Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Park staff and union members press board for higher pay and retention fixes
Summary
Multiple village employees and union representatives told trustees the village is suffering retention problems tied to low pay and high local living costs; an animal control officer said his 2025 take‑home pay left him unable to cover rent and urged compensation review.
Get email alerts on the Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the Jan. 13 village board meeting multiple current employees and union representatives urged Oak Park trustees to address staff retention and compensation.
Cassandra Adadiran, Community Relations Coordinator for the Villas of Oak Park, described the breadth of municipal services performed by union employees, saying “we matter and we care,” and asked for better pay and support to retain staff.
Shay Marshall, director of the State Municipalities Division at Local 73 and chief negotiator for the village units, said roughly half of represented staff have under five years’ tenure and attributed turnover to wages that fall short of local cost of living. Marshall said bargaining has been under way for about a year and asked trustees for support as negotiations continue.
Nick Meyer, who said he has a research background and is a village employee, urged trustees to consider cost‑of‑living differences when benchmarking salaries, noting Oak Park housing costs are higher than nearby communities.
Kyle Fortner, the village’s animal control officer, described a heavy workload and seasonal turnover in his role; he said his expected take‑home pay in 2025 per biweekly paycheck was about $13.44, which he said was insufficient to cover monthly rent and made the position unsustainable. He asked the board to reconsider how it values frontline positions such as his.
Trustees listened to the testimony and flagged the compensation and bargaining process as an area for ongoing staff reporting and board consideration. No formal personnel decisions were made at the meeting; the comments were recorded during the public comment period and will inform budget and bargaining discussions.
