Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Support staff urge South Fayette board to raise pay, equalize health-care contributions amid stalled negotiations
Summary
Support staff representatives and residents told the South Fayette Township SD board the district’s support workers have gone more than a year without a new contract and that current health-care contribution rules force lower-paid support staff to pay more than other employees.
Support staff representatives and residents pressed the South Fayette Township SD Board of School Directors at its Jan. 27, 2025, meeting to resolve stalled contract talks and change how the district allocates health-care costs.
The comments came during the public-comment portion of the meeting, when Leslie Wilitz, president of ESF Support Staff, described negotiations that she said have lasted “for over a year” and criticized the district’s health-plan contribution structure. “Paying competitive wages will,” Wilitz said, arguing the district’s 1996 custodial step system and current health-care contributions hamper hiring and retention.
Wilitz said support staff employees contribute more to the Allegheny County Health Consortium than faculty and administrators and that some support positions working the same hours face higher contributions. “There’s not 1 faculty, administrator, school board, or community member that I have shared this information with who do not agree that this is a wrong and it should be made right,” she said.
An online commenter, Tara May of Meeting House Road, echoed Wilitz, saying her union negotiation team has “shown up to the meetings ready and willing to work” and asking the board “to present a fair and equitable contract.” May’s remarks were read into the record by district staff.
A board member responded during the meeting, saying the district “has made fair, reasonable offers that are competitive and more than competitive with other surrounding districts” and that negotiations will not be conducted in public. The board member said the district is “proceeding in good faith.”
No formal action on the contract was taken at the meeting. Board members did not set a public deadline or describe specific next steps during the session other than reiterating that negotiations will continue in private.
The public-comment segment and the board’s reply leave outstanding the central points raised by support staff: whether the district will change the contribution structure to the county health consortium and whether a contract will be finalized shortly.
