Morning Call – June 22, 2005

David Woglom Quakertown Borough Union

 

Dear Friends,

Good morning. What lessons did everyone learn from the razor thin vote, which rejected Teamsters Local 773 efforts to unionize Quakertown Borough’s employees? Officially, the vote on June 14 was 18 to 16 against organizing. Brian Weaver, an employee who voted to join the Teamsters, told me that the vote was actually closer. “Because one of the employees had given his notice [to resign], his vote was not counted,” Weaver began.

Had the challenged vote counted, Weaver claimed that the tally would have been 18 to 17. This was the third time that borough employees tried to join the union, with the first effort in 1986. Quakertown borough has 69 employees; 54 non-uniformed and 15 policemen. Borough Manager David Woglom told me that the Teamsters were trying to organize the 34 who work in the electric, public works, sewer and water departments.

In January disgruntled workers sent a letter to the 34 employees complaining about Woglom’s management style. “I don’t know that I’ll be different tomorrow,” Woglom said. “I don’t disrespect the employees. They are crucial to this business. They provide excellent service to the borough. I have respect for them and always will.”

Prior to the Teamster’s vote, council members Raymond Fulmer, L. James Roberts and Elfriede Werner met twice with each of the four departments. “Council doesn’t want to air the [employees] complaints but will meet with them soon, probably after Labor Day,” Woglom continued. “I expect that council will include me in those meetings. Council is confident that it can address the employees’ issues in a very satisfactory way.

“Yes, we’re pleased with the outcome,” Woglom added, referring to the vote. “It was the right decision for the employees. But we were prepared to work with the union if we had to.”

Critical to the Teamsters defeat could have been the comparison of four municipal contracts with the Teamsters in Lehigh County. “We shared that information with our employees,” Woglom said. “Our employees saw what those [Lehigh] employees were contributing to their health care, benefits, and union dues. That comparison was very favorable to Quakertown.”

Woglom gave examples. “The borough pays the total health care cost of each employee and his family, including dental,” he continued, “Plus we pay 100 percent of the pensions.” And it’s expensive. “Our medical insurance costs increased by 16 percent this year. Last year it was 29 percent. It costs $14,000 for each employee who has a family of three,” Woglom said.

Will the borough change its ways? “We gave them a wake up call,” Weaver replied. “We gave them a second chance. Hopefully we won’t have to do his again. Both sides can benefit in the long run…if we work together.”

Weaver thought that the employees would vote to join the Teamsters. “Some of them changed their minds at the last moment,” he said. “But it was democratic. Everyone voiced their opinions. I expect my fellow employees will work together regardless of their vote.”

In Upper Bucks and Montgomery Counties, there are more than 25 municipalities with hundreds of employees. Non have unions and don’t want them. All of these governments watched the Quakertown vote very closely. Do they have their collective ears to the ground? Will they spot dark clouds approaching just as they did in Quakerown?

Finally, does animosity remain among the 34 Quakertown employees and the borough for which they work? We’ll know in 12 months. That’s the earliest that the Teamsters can pay another visit to Quaketown. Stay tuned.

Sincerely,

Charles Meredith