April 24, 2024

Bureaucracy’s Salaries Defended in Europe

BRUSSELS — Days ahead of a summit meeting where leaders of the European Union’s 27 member states are to wrestle again with a proposed seven-year budget, a spokesman for the bloc’s executive body was forced to defend the salaries of some officials.

At a time when many European governments have been compelled to impose stringent budget cuts, the issue of salaries and perquisites for European Union officials has resonated. In November, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain called on officials in Brussels to share the pain that austerity measures have brought to millions of Europeans.

On Sunday, the German newspaper Die Welt am Sonntag stoked the controversy by comparing the salaries of some European officials to the compensation paid to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Anthony Gravili, a spokesman for the European Commission, told a news conference on Monday that such figures were flawed.

“It’s a totally unfair comparison,” said Mr. Gravili, who offered a long rebuttal of the article without mentioning the newspaper by name. “No official earns more than Chancellor Merkel.”

Mr. Gravili criticized comparisons of Ms. Merkel’s monthly salary that exclude her pay as a member of the German Parliament and other allowances, with European Union salaries that include allowances and benefits. European Commission data show that the monthly base salary of the most senior bloc officials is 18,370 euros, or $24,830.

Ms. Merkel’s monthly base salary is 21,000 euros, Mr. Gravili said. Of that, 17,000 euros is her pay as chancellor, while 4,000 euros is her reduced salary as a member of the German Parliament, he added.

Once Ms. Merkel’s basic allowances as both chancellor and Parliament member are included, Mr. Gravili said, her monthly pay was about 25,000 euros.

European Union officials generally pay low taxes, but Mr. Gravili said he did not have the figures available to say whether this would raise the officials’ after-tax income above Ms. Merkel’s. Inge Grässle, a German member of the European Parliament and a member of the body’s budgetary control committee, said that the highest-paid European Union officials paid taxes equivalent to about 25 percent of their gross salary.

Germany contributes the most to the bloc’s budget, one that last year reached about 135 billion euros.

European Union officials receive steady criticism about waste and bloat, but only about 6 percent of all spending goes to the bloc’s administration, which employs 55,000 people, including 6,000 translators, most of them in Brussels.

European political leaders will gather in Brussels on Thursday to consider a budget proposal of roughly 1 trillion euros for 2014-2020. One proposal would trim 1 percent from the European Commission’s requested spending for administrative costs. Britain has argued for deeper cuts, saying that those costs, while small in comparison to the overall budget, are symbolically important.

Unlike European Union officials, the 27 members of the European Commission are political appointees. Their salaries are much closer to those of national leaders like Ms. Merkel, and in some cases may exceed them.

José Manuel Barroso, president of the commission, is paid a monthly salary of 25,351 euros, a residence allowance equal to 15 percent of that salary, and allowances for expenses like running a household and schooling for children. The seven vice presidents of the commission earn basic monthly salaries of 22,963 euros.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/business/global/eu-officials-salaries-draw-fire.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Gerald W. McEntee, Head of Afscme, to Step Down

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for three decades, said on Thursday that he would step down next June when his two-year term expires.

Mr. McEntee, one of the nation’s most powerful union leaders, has also served as chairman of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s political committee for 15 years, playing a major role in revamping organized labor’s roles in presidential, Senate and House races.

Under Mr. McEntee, 76, the union grew to 1.4 million members, from 900,000, and became known for its political war chest. Mr. McEntee deployed his union’s and the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s political funds not just to back Democratic candidates, but also to defeat efforts to privatize Social Security and change Medicare.

“It’s been a long time,” Mr. McEntee said in an interview. “I’m not out of gas; I’d like to see some other people take over.”

His decision was first reported by American Prospect magazine.

Danny Donohue, president of the Civil Service Employees Association, one of the union’s giant New York State affiliates, declared his candidacy on Thursday. Union officials said that Mr. McEntee’s No. 2, the union’s secretary-treasurer, Lee A. Saunders, was also likely to run for the union’s presidency. Mr. Saunders, who declined to comment about his plans, defeated Mr. Donohue in a race for the No. 2 spot in July 2010.

Mr. McEntee said in the interview that he would endorse Mr. Saunders.

Mr. McEntee announced his intentions in a year when his union has taken a beating, with Wisconsin and Ohio enacting laws that greatly curbed collective bargaining rights for state, county and city employees. But Mr. McEntee and his union have helped lead the fight to repeal the Ohio law in a referendum scheduled for Tuesday.

“If we win the repeal fight in Ohio,” Mr. McEntee said, “that will show everybody where we are and what we can do and will show a number of governors that they ought to think twice about any challenge to our union.”

But if the repeal effort is defeated, it will be embarrassing to Mr. McEntee and his union.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e52bfbb937cd0538a790203f153b9503

Facing Call for Concessions, Verizon Workers Vote to Authorize Strike

But the union leaders are resisting any suggestion of givebacks, saying the overall company is making plenty of money. The company earned $6.9 billion in net income for the first six months of this year, amid strong growth in its majority-owned Verizon Wireless cellphone operation. And Verizon’s hefty investment in its FiOS TV and Internet services is starting to pay off.

The battle lines between the sides were drawn more sharply on Thursday, when the Communication Workers of America announced that in balloting by 35,000 of its members at Verizon, 91 percent had authorized their leaders to call a strike as soon as Aug. 7, after the contract expires.

Verizon officials were quick to note that such a vote did not necessarily mean a strike would occur. Such votes are routine in contentious contract discussions, and negotiators usually reach a settlement before the strike deadline.

However, Verizon and union officials agree that the company’s demands are far more sweeping than in previous years. Verizon says it is pushing hard for flexibility and to hold down costs because its wireline business — which, unlike its wireless operation, is heavily unionized — faces such intense competition, much of it nonunion.

“We’re looking to make meaningful changes in the contract, which reflect the state of the wireline business as well as the economy,” said Lawrence Marcus, Verizon’s senior vice president for labor relations. “The wireline business is basically fighting to reverse a 10-year decline in our profitability.”

Verizon is pressing its unionized workers to begin contributing to their health care premiums, proposing that workers pay $1,300 to $3,000 for family coverage, depending on the plan. The company says the contributions are similar to those made by its 135,000 nonunion employees.

Verizon also wants to make it easier to lay off workers without having to buy them out and wants to tie raises more closely to job performance, denying annual raises to subpar performers.

The company also has called for freezing pensions for current employees and eliminating traditional pensions for future workers, while making its 401(k) plans somewhat more generous for both groups. It would also like to limit sick days to five a year, as opposed to the current policy, which company officials say sets no limit.

“Verizon has put on the table the most aggressive set of contract demands we’ve ever seen,” said Robert Master, a spokesman for the communications workers. “From our perspective, this hugely profitable company that made $20 billion over the last four years, despite the worst economy in 75 years, seems determined to turn tens of thousands of secure middle-class jobs into lower-wage, much less secure jobs.”

The union has sought to put Verizon on the defensive, repeatedly highlighting that its top five executives received a total of $258 million, including stock options, over the last four years. The union is planning a big protest Saturday outside Verizon’s headquarters in Lower Manhattan.

“I’m not a financial wizard, but if you can afford to pay a C.E.O. millions a year, then how can you ask workers to slash their benefits?” said Paula M. Vinciguerra, president of the communications’ workers’ local on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. “I was raised with the idea of shared sacrifice.”

Verizon said many field technicians earned $95,000 a year, including overtime, with an additional $50,000 in benefits. But union officials said the field technicians and call center workers generally earned $29 to $37 an hour, translating to $60,000 to $77,000 for a full-time worker, with benefits worth an additional $25,000 a year.

The Verizon contracts that expire at 12:01 a.m. Aug. 7 cover nearly 45,000 workers, from Massachusetts to Virginia, including thousands of Verizon employees in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. That union is holding a separate strike authorization vote.

Jim Spillane, a spokesman for the electrical workers, declined to comment on Verizon’s proposals or the contract talks.

The crux of the clash is Verizon’s financial health. The company says the wireline division is struggling, while the union says Verizon’s overall business is thriving.

Craig Moffett, a telecommunications analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, said: “It’s hard to argue with Verizon’s basic premise that the wireline business is a troubled business. They are going to have to find ways to shrink that business to maintain any semblance of viability.”

Last year, Verizon’s wireline division trimmed its work force by buying out 11,900 workers. Its wireline operations — which include home phones and FiOS — had revenues of $41.2 billion last year, down 2.9 percent from the previous year. At Verizon Wireless, a joint venture with Vodafone Group, a British company, revenue was $63.4 billion, a 5.1 percent increase over the previous year.

Verizon reported that its wireline operating income was $606 million for the first six months of this year, compared with $9.0 billion at Verizon Wireless.

Jeff Kagan, founder of a telecommunications research company in Atlanta, said Verizon’s landline division had no competition until the last decade.

Verizon has lost business to wireless companies, to companies like Vonage and Skype and to cable television companies, many of them nonunion like Comcast and Time Warner, Mr. Kagan said. “When you have competition with companies that are not unionized, it’s a different world,” he said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=11e670036ffe5878e4edd41b327caa9d

Putin Questions W.T.O. Rules

MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia interrupted a speech by a deputy minister on Friday to sharply rebuke the man for suggesting that Moscow should abide by World Trade Organization rules on import tariffs.

Russia is not yet a member of the global trade group, but is applying to join. It was unclear how, if at all, Mr. Putin’s interjection would affect the delicate accession talks that seemed close to success.

Both U.S. and European Union officials say Russia has met nearly all requirements for entry after cracking down on optical disc piracy, agreeing to stricter rules against counterfeiting pharmaceuticals and negotiating with Finland on tariffs for round-log timber exports, a particular sticking point.

So it came as a surprise when Mr. Putin interrupted the speech by a deputy minister of economy, Andrei Klepach, to say he would order Russian officials not to obey W.T.O. rules.

Mr. Klepach had been talking about industrial electrical equipment, like turbines, saying Russian factories were struggling to compete with Chinese imports, and that officials could not raise tariffs because of the free trade commitments that Russia undertook while trying to join the W.T.O. Officials’ “hands are tied,” the deputy minister said.

Mr. Putin then burst out, using sharp language, saying that Russian officials should ignore the rules. “This is a direct order,” Mr. Putin said, according to a report on the meeting in St. Petersburg by the Interfax news agency.

“As soon as we start fulfilling W.T.O. obligations without being a member, they, our partners, will lose any wish to admit us,” Mr. Putin said. “Why the hell should they admit us, if we already observe everything?”

Mr. Putin has been known as a W.T.O. skeptic for years, though his government is negotiating for membership.

In 2009, when Russia seemed close to joining, Mr. Putin abruptly broke off talks and said Moscow would only join as part of a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Russia is now back to negotiating alone.

It has been a long process. Russia first applied to join the W.T.O.’s predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in 1993, and its application has been pending longer than any other member in the 153-country group, which sets rules for international trade. Investors say Russia’s stock market could get a bounce from membership as the economy will be seen as on track toward closer integration with the rest of the world.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/business/global/09wto.html?partner=rss&emc=rss