How big a raise will MLGW workers get? Leadership, city council confused

MLGW CEO J.T. Young said Tuesday there's as some "ambiguity" as to what International Brotherhood of Electric Workers 1288 has proposed and what a Memphis City Council committee has adopted.
MLGW CEO J.T. Young said Tuesday there's as some "ambiguity" as to what International Brotherhood of Electric Workers 1288 has proposed and what a Memphis City Council committee has adopted.

The Memphis City Council remained undecided Tuesday in a labor dispute between Memphis, Light, Gas and Water management and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 1288.

MLGW leadership and its union-represented employees differed so much on a contract proposal Tuesday that the city council recessed its meeting in confusion.

“I’m extraordinarily disappointed…. This is bush league,” Chairman Frank Colvett said to IBEW and MLGW management near the meeting's close Tuesday. The item in question was whether the full council should approve or reject an IBEW-version of a contract between the utility and the workers.

The council’s decision followed more than an hour of debate and discourse between MLGW management and the union. Throughout, members of the city council sought clarity on what they would be voting on. Both sides — the union and MLGW management — differed on what exact proposal from IBEW 1288 the city council would decide uphold or reject.

Tuesday's confusion followed a city council impasse committee approving what is believed-to-be a four-year contract between the city-owned utility and the union.

The impasse committee — a three-person board appointed when negotiations between management and a municipal union break down — approved the union's proposal last week by a two-to-one vote, choosing it over what MLGW leadership says is a two-year contract proposal.

Council delay followed ‘a lack of clarity’

The city council’s nonvote Tuesday followed MLGW leadership expressing confusion about the union’s proposal in the morning and not dismissing the idea that it could be as high as 8.5% annually.

The union, for its part, said the proposal amounted to a four-year contract with an increase of 5% in the first year followed by three straight years of a 3.5% annual raise.

MLGW CEO J.T. Young and CFO Dana Jeanes said Tuesday morning that there was some "ambiguity" as to what IBEW 1288 had proposed and what the city council impasse committee has adopted.

Young told The Commercial Appeal that he was unsure if the union's proposal included 8.5% annual raises over the life of a proposed four-year contract and he hoped it would be cleared up by a city council vote Tuesday evening.

"That's being hopefully clarified tonight," Young said. "There's a lack of clarity on that and we are going to try this evening to find clarity in that question.... If it's upheld then we are going to get clarity on an actual number."

After the impasse vote last week, some, including MLGW management, were confused if the council had approved a proposal that included two separate raises a year over four fiscal years totaling about 8.5% a year.

But that's not was not the case, Corey Hester, business manager for IBEW 1288, said in an interview Tuesday. He said the council impasse committee approved a four-year contract that includes an annual raise over four fiscal years — a 5% increase in year one followed by three successive 3.5% raises.

"No, we never were going to get an 8% raise. That never was proposed," Hester said. "It was basically put in plain English what we were asking for."

"They're just playing on words...because they're trying not to give the employees in the city anything. They'd rather pay the contractors versus paying the employees," Hester said.

Samuel Hardiman covers Memphis city government, politics, energy and environmental topics for The Commercial Appeal. He can be reached by email at samuel.hardiman@commercialappeal.com or followed on Twitter at @samhardiman.

This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Memphis, Light, Gas and Water pay raises confused leadership