ABC-7 Xtra: Firefighters Pay

almost a year: the city of el paso and the firefighters union have tried to >>> live where news comes first, this is “abc-7 xtra. >>> welcome to “abc-7 xtra,” i maria garcia, glad you’re with us tonight. for almost a year, the city of el paso and the firefighters union have tried to agree on pay and benefits for firefighters, but they’ve hit a wall. now, el paso voters could decide and early voting starts tomorrow. this is a complicated topic, so tonight, we’re making sure you have the information you need before you head to the polls. the city says taxpayers can’t afford what firefighters are asking for. the fire union says the firefighters have sacrificed for the city, and what they’re asking for is fair. there are three points of disagreement: firefighter pay, health insurance, and whether they should be fired or given a second chance if they test positive for a drug test. joing us tonight, paul thompson, second vice-president for the firefighters union and dr. mark sutter, the city’s chief financial officer. you can e-mail us your comments and questions now to abc7xtra@kvia.com. you can also reach us at 915-496-1775. or tweet me at @mariagabc7. for the firefighters union, the sticking point, the main reason they can’t come to an agreement is because of health insurance rates. so let’s go over that first. here’s a recap of the talks. >> we’re stepping up and saying, hey, we believe in our firefighters and what they’ve said that they need to make this work. >> city manager tommy gonzalez says the city is willing to compromise, but the fire union says the city’s latest offer doesn’t address the main point of disagreement. >> the health insurance is the big sticking point, and the dramatic increases that the city wants, we were never able to bargain off of that, they came in hard and stayed on that same percentages increase. >> the large majority of firefighters have a buy-up family health insurance plan. the city’s new offer would increase their bi-weekly payment from $122 to $290 later this year, then $358 in 2016, $447 in 2017 and $547, equal to what police officers pay, by 2018. the city is also offering a wellness plan that could trim up to $150 a month from that cost. >> at the end of the four years, firefighters insurance would go up $850 a month. bottom line, an entry-level firefighter would have to pay about a third of his pay toward insurance, health insurance. >> so what does this mean to you, the taxpayer? according to the city, the fire union’s proposal would cost the owner of the city’s average $124,000 home about $57 spread out over three years. the city proposal, which is officially on the ballot, would have less than a $5 impact. but the city’s latest compromise offer would have more than a $30 impact spread out over three years. >> now is it perfect, is it utopia? no, nothing is, but we believe when the public sees this and we believe when the firefighters union sees it and distributes it, they’ll see that it’s a good plan. now, whether they vote for it or not, it’s up to them. >> joining us now are paul thompson, the second vice-president of the local firefighter’s union and dr. mark sutter, the city’s chief financial officer. thank you for staying up late with us. we appreciate it. okay. so we have a lot to get to. we’re going to get to the drug testing in just a bit. we’re going to get to the pay in just a bit but let’s get to the main point and that’s health insurance costs. there are three items on the ballot: pay, health insurance costs and the drug issue. so let’s talk about health insurance costs. let’s go over some numbers. there’s a lot of numbers so stick with us but i think it’s important for people to have a grasp on the issue before they go to the polls. i want to take a look at this chart that the city passed out earlier this week and this is for the health insurance plan that most firefighters have, which is a buy-up plan. they have a basic plan, and then they have a buy-up plan. in red is what firefighters are willing to pay, their proposal, what they’re proposing and this is what they pay biweekly, every two weeks. and in blue is what the city is proposing that the firefighters pay every two weeks, which is equal to what police pay and in green is what regular city employees that don’t have collective bargaing pay. and so you see right now biweekly, they pay $120 or $122 right now. firefighters are willing to increase that to $148 by 2016 and then by 2018, to $221. the city’s plan would increase that to $445, and then eventually $547 in 2018. so let’s get to the discussion. paul, why should firefighters pay less for their health insurance than say police officers or regular city employees? >> yes, ma’am. well, first off, what i want to say, let me address number one, p.d. number one, we don’t make as much p.d. p.d. officers have their own bargaining unit. we don’t bargain for p.d. also, like i said, our pay gap, entry level is about 10%. and as you go up in the ranks, that grows. but in regards to the civilian employees, number one unfortunately, they can’t bargain for their rights, their benefits and pay with the city so basically, whatever the city offers them is what they get. us in p.d., we’re allowed to bargain for our rights. also, i think it’s important to realize, with firefighters, it’s always been really important, our insurance benefits as opposed to pay per se, mainly because we’re exposed to a lot more than the average employee. also our rates of cancer are the highest among any work group out there. >> okay. now for taxpayers who are watching this and who say, you know, police officers are in dangerous situations all the time, too, they’re also essential for public safety. yet they get paid about 10% more than you, but a first year firefighter gets paid about $37,000. the median el paso income, household income is about $40,000. the median el paso income is about $40,000. so people will say you’re not that far off in terms of pay than regular el paso ans. so why should taxpayers foot the bill for you to have better benefits? >> well, i think it’s important to realize number one the job we do. when you compare us across the state of texas, we’re the lowest paid fire department in the state. what we’re asking for on may the 9th, even after the pay raise that we’re asking for on may the 9th, if we get that, it still would mean we’re still the lowest paid fire department in the state. and, like i said, i think it’s important to realize the job we do. yes, you’re right, the job that p.d. does is hazardous, dangerous. however, p.d. is not running into burning buildings, p.d. is not exposed to what we’re exposed to. >> dr. mark sutter, there are people who would argue that and validly. these are the guys who are saving lives and saving property. shouldn’t they pay less for health insurance? >> so we agree completely that firefighters are a very valued group of employees to the city. they do a dangerous job. when we talk about health insurance, i think it’s important to understand that when people start paying something more closer to approximating what the market value of their insurance is, they start making wiser decisions. right now, about 75% of the fire employees who participate in insurance have the buy-up plan, the expensive, 9010 plan, the low deductible plan, that’s because it’s so affordable. you saw the graph a minute ago showing the cost. what we found with the other employee groups is when they actually face the actual — something that approximates the cost of their insurance on a market basis, most of them will switch to the basic plan. if you look at the regular civilian employees, they have switched from the buy-up plan to the basic plan. >> so you’re saying there are still affordable options for them? >> there are still affordable options absolutely. if you look at the 2018 premium for the basic plan, it’s only 200 some dollars. so that’s much more affordable than sticking with the buy-up plan. the police department, when they switched to the new premiums, they’ve switched out of the buy-up plan into the premium plan, about 75% into the basic plan, 75% of them are on the basic plan. >> okay. now, i have to ask this because i’m sure there are so many people watching this who are thinking this. if the city can spend money on things like a ballpark, on public art projects, why is it fighting this, when public safety is the foundation of city government? >> so public safety is one of the primary keys but i think that most people would say that if you don’t have parks, if you don’t have libraries, if you don’t have museum, we don’t have a very good quality of life. you may recall that the voters voted overwhelmingly for quality of life bonds. those are bringing on projects. at the same time, that’s raising property tax, if we look at large increases for any of our particular groups of employees, we will face additional property taxes and that’s what we’re concerned about. >> let’s take a phone call from theresa on the east side. hi, what’s your comment or question? theresa? >> why does the city seem to find money for over-budgeted items, items that went over-budget for more than $8 million and cannot find the money to give the firefighters the insurance they need? >> okay. thank you so much, theresa. so theresa’s asking about over-budget items. i’m assuming she’s referring to some of the quality of life projects that have come in over-budget. the question is why were those over-budget, city has adjusted, but can’t compromise with the firefighters? >> theresa has a great question. i think it’s important to understand from a financial standpoint that the city, when we start talking about what we spend money for and where the money comes from, there are two really big pots of money that we talk about. one is our operating funds, general fund money, which is for general operations, pays for salaries, supplies, gas in cars, things like that. and the other big pot of money comes from debt issuances for big capital projects so when she’s talking about where do we find an extra million dollars for the west side pool, i think that’s what she was referring to, why can’t we find that money but we can’t find money for increasing salaries, for instance? and the answer really is that they’re in two separate pots of money. the extra dollars that were found for the quality of life project actually came from reducing other big capital projects, so reductions of capital projects, from one bucket into another project but in the same bucket. but we can’t take capital project moneys and spend those on salaries. >> okay. you know, the bottom line here i think is health insurance costs are rising. we heard city manager tommy gonzalez, there’s a lot of literature out there that shows that in general across the board, in every occupation, private sector, it costs more to go to the doctor. that’s sort of a fact. so how do you come to a middle ground here? do you see it possible that there is going to be a middle ground or is the city’s latest offer nonnegotiable for you all, paul? >> yes, well, what i’ll say about the city’s latest offer is that number one, we’re doing our best to take it out to the membership, to see if we can go ahead, secure a vote prior to may the 9th. if that doesn’t happen, may the 9th will happen. in the past, we’ve bargained away other benefits like pay to keep our premiums low. >> when you say what, what do you mean? >> correct, so we’ve actually given up pay raises in the past to keep our insurance low. so i think it’s important for that. also keep in mind back in 2008 and 2009, joyce wilson came to us and asked us to defer some pay raises and the economy of today is not the economy of 2008, nine and 10. >> in your last collective bargaining agreement, you did come to terms with the city, that many firefighters are getting a 5% raise right now, right? >> in reference to their steps? >> yes,. >> okay, some are yes. >> yes. >> so it’s inaccurate to say that firefighters haven’t gotten a raise since 2010? >> what i’ll say about the steps is this. number one, the starting pay for a firefighter, they get $12 an hour. that’s the starting pay. now, when they come on the job, yes, they get some steps throughout the years but with the steps what it does is allows the city to pay the firefighters at a lower rate of pay, and then over time they can gradually pay them more. so in essence that actually saves the city money. what i will say is even after nine years when a firefighter’s topped out, we’re still one of the lowest paid fire departments in the state. >> okay. >> i would like to respond to that. first of all, i think it’s important for the viewers to understand that the current steps that paul’s referring to are actually a series of nine steps that are 5% each. and so the firefighter that started last year made it through the academy, graduated and made it on to the firefighter force is looking at nine years of 5% increases every year, they come automatically. it doesn’t matter if they’re a real great firefighter or a medium firefighter, everybody gets 5% on those steps for nine years. that’s nine solid years of guaranteed 5% increases every year. the cost of living adjustments are on top of that. when they’re asking for 3% a year, that’s on top of the 5% increases. it’s a significant increase. the other thing i would point out is the city offered and the item that’s on the referendum is to do away with the entry level step which in essence boosts the entry level by 5%. we’re trying to address the low entry level pay by actually increasing our entry level by 5% on the firefighters. >> but you hear paul saying that the fire department here is the lowest paid in texas. so how do you tackle that? >> well, i think — i would differ a little bit because there are different ways to measure what that is. when we look like the lowest paid, i’m sure he would admit there are other cities in texas who actually pay less than we do. he’s referring to a certain range of cities or something like that, a comparison set of cities. but the fact of the matter is when we start looking at how much we’re going to pay a particular bargaing unit, it’s not how much is paid in a higher-cost city. if you were a firefighter in the city of dallas, you might find your cost of living higher there than here. when you start adjusting for those types of things, i think the statement that we are the lowest paid is not accurate anymore. >> and also, you know, somebody’s watching and saying i wish i got a 5% raise every year no matter what i did and on top of that in 2012 there was a half percent raise, 2013 a 1% raise for those who were already getting the 5% raise. so for people who are watching and saying that does sound competitive, it sounds like the city is giving you a fair wage, a fair living, but they have to watch out for the taxpayers and the city pays for all the costs of health insurance. they have a third-party manage it but they pay for all the costs, so the taxpayers pay for all the costs. what do you think of that? >> well, i’ll say we do pay a premium for the insurance so it’s actually a portion of the costs. >> what i mean is the city portion is paid all by the city, not by the city and a third-party. >> correct. correct. so getting back to your question, it’s very important to keep in mind in 2010, in that contract that we bargained, we did increase our insurance approximately 10% each year going forward and that 1.5% pay raise was only to offset that increase. >> we have to take a break. when we come back, i know i see you guys going back and forth. when we come back, we’re going to talk about what’s on the ballot, we’re going to take a look at the ballot language and make sure you understand it. stay with us. you’re watching “abc-7 xtra, call us at 915-496-1775, e-mail us me >>> welcome back to “abc- xtra.” we have a caller on the line. i believe it is theresa from the west side? what’s your comment or your question? >> will the city honor the vote because they have a history of not honoring citizens’ votes as they did with the baseball park and city hall. >> okay thank you so much. will the city honor the vote? and i do want to say there was a vote for the hot tax for the ballpark and the city did honor that but going to clarify that but if you want to answer their question. >> so in answer to the question, the city does have to honor whatever the vote of the referendum is. if the voters vote yes on proposal two, it has to be honored. it’s whatever the voters vote for. >> i think the vote that the caller is referring to is the domestic benefits vote that happened a few years ago where the city council reversed that and actually didn’t go through with that. so there is a precedent set there but that doesn’t apply in this case? >> this is a binding referendum. >> okay. i see. we have a few questions from our e-mailers. isn’t it true that if the firefighters aren’t made to pay their fair share of insurance the burden will go to all other city employees? is that true? >> let me answer this question and i would like to tie it into the last question just before the break. i think it’s important to understand it that right now the rate structure for firefighters and you had it shown on the graph has the firefighters paying for the employee plus family premium plan, 25% of what regular civilian employees pay and what the city is asking them to do and this is in the city’s proposal is that they step up and pay what the police union is paying, which i might point out for next year is 65% of what civilians pay. so the — we’re trying to get the groups closer together in what they pay to help give them some incentives that are aligning with the cost of the insurance itself and then put firefighters stepping up paying the same as the police officers are paying. the insurance total gets paid by the taxpayer. so the distribution of the cost goes across the employees but whatever is not allocated to the employee groups is paid by the city from city coffers. so that’s taxpayer funds. >> i want to make sure we get to the ballot language. we can take those graphics now. i’m going to try to read it. this is the proposal for the health insurance. and this is what’s on the ballot. the city of el paso proposes that the employee contributions paid by the el paso members of local 51 international — be increased to the same as those paid by police officers, which is equal to 65% of the amount paid by civilian city employees in 2015 and equal to 75% of the civilian employee premiums in future years on two plans and 87% in calendar year 2017 and equal to 100% in calendar year 2018 on the buy-up plan. that’s the city’s proposal. and this is the fire union’s proposal on the same issue. it reads the association of firefighters proposes that the employee contribution paid by the el paso members of local 51 international association of firefighters for healthcare premiums be increased by 22% of the amounts currently paid for health insurance premiums, beginning in calendar year 2016, a 22% increase on the current premium and a 22% increase on the current premium in calendar year 2018. and it’s what we just talked about. we’ll go over wages in just a bit. we’ll hold off on that graphic but this is — you saw that graphic what they were going to see with wages. i mean, it seems like chinese. it’s so hard to understand. if i’m the average voter and i’m going to the votes and i’m reading this, i’m confused. is that really the best language that could have been put out for the voters? >> i would just answer by saying it’s a complicated issue. i think that the bargaing as it came down to coming to the impasse, the first proposal was to put the actual tables of healthcare insurance premiums on the ballot, and i think that was even worse. the city worked with some people to try to get to language that was intelligible without putting the actual tables of insurance premiums on the ballot themselves. i think it’s very complicated. i think the simple answer is that the firefighters union has the more straightforward proposal in this case, which is 22% increases in their premiums. on the city side, the city is saying we would like them to pay what the police department officers are saying. >> okay. now, you may take a vote before the may 9th election, right? and then it could be void, the election results? what’s your sense of how things could turn out between now and the election day? >> like i said, earlier, we’re trying to go ahead and secure a vote on the city’s current offer prior to may the 9th. if we cannot do that, then may 9th will happen. we’re comfortable also allowing the voters to decide our rates on the insurance. very comfortable. and i think it’s important. as confusing as the language is on the ballot just to keep in mind a yes vote is for the firefighters. >> a yes vote is for the firefighters, a no vote is for the city? on all three things? >> correct. >> yes for the firefighters, no for the city. we have to take a break but i want to read some e-mails before. lisa writes it sounds like the city should be looking at revamping the insurance plan, have they looked into new plans? city has failed the firefighters and many city employees. and then another e-mail here, we are all struggling with higher premiums in insurance. educators and medical professionals have had the same issues. what makes them different? for the taxpayers to foot their premium if they have an option to purchase the lower premium with higher deductible, they should look at that. we are having to do the same. we have to take a break. when we come back, we’re going to talk about the third issue on the testing. >>> welcome back to “abc- xtra.” we’re talking about pay and benefits for firefighters today, which el paso voters could decide. we want to read some tweets from our viewers. if the city increases insurance to $547 biweekly, our firefighters will pay over $1,000 a month for insurance. that’s crazy. clover writes firefighters work over 40 hours, sometimes 56, usually 56, no overtime and still pay into the insurance and pension. that’s like making $12 an hour. adrian tweets why shouldn’t el paso plan for increases over time instead of all at once? the city seems to be unprepared and lacks foresight. let’s talk about that. dr. sutter, the increase i believe the fire union says is 350%. that seems really drastic of a change? >> when you look at it in percentages, that does look drastic but you have to look at where they’re coming from. if you’re paying $88 every two weeks or $122 every two weeks, to bring that up to what the police department is paying, which is even less than what the regular civilian employees are paying is a fairly significant percentage increase but part of the goal is to get an incentive in there for them to consider do we want to be up on the 90-10 plan or should we switch to the 80-20 plan, which is what most city employees have? especially when you count police officers and regular civilian employees. so the percentage looks large but as i said if you look at the basic plan for an employee and their family, even out there, all the way out to 2018, the dollar amount of premium that we’re asking for is $215 every two weeks, not $547. >> for the basic plan. >> that’s correct. >> you say there’s that incentive, the wellness plan that could shave off $150. >> i hadn’t mentioned that. something that the city manager has really been pushing for, the regular employees, the police department, we would like for the fire department to participate in, a fitness program where you are encouraged to be fit but you have to take some physical fitness test or take biometric tests and you could earn $1,800 a year by passing these tests. most of us would think probably firefighters are some of the most fit, they shouldn’t have much trouble doing that test. >> i want to talk about the third part of the ballot and that’s the drug testing. the fire union has said repeatedly that this is not a big issue for them, that they’re okay with the city’s zero tolerance policy. but there has been a chance to take it off the ballot, in one of the last city council meetings the city said if you’re okay with it give us the paperwork so that we can take it off the ballot, but the fire union has not communicated officially with the city to remove that from the ballot. so if you don’t have a problem with it then why are you — why is it going to the voters? >> well, great question. let me first say this. last year in august, we went to mediation. we actually brought in a federal mediator. we told the city and we actually made it perfectly clear to the city we had no problem with their random testing policy. why it’s on the ballot, why they keep insisting on bringing it up as an issue and insisting it be on the ballot, i think that’s a question for the city. like i said, the fire union, the firefighters of el paso we have no problem with the policy itself. >> so you don’t have a problem with a firefighter getting fired if he tests positive the first time for a drug test? >> on the pool if you vote yes for the firefighters, they will get a rehab component but that being said, like i said, we have no issue either way with the actual testing policy. >> but because i can’t seem — i’m confused. and i think most voters want to get to the bottom of it. you say we don’t have a problem with it but then you say we want them to go to rehab instead of getting fired so that we won’t have to fire them and retrain another one? which one is it, either off-problem with it or you don’t? >> yes, and what i will say is this. approximately six months to bargaining which started last may 9th, ironically, we actually formed a committee. it was members of the union, fire admin, also admin from the city, and we actually looked at other cities and we came up with a policy that had a rehab component. like i said, earlier in the week, our job is very stressful. we have ptsd, similar to the military. and so to sit here and — because of that, we feel it was important to have that rehab component and so bottom line if a firefighter tested positive, he would be suspended without pay for 30 days immediately, he would have to enter a treatment program, complete in that six months. if he does then after that, if he ever tested positive again, then yes, he would be terminated. but, like i said, we have no problem with it either way. earlier you asked why or — >> why not make an effort to get it off the ballot then? >> we tried. we did. like i said. since last august we’ve been telling the city what they wanted on the ballot, we were fine with it. the issue was the health insurance. the city insisted, insisted on putting that on the ballot. why? i have no idea. >> in the last city council meeting, though, some of the city councillors said if you don’t have a problem with it we can take it off the ballot. it’s a formal process, they say they need written notice from you that they want it off the ballot and they say they never got that. >> well, actually, their bargaining team told us it was tied to the insurance. we had to agree to the insurance, the one that’s on the ballot. so that’s why. >> is that true? is it tied to the insurance? >> i don’t believe it is. as you may know i came into the bargaining process late. the previous bargaing team is not involved in the bargaing right now. it’s my understanding that there have been 12 or 13 items that were in contention between the union and the previous bargaining team. the union signed off on those leaving thus three that we’ve got on the ballot for referendum on may 9th. >> my director is pressuring me to cut it. we already went heavy. thank you so much for joining us. thank you, dr. sutter, thank you so much paul you were great and thank you for watching “abc- xtra.” grad you were with us. we hope you found this