Custodians call for cuts from the top

Posted 11/23/11

No vote has been taken on the district’s contract with custodians, but the union took aim at Central Administration Monday when they called for cuts from the top.

While negotiations continue …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Custodians call for cuts from the top

Posted

No vote has been taken on the district’s contract with custodians, but the union took aim at Central Administration Monday when they called for cuts from the top.

While negotiations continue between the Cranston School Committee and NAGE Local 153, the union that represents the district’s custodians, district employees say the cuts being asked for are too much, including bringing co-pays to 20 percent.

“We’ve been the first bargaining unit to step to the plate and help the school district in any way possible. These guys work hard and they will continue to do it,” said custodian Fred Lataille, a 27-year employee of the district. “Please, don’t privatize these guys. Give them a job; keep them working.”

At stake is the district’s decision whether to continue working with Local 153 or privatize custodial services. Should Cranston choose to privatize, many employees from the district’s maintenance staff say they will no longer be able to make a living in their current jobs. It is likely that a private company would keep the same employees, but one bidder set wages as low as $9 per hour. Currently, union custodians start at $14.23 per hour, with top step employees earning close to $18.

“We don’t make a hundred something thousand dollars a year. They’re going to live on the street if you take away their jobs,” Lataille said.

Monday night’s School Committee meeting was not the first time custodians came out to defend their livelihood. This week, though, it was another agenda item that sparked their outrage.

The School Committee voted unanimously to approve a three-year contract renewal with Superintendent Peter Nero and Assistant Superintendent Dr. Judith Lundsten. Committee member Paula McFarland was absent, and Frank Lombardi recused himself from the vote.

“I am not against the superintendent or the assistant superintendent getting a contract; they work just as hard as the custodians. But I do not see anything on the agenda that is asking the assistant superintendent or the superintendent to take any serious cuts,” Lataille said. “I believe that cuts should have to come from the top before you go to the bottom.”

Nero’s salary for 2012-2013 is $145,083. With health care, pension contributions and other benefits, it brings his salary plus fringe benefits to $185,717. For Lundsten, her salary is $114,632, with a total package of $150,193. The packages increase to $191,928 and $155,801, respectively, in the year 2014-2015. Increases are shown not in the salary line item but with benefits and pension contributions. Custodians see that increase as a de facto raise.

“There is no request for cuts in their salaries, which collectively equal almost $400,000 for two people. When we have almost 90 to 100 custodians that have families and houses and obligations and are being requested to cut their salaries and cut their benefits so they can keep their jobs, it’s very disingenuous when you have a proposal on the table for two people who are making a substantial amount of money. It’s a tough bullet to take,” said Paul Saccoccia, the national representative for Local 153.

Chairwoman Andrea Iannazzi countered that throwing around the $400,000 figure is disingenuous, as that covers their entire employment packages, not just salary.

Combined, the district will spend $335,910 on Nero and Lundsten’s total packages next year.

“I believe that Cranston is beyond fortunate to have the leadership of Superintendent Peter Nero and Dr. Judith Lundsten. Anything we can do to extend our contract with them is really a blessing for the City of Cranston,” Iannazzi said.

School Committee member Janice Ruggieri agreed, encouraging opponents to compare the salary and benefit packages to those of other districts.

“We are getting more than our money’s worth from these people,” she said.

In Warwick, a similarly-sized district, the assistant superintendent has a total package of $152,310 (with a salary of $114,844). The superintendent’s salary there is $162,826, for a total package of $210,310 – $24,593 more than Nero’s.

Stephanie Culhane said she has received many phone calls, e-mails and letters expressing indignation over the superintendent’s salary at a time when custodians are facing a significant loss of income. Much of this correspondence included statements about raises happening at the top.

“These raises are not happening for this group. There are no hidden bonuses; there are no secret perks. This is it, folks,” she said.

Administrators in Cranston Public Schools have not had a raise in some cases for five years. Administrative staff is also not eligible for step increases, which improves teacher pay.

“In the six years that I’ve been in Central Administration, I have never received a raise,” Nero said.

His pay did increase, though, when he moved from assistant superintendent to superintendent.

Nero says he understands why the custodians are frustrated but does not think it is fair to use administrative salaries as ammunition.

“The custodians are not competing with me; they’re competing with other entities, including their own contract. I think it’s unfair that this had to happen, unfortunately, but I have to respond accordingly,” he said.

The Committee voted to approve the contracts, despite Saccoccia’s request to table the resolutions for further consideration.

“I would ask as a fiduciary responsibility of the School Committee that they put these contracts at abeyance and don’t approve them with no reduction in salary,” he said. “I’ve always been told, lead by example.”

In other district news, the School Committee voted to approve a resolution that places a parent representative each from the Cranston Educational Advisory Board (CEAB) and the Special Education Parents Advisory Board (SEPAB) on new sub-committees, when appropriate.

“I think it’s been a very fruitful collaborative effort that we’ve had these last several years, and I really greatly appreciate having it codified,” said former CEAB President Annette Bourne.

The resolution must be voted on at two consecutive meetings in order for official policy to be enacted.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here