
City officials warned the dozens of people assembled – who had turned out to protest contracts proposed by the city that include cuts to their benefits – that if some of them did not move into the hallway, the meeting could not proceed because the dense crowd violated the building’s fire code. When crowd members responded by chanting, “Shut it down!” the council did just that.


With the contracts of Biddeford’s public safety and public works employees having expired on June 30, the city is now seeking new contracts for them that include benefit cuts, such as the removal of retiree health insurance, a reduction in sick days – from 12 to six per year – and the elimination of accrued unused sick time.
Sgt. Philip Greenwood, chief steward of the union representing Biddeford’s police officers, said Monday that the city’s proposal is “a straight-up slap in (the) face, an insult,” especially considering that the city’s public safety and public works employees have asked for nothing more than “cost-of-living” increases over the last decade or so. But Michael Wing, the city’s negotiator, maintains Biddeford has for years been granting those employees more benefits than what is typical in the municipal sector.
“The city is concerned about retiree health insurance, excess sick leave accumulation and other employee benefits that are in excess of industry standards,” Wing wrote in an email Monday. “Maintaining these benefits at their present levels is an unfair burden which the taxpayers of Biddeford cannot afford.”
After Tuesday night’s short-lived meeting, Mayor Alan Casavant relayed a point similar to Wing’s, saying the city “just wants to have contracts that are fair,” with respect to city employees but also to the taxpayers.
Casavant also said he was displeased with the actions of the protesters – who before the meeting marched outside of City Hall with signs reading, “City of Biddeford unfair to Teamsters Local 340,” while loudly chanting, “What do we want? Contracts! When do we want them? Now!” The crowd later chanted the same words from inside the council chambers.
“I fully understand the frustration that they have,” said Casavant. “But I think that we also have to be allowed to conduct our city business, so their refusal to leave the room when it was clearly over capacity was problematic.”
On the other hand, Ray Cote, business agent for the Teamsters Local 340 labor union, said after the meeting that he believes the council could have gone on with the meeting but instead “took the easy way out” by ending it. Still, Cote said he felt the turnout of a large, rambunctious crowd sent a powerful message to city officials.
“We showed them that we’re all together and we’re going to fight all the way to the end,” he said as councilors filed out of the room.
Wing said Monday that the city and the unions representing its police officers and public works employees remain at an impasse over the contract negotiations, and the Maine Labor Relations Board will have to bring in a mediator to try to remedy the situation.
Although the union representing Biddeford’s firefighters had refused to meet with the city, citing the current lack of a fire chief and other circumstances, Casavant said he was notified Tuesday afternoon that the firefighters’ union would meet with the city sometime this month.
Professional Firefighters of Maine representative Gerry Gay predicted Tuesday that the nature of that meeting will be “intense,” but he hopes negotiations can still move forward.
“These are hard-working men and women who provide great service to the city and to demoralize the existing contracts is terrible,” said Gay. “There’s a lot of stuff going on in the city, and we need to just get back to the table and straighten this stuff out. That’s our goal.”
— Staff Writer Angelo J. Verzoni can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 329 or averzoni@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less