So are City of Sioux Falls Union Reps admitting they have failed their members?

This story gets more confusing by the minute, first the hussle-bussle on Cory’s site;

They received a 1% COLA last year, this cannot wait. – Kooper Caraway, president of the South Dakota Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO

Well Mr. Caraway, whose fault is that? It’s certainly not the taxpayers fault. You are the chief negotiator. Unless you have been living under a rock, economists have been talking about how the economic recovery will go, they have predicted inflation, employment issues etc. This is not some surprise. So why didn’t you negotiate this to begin with?

I will also say that I have never heard of a non-management union employee of the city living paycheck to paycheck. Maybe it is happening, but you truly need to supply proof. You have not.

But it didn’t stop them from bullying a mayoral candidate;

In a statement to the Argus Leader Wednesday afternoon, Islam said “since [the ordinance] was advanced to a second reading last night, it should be approved on March 1.”

Do they deserve this? I am not sure. But if they do it isn’t because inflation suddenly reared its head it’s because the original negotiations were horrible. Who accepts a 1% raise even in normal economic times?

But I will argue it still goes back to whose money this is. The taxpayers. Why are we so quick to hand out bonuses when this money could be spent on much needed infrastructure projects for the very people who paid in the money?

I am astounded how this has become so complicated and convoluted;

• The union messed up in the original bargaining agreement

• They want to save face

• The timing is horrific, so they make excuses

You can spin this how ever you want to, you can bully candidates, but at the end of the day a spade is a spade. This is a bribe right before an election and any other assessment is hogwash and circumvent.



9 comments ↓

#1 D@ily Spin on 02.17.22 at 9:35 am

Who needs a Union when a mayor gives you a lucrative raise before an election? What if another mayor candidate wins with the promise of a bigger raise?

#2 My Mistake Mike on 02.17.22 at 12:44 pm

Taneeza should have doubled down. These are not retention bonuses. It’s simply free money from surplus slush funds being given across the board to the very best AND the very worst city employees. Socialism at its finest.

True retention bonuses are targeted to the very best as an incentive to keep them on the team for another year. Under the current plan, I don’t see why anyone won’t simply take this check then leave for another job (or retirement, which is a growing problem) later this year.

Meanwhile, taxpayers living paycheck to paycheck are helping pay this $2.5m bonus. That’s the most shameful part of this. The money would be better used providing property tax relief, affordable pre-K, free public transit, or addressing a host of other real needs in our city.

#3 Oh Myikes! on 02.17.22 at 4:15 pm

Unfortunately, you are correct on this one. The Union failed by accepting this on a long term agreement, but I believe it was in the middle of covid so there was a lot of fear. They should have done a one year deal.

Yes, it is not a retention bonus. A retention bonus would be paid out quarterly or after a set time to actually retain someone. It’s probably best to delay this the vote till after the election and pay $500 after q2 and q3. Pay a $1000 bonus before Xmas. Maybe you actually retain someone.

#4 LJL on 02.17.22 at 6:29 pm

AFL CIO pumps billions into candidates that have created extreme inflation.

Organized Labor = Organized Theft

#5 D@ily Spin on 02.18.22 at 8:52 am

There’s now more opportunity in the private sector. With out of control inflation, cost of living on city wages and retirement has become an issue. Isn’t it time for city workers to transition away from Fascist local government?

#6 The Guy From Guernsey on 02.18.22 at 9:35 am

Organized labor undercuts the position of the (sorta’ rare in South Dakota) candidate from the the Blue slate.
Strange times indeed, especially for such a meager payout from the negotiations (given the inflationary economy).
Congratulations, Kooper! The Dems in SD are struggling mightily for traction and you, personally, set back the Dem party by making more mud.

#7 Very Stable Genius on 02.18.22 at 9:47 am

This issue has developed a life of its own. And in so doing, it has illustrated, or unfolded, the politics of labor, feminism, even the Chamber, and the SDDP in a way which speaks to the heart of what is wrong with the current SDDP and its trajectory. The party is a collection of constituencies which are not fluent with the interests and languages of the others, where the lack of communication is then the cause for benign belligerent reaction, indifference, and/or painful and delayed caring.

#8 TP on 02.18.22 at 10:16 am

I missed the meeting where the HR director spoke about the need for a retention bonus.

Did he mention the City’s actual turnover rate? Did he give that percentage AFTER normal retirements were taken out of that number?

The national average for turnover is about 57%. Without retirements, I’m betting the City’s is 2%.

As others have stated, this is just a political grab for votes and shouldn’t be allowed.

#9 keep on giving on 02.18.22 at 12:33 pm

most of the turds working for the city could not find a job in the private sector that would pay them, or give the the benefits package the city of sioux falls does. i seriously doubt retention is the problem. i’d venture to say the bigger problem are the turds who’ve collected large, many times undeserved, paychecks and bennys and are now retiring. also, “retention bonuses for all” isn’t really a bonus, it’s a gift from taxpayers. and his taxpayer doesn’t think they all deserve the gift.