Belco workers reject pay freeze
Unionised Belco workers have revealed they rejected a pay freeze because it came with no assurances on job security.The Electricity Supply Trade Union (ESTU) issued a statement yesterday which said the utility company requested the freeze a year after agreeing to give workers cost of living increases for five years.“This request comes with no assurances from Belco with regard to job security,” said the statement. “Whether the unionised employees agreed to a wage freeze or not, we face redundancies essentially telling us we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.”Belco announced in December it was “experiencing the effects of a weak economy” and had suffered significantly reduced electricity sales.It said it implemented a freeze on salary increases in 2011 “in order to delay immediate workforce redundancies” and asked unionised employees to accept the same deal.The firm warned last week that the rejection of the wage freeze by unionised workers could mean other cost-cutting measures, such as job losses.A high-ranking ESTU official, who would not be named, told The Royal Gazette yesterday that union members had no reason to accept the proposal.“We have been categorically told we will get no job security,” he said.“Meanwhile, they are still hiring salaried staff. The last one started at the beginning of the year. How can you be hiring and at the same time talking redundancies?”The union statement said a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was accepted by both sides in 2009, without arbitration.“This CBA was for an unprecedented five years in which the unionised employees at Belco agreed to yearly cost of living increases strictly limited to the previous year's Consumer Price Index, with no increase in benefits.“This was at the request of Belco to allow them to plan for a longer period than our traditional two to three year CBAs would allow.“As a reward for this, Belco continued to give bonuses to the salaried, management and executive staff, while ending the practice with the unionised employees.”The statement claimed there had been a “constant erosion” of unionised jobs but an increase in salaried positions, as well as a decision to outsource blue collar work.It said while Belco aimed to become a “leaner more viable company” staffing for industrial workers had already been “cut to the bone”.The union, which represents more than 200 hourly-rate workers, said it wanted “open and frank discussions” with management about Belco's plans but had heard nothing back since rejecting the wage freeze on January 10.“These events have led the membership of the ESTU to believe that no matter what concessions we make,“Belco management will not achieve their goal of trimming ten percent from their operating budget by 2016, other than by further reductions of and eventual elimination of unionised staff at Belco.”A Belco spokeswoman said declining electricity sales and a decision to defer a previously approved rate increase in December prompted the salary freeze and the wage freeze proposal.“At that time, Belco also announced that management would be reviewing all operating costs early in 2011 with a view to reducing costs across the organisation to ensure the long-term viability of operations.“This review includes both salaried and union positions, restructuring, working arrangements and benefits for long-term savings potential. Belco management have assured the ESTU that as this review progresses, discussions will continue to take place with the union.”
As a rule the Electricity Supply Trade Union (ESTU) does not make press releases or respond to statements about ongoing issues between the Union and its partners.
Such statements can be open to interpretation, inference, and are often taken out of context. They are normally premature and unproductive.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position where we are forced to respond to statements made in the press by one of our partners, The Bermuda Electric Light Company (Belco), breaking what we previously considered to be a gentleman's agreement not to do so.
In 2009, our current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was reached, not by arbitration as alluded to, but by mutual agreement to stave off the arbitration process.
This CBA was for an unprecedented five years in which the unionized employees at Belco agreed to yearly cost of living increases strictly limited to the previous year's Consumer Price Index (CPI) with no increase in benefits.
This was at the request of Belco to allow them to plan for a longer period than our traditional two to three year CBA's would allow. As a reward for this, Belco continued to give bonuses to the salaried, management, and executive staff while ending the practice with the unionized employees.
Several employees' wages were also frozen in 2009 as a result of wage reclassification and are still frozen today.
We are now in the first month of the second year of this agreement and Belco are now asking us to forgo this year's increase. This request comes with no assurances from Belco with regard to job security. Whether the unionised employees agreed to a wage freeze or not we face redundancies, essentially telling us we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
This is contrary to what has been represented so far in the media; that because we have voted not to forgo increases that now Belco is forced to look at other cost cutting measures.
Also going unsaid is that we have seen over the years a constant erosion of unionised jobs and will continue to do so while Belco increases salaried staff.
In an economic climate that sees other companies and government partnering with unions to weather this storm, and preserve jobs, Belco seems to be using these times to implement a plan to outsource unionised jobs while protecting and increasing salaried jobs.
The unionised employees are being told that the canteen, garage, and property maintenance groups are being looked at as potential targets for outsourcing. Previously bargained for benefits are being targeted as well. These are to be implemented in order to make Belco a leaner more viable company.
Staffing for the industrial workers has already been cut to the bone. At the union meeting, staff rejected management's proposal due to the lack of management's willingness to provide for job security at all. The union executive delivered their mandate to management on Monday 10th of January stating that job security is our main concern.
Our stated desire is to sit down with management for open and frank discussions on Belco's plans so that informed decisions can be made and job security achieved.
As of today, January 19, 2011, we have heard nothing from Belco except the statements in the media. These events have led the membership of the ESTU to believe that no matter what concessions we make, Belco management will not achieve their goal of trimming ten percent from their operating budget by 2016 other than by further reductions of and eventual elimination of unionized staff at Belco.
The Executive Council,Electricity Supply –Trade Union
