Brian Kennedy

I had previously belonged to AFSCME/Retirees, and fled that group in search of real representation. The retiree agenda was clearly dominated by union oversight.

At last night's (Dec. 14) PAWG meeting, Robert Jacquard purported to represent AFSCME retirees. His testimony made me wonder if he is actually paid by the ASCME/Council 94 union, and is assigned to the retiree group. (This should be clarified.) His testimony came under the watchful eye of Council 94 President Downey and Business Manager Cenerini, seated in the upper gallery.

MR. Jacquard testified alongside four actual retirees (who he claimed to represent). Those retirees called for full restoration of the 3% annual COLA for ALL benefit levels. Mr. Jacquard closed by stating that the Retiree group would support restoration of the 3% annual COLA ONLY for a benefit level up to $30,000. This was in direct conflict with what the retirees proposed as an option. It would also make more money available for pay raises for the active AFSCME members.

The PAWG is seeking options for consideration. Why would any retiree group self-select a mediocre option? Especially one that conflicts with the members' own position? (That question applies to RIPERC as well). Let the General Assembly decide.

I would suggest that the PAWG, and ultimately the General Assembly, discard Mr. Jacquard's recommendation as his own opinion, and not that of the actual retirees (according to their own testimony). The retirees themselves, by their own testimony, want a FULL "full COLA restoration." Let that proposal stand as the official recommendation of the AFSCME Retiree group.

I comment on this only because the duplicitous activities of the unions, to the detriment of their previous members (and current retirees), has caused irreparable harm to ALL retirees.

Submitted via online webform