workers. It isn't perfect, but acceptable working conditions for what I am looking for. My government paycheck still continues until 2012 for my service contract and obligation that they offered to me and I accepted.