Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The Oregon public employe. (Salem, Oregon) 1981-???? | View Entire Issue (July 1, 1994)
Ballot Measure 8 It cuts pay, pensions for frontline workers from cops on the beat to clericals in the office Ballot Measure 8, the initia tive to require public employees to pay an additional 6% of their salary toward their pensions, violates the spirit of the constitution, it’s too confusing and complicated, and it is unfair to the police officers, social workers, mental health workers, li brarians, and teachers in the front line of providing needed public ser vices to Oregonians. To the extent that the public begins to hear these messages — both from OPEU members in the neighbor-to-neighbor campaign and from the COPS (Citizens for Oregon Pension Security) Campaign — the measure can be defeated. • HURTS PUBLIC EM PLOYEES ON THE FRONT LINES — This amendment affects all (nonfederal) public employees and our families. It affects policé officers. It affects firefighters. It /affects public school teachers, whether they teach in elementary school, high school, community col lege, or a four-year college or uni versity . It affects public health nurses. (See story about the video on Page 9.) • UNFAIR — If this mea sure passes, the state will be reneg ing on a deal that public employees have already agreed to. In exchange for accepting a wage freeze, we re ceived promised pension benefits. Now politicians want to take those away. It’s inherently unfair. • TOO CONFUSING AND TOO COMPLICATED — This amendment is too confusing because it tries to do too many things at once. It is too much to vote on in one ballot. Even its proponents are con fused about what the measure does. Belatedly, the proponents are say ing that the provision in the measure that prohibits adding 50% of ac crued sick leave to our final average salary when we retire doesn’t apply to sick leave earned prior to January 1, 1995, the day the amendment would go into force; But there is nothing in the Page8 measure itself that says that —- and that’s what thé courts will rely on in the likely event this matters goes to litigation. A Portland attorney and ex pert in labor law and pension issues said he would take “zero” comfort from the statements made by die pro ponents that sick leave earned prior to next January is Safe and noted that the wording of the initiative would pre vent employees from using sick leave in the pension calculations. “It’s a mess, frankly,” said lawyer Jim Coon, another Portland attorney and advisor to OPEU/SEIU Local 503. “It’s frustrating,” PERS deputy director Dave Bailey told The Oregonian recently. “We’d like to give our people clear counseling, but we just can’t. All we cantell them about sick leave is that it may or may not go away.” Additionally, taking away sick leave accumulation is the single thing about the initiative the public dislikes the most. • VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF THE OREGON CON STITUTION —The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of all Oregonians, not to set pay and benefits scales for public employees throughout the state. ; Pay and ben efits should be dealt with through local contract negotiations. This amendment doesn’t belong in Oregon’s Constitution. Finally, there is nothing in the measure to guarantee that any of the savings — that come out of our paychecks — will be spent helping our clients. There is nothing in the measure that says the savings, if any, will put anothercop on the beat, purchase another fire truck, or books for the library or even reduce anyone’s taxes. The savings, if any, will come out of our pockets and be turned over to politicians in the Leg islature who will be free to spend however they want. It affects all of us and every- Effect of losing the 6% employer pickup BALLOT TITLE (Excerpt) AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PAY PART OF SALARY FOR PENSION On and after January 1,1995, the state and political subdivisions of the state shall not thereafter contract or otherwise agree to increase any salary, benefit, or other compensation payable to an employee for the purpose of offsetting or compensating an employee for the obligation imposed by subsection (1) of this section. It’sapaycut. That’s the effect oflosing the 6% pickup. What’s more, as one section of the measure reproduced above shows, we would be prohibited — by the state constitution W from negotiating a pay increase that would offset the effect of the pay cut the measure imposes Also, below are listed a number of salary ranges and the first, middle, and top step of those ranges. In the right hand columns are the monthly dollar losses employees in those salary ranges would see if the measure is approved by the voters in November 1994. At the bottom are a few representative classifications and their salary ranges. The important point is that this measure would affect all state and local government employees — those in PERS or any other public retirement system. ! SR Step 1 Step 4 Step 7 $1210 $1259 $1320 $1381| $1381 $1437 $1501 $1568 $1643 $1704 $17§2_ $1568 $1643 $1704 $1789 $1869 $1965 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 $98.58 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 $102.24 $107.34 $112.14 $117.90 $123.60 $129.60 $135.66 $142.32 $149.16 $156.30 $163.92 $1437 $1501 $1568 . $1643 $1869 $2060 • $2160 $1704 $1789 $1869 $1965 $1965 $2060 $2160 $2261 $2372 ; $2486 ,$2605 $2732 $2871 $3008 $3154 $2261 $2372 . $2486 $2605 $2732 $2871 $3008 $3154 $3307 $3471 $3643 $2060 $2160 $2261 $2372 $2486 $2605 $2732 Step 1 Loss $72.60 $75.54 $79.20 ; $82.86 $86.22 $90.06 $94.08 Step 4 Loss Step 7 Loss $82.86 $86.22 $90.06 $94.08 $98.58 $102.24 $107.34 $112.14^ $117.90 $123.60 $129.60 $135.66 $142.32 $149.15 $156.30 $163.92 $172.26 $180.48 $189.24 " $94.08 $98.58 $102.24 $107.34 $112.14 $117.90 $123.60 $129.60 $135.66 $142.32 $149.16 $156.30 $163.92 $172.26 $180.48 $189.24 $198.42 $208.26 $218.58 Representative classifications and their salary ranges Office Specialist 1 12 Human Services Assistant 1 12 Public Service Rep 2: 12 Office Specialist 2: 15 Human Services Assistant 2: 15 Public Service Rep 3! 15 Motor Vehicle Rep 1 ^15 Highway Maintenance Specialist: 16 Human Resource Spec 2: 17 one we work with. The first thing it will do is reduce our take-home pay by 6%. (See chart on this page,) If you currently make $1568, the initiative would cut your take-home pay $94.08. If you make $1965, your take-home pay cut would be $117.90. Motor Vehicle Rep 2 Child Support Agent Public Service Rep 4 Human Resource Spec 3 Human Resource Spec 4 Social Service Specialist Vpc Rehab Specialist Occ. Safety Specialist 3 Industrial Hygienist 4 17 18 19 19 21 24 24 25 27 If you make $2732, your take-home pay would be $163.93 less. When you retire — in the near-future or many years from now W your pension will be cut by as much as 21%. That’s a financial bath most of us are ill-prepared to take.
