Union members say Jasper County is going to lose deputies

Union members say Jasper County is going to lose some good deputies on staff after negotiations with the board of supervisors ended at an impasse. Several union employees of AFSCME attended the Feb. 25 board meeting and were displeased with the county seemingly ending labor relations.

However, no further negotiations are going to take place, especially after the Jasper County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution for the fiscal year 2026 salary/hourly wages. The resolution states union employees covered under AFSCME and PPME will receive a 4 percent increase to their base wages.

Hourly non-bargaining employees and non-department head salaried workers are receiving a 2 percent increase to their base wages.

“If this is the best you can and will offer us, I’m just telling you guys on behalf of the sheriff’s office and right now what I’m hearing around the office, you guys will lose a lot of good deputies and a lot of solid deputies,” one union employee said to the board of supervisors. “And it’s going to fall back on you guys.”

Earlier this month, AFSCME rejected the proposal from the county, which had reduced the union contracts to base wages. In press releases, union leaders called it an “aggressive and targeted attack” that stripped members of their previous contract provisions and workplace protections.

Supervisors Chairman Brandon Talsma told Newton News the comments from the union were “grandiose” and “very vague.” He also argued many of the workplace protections and provisions have been added — or will be added — to county policy before the start of the new fiscal year. The union disputes this.

Craig Keith, president of AFSCME Local 2840, asked the board of supervisors to confirm that negotiations had concluded. Dennis Simon, director of human resources for Jasper County, said they had. Simon referenced an email sent from the county’s labor attorney that mentioned this was the last and final offer.

“So no counter offer was able to be given?” Keith asked.

Simon said, “It was explained when we met that was our best and final (offer).”

Collective bargaining rights have been limited ever since the Iowa Legislature made changes to Chapter 20. The state code was stripped down so that the only bargaining topic that can be discussed is wages. Other topics are permissive but whether or not they are negotiated is ultimately up to the individual employer.

Before the Iowa Legislature made changes to Chapter 20, Simon said the board was preparing for the worst. At the time, it was thought collective bargaining rights for public employees in Iowa would be eliminated entirely. In 2016, Wisconsin eliminated the ability to have public bargaining in general.

“The Iowa statehouse was looking at a very similar situation,” Simon said. “They revised Chapter 20 after that. But our board at that time wanted to provide some type of protection if public bargaining was eliminated. So now everything that’s in our contract is actually covered under the policy.”

Union members disputed this and said there are protections in the contract that are not in county policy. Talsma noted in the past seniority rights are not in policy. Simon said there are some specific rights to one area or another, but the county is in the process of drafting additional policies for approval before July 1.

“That’s exactly what one of the resolutions was on the agenda,” Talsma said.

Supervisors passed a resolution for longevity and shift differential pay, which affects both bargaining and non-bargaining hourly employees. The resolution provides supplemental pay for years of service. For five years of service, workers get an additional 50 cents per hour, up to $2 per hour for 20 years of service.

Adam Swihart of AFSCME Iowa Council 61 said there was no bargaining that took place and he argued the board provided no justification for reducing the contract to base wages. Swihart said he reached out to the county about meeting for another proposal, but by then it was too late. The county’s offer was final.

“I inquired last week about meeting for another proposal and I was given an email by Mike Galloway, the county labor attorney, that said, ’In case our position wasn’t clear, that was our last, best and final, so we have no reason to meet unless we’re at an impasse,’” Swihart said. “And that’s where we’re at.”

Swihart also disagreed with the union contract being cumbersome and hard to change, saying that no one in the union has come to them to change the contract except for the sheriff’s office that had issues that needed addressed. And they were fixed. But the sheriff’s office could face even more challenges now.

Swihart suggested the sheriff’s office will suffer since it has recruitment and retention problems. He said the direction the board is going is disappointing.

“But with the way politics work and the way elections work, I guess we should have seen it coming,” he said “The employees are frustrated and disappointed.”

Other union members wanted supervisors to explain themselves and asked if the end goal was to get rid of the unions. The supervisors didn’t give an answer.