District Council 47, American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO — 1606 Walnut Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-5482 — (215) 546-9880


Officers
AFSCME
Employment Opportunities
AFSCME Advantage
Education & Training
Leadership Academy
Health & Welfare
Health & Safety
P.E.O.P.L.E.
Meetings
Legal Services
Constitution
Calendar
 
 

email webmaster

Privacy Policy
© 1999 - 2010
AFSCME
District Council 47 *
Hit Counter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Local 54

Local 590

Local 752

Local 810

Local 1723

Local 1739

Local 2186

Local 2187

Local 3397

Retirees

                 
 

Cathy Scott, President of AFSCME District Council 47 in response to Nutter Budget address.

The City of Philadelphia has a longstanding agreement whereby its employee have accepted less in wages in exchange of the guarantee of health and pension benefits.

To break that covenant without a meaningful and earnest attempt at revenue enhancements is shortsighted, self defeating and wrong. The deal is the deal.

City employees, who have given up much in the past, should not be the target of the budget balancing proposals by the Mayor or by the Council.

Last year, members of DC 47 agreed to the Mayor’s proposal to a one-year contract that did not include wage, pension or health increases for City employees.

We agreed to “joint committees” to address health care costs. We voted with the Mayor for Pension Plan changes. We proposed multiple avenues to increase revenues through the collection of monies owed the City outright or through payments for City provided services. We have played a positive role in helping the City meet our goals.

To date, the Mayor has ignored those proposals.

To date, the Mayor has provided no City contract proposals for a new contract.

Nor has the Mayor addressed what will be done with national stimulus funds that will come to the City. Nor, has the Mayor aggressively pursued the collection of what the City is owed by tax deadbeats or those who can afford to pay more.

The budget discussion has remained essentially the same for the past few months. The discussion is still centered on cuts – it’s just moved from all service cuts to selective and regressive actions that focus on the poor and city employees and ignores getting those who can afford to pay to more to pay more. That is a disappointment and it is another signal that the City has lost its focus.

It is wrong to demand that City employees take a pay cut by proposing no employee raises for five years while demanding that employees pay more for benefits the City agreed to the bargain to offset wage increases at the same time employee’s taxes are being increased.

Balancing the budget of a city of 1.5 million on the backs of its 27,000 employees is neither right nor moral.