No wonder the snow plow operators are bitter about using snowgates

by

I’m glad to see the union is sticking up for these guys;

The union representing the drivers says the city has refused about $1,500 in extra pay for 11 drivers called in on an overnight shift December 6-7, 2009. Union officials say the city is trying to cut its budget on the backs of its employees.

City officials and an administrative law judge who sided with the city during a grievance hearing last year say Sioux Falls did nothing wrong. They say the city needs flexibility to deal with snow emergencies.

The matter now will go before a circuit court judge.

This letter writer also points out what tax dollars are for, services to citizens;

Events center or snowgates? I vote for snowgates.

Posted in: Sioux Falls, snow removal

10 Thoughts on “No wonder the snow plow operators are bitter about using snowgates”

  1. Scott on January 10, 2011 at 12:46 pm said:

    I wonder if those suing will get to choose which judge hears their case, since Tornow believes he can.

  2. John on January 10, 2011 at 12:55 pm said:

    These “guys” aren’t sueing. The union is sueing. These guys volunteered to work extra shifts for extra pay. The union wants theses guys paid time and a half. Theses guys accepted the shifts knowing what they would be paid.

    The question is wether other employees are being screwed by these guys and the city.

  3. l3wis on January 10, 2011 at 1:23 pm said:

    “The question is wether other employees are being screwed by these guys and the city.”

    You are right, this is about proving a point. I hope they win.

  4. scott on January 10, 2011 at 1:52 pm said:

    For those of you who think that “these guys” don’t want the overtime, let me explain something. the union wouldn’t be doing anything unless “these guys” filed a grievence. the city, or any employer for that matter who is covered under a collective bargining agreement, does what they can to break the contract, and it is up to the individual employee to file a grievence if they feel the employer broke the contract. the city just can’t decide that they don’t need to follow the contract if it will save money in certain instances. if the city doesn’t like how overtime is to be paid, negotiate something different in the next contract saying that there will be no overtime pay if it snows. be like the teamsters and negotiate a 15% pay reduction for 12 years, 4 weeks vacation after 20 years of service, and 10 minute breaks instead of 15 minute breaks.

  5. l3wis on January 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm said:

    I see that at the council informational meeting, Vernon was a little miffed he did not know about the lawsuit until he read it in the paper. The city attorney blamed it on Munson’s administration.

  6. John on January 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm said:

    Maybe the city needs to post a list of pending lawsuites on their web site along with contracts.

    The guys getting the overtime didn’t file- it’s the guys not getting overtime that filed.

  7. l3wis on January 10, 2011 at 6:18 pm said:

    I’m thinking of those 3 monkeys right now. See no . . .

  8. Costner on January 11, 2011 at 7:33 am said:

    So is there really any connection to snow-gates or do we just toss that in there anytime the story has anything to do with snow, snow removal contractors, or public works employees?

  9. Pathloss on January 11, 2011 at 10:30 am said:

    I tend to take the plow drivers side. The real problem at city hall is the 100K+ dysfunctional manager salaries. Their job is waiting for retirement or making lateral moves for more paycheck. To much for to little that could hardly be justified in the private sector. There should be only one rich white collar criminal and that’s Mikey.

  10. l3wis on January 11, 2011 at 12:01 pm said:

    No shit? Huh?

Post Navigation