The Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association (DSA) has filed claim against Contra Costa County stating their members have suffered while the county has gained. They are seeking to be made whole again.
The Claim (shown below) states the county is realizing a 4.2% reduction in its required employee contribution now being spent elsewhere.
According to the claim, “To date, the County has refused to make the DSA members whole. The County has refused to consider providing each effected DSA member with an advantage in compensation comparable to that now denied. Instead, the County has proposed using the “savings” realized from the above circumstance (see document below) to fund other County uses, despite the fact that these “savings” constitute compensation owned to DSA members”.
The Claim states the DSA is seeking to recoup the value of their denied compensation; the contributions made on their behalf towards a retirement pension including “terminal pay” and other accrual leave that they now cannot receive as a result of Judge Flinn’s Judgement.
In a Contra Costa Times article today, Supervisor Karen Mitchoff calls this claim a form of “pension spiking” while saying both DSA and Local 1 have ulterior motives:
She also said the two unions heading the referendum have ulterior motives, claiming Local 1 leadership wants to boost dropping membership and the sheriffs association wants to reopen its contract to reintroduce pension spiking.
“How does this help employees get more money in their pocket?” she asked.
Ken Westermann, president of the Contra Costa Deputy Sheriffs Association explained Supervisor Micthoff was trying to “muddy the water” and that talks between DSA and the County have been going on since July in trying to get back the 4.1% they say is rightfully a part of their compensation.
The accusation being made is this is retaliation for the Supervisors taking a 33% pay increase.
Westermann argues that the raise taken by the Board of Supervisors is a form of pension spiking because their salary just increased which increases their pensions.
“Our fighting them over their pay raise has little to do, if anything, with our request to reclaim what is arguably our compensation. This is a matter of right vs. wrong, and the notion of shared sacrifice,” said Westermann. “They have chosen, for laughable reasons, to apply a different set of rules to themselves, and they have not made a rational, moral, or ethical, reason to justify it.”
He noted that for 15-years, the County has been making these Annual contributions for the employees now nonexistent benefit. The DSA contends that money is part of the employees compensation for services rendered.
“We simply presented several legal ways in which to recover that lost compensation. All of our ideas were rejected including the ability to annually sell back vacation which is a perfectly legal practice and allowable under PEPRA,” said Westermann.
Below are the pages from the claim: Click to enlarge.
1 comment
What Supervisor put the raise on the agenda in the first place ? This is really creating an uproar amongst our county workforce.
Comments are closed.