|
March 3, 2006
PBA's Criticism Of DEA Pact Spurs Uproar
Lieut., Capt. Unions Join in Questioning Lynch's
Motives
By REUVEN BLAU
Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch has
issued literature in which he ripped the Detectives' Endowment Association's
decision to agree to a four-year contract and the bargaining tactics
of many of his police union colleagues.
 |
|
| MICHAEL J. PALLADINO: Infuriated by PBA. |
|
The four-page addendum attached to the PBA's latest newsletter,
titled "A Public Debate," has enraged the leaders of the
unions representing Detectives, Lieutenants, and Captains. They
contend that it is an indirect attempt by Mr. Lynch to torpedo the
DEA's tentative contract agreement, which is two years longer than
the PBA's most recent deal.
'Trying to Blow It Up'
"The PBA rhetoric is nothing but a veiled attempt to blow
up the DEA contract that went out for a vote today," charged
LBA President Anthony Garvey in a Feb. 22 phone interview.
DEA President Michael Palladino also blasted the letter, which
was posted on the PBA's Web site in an extended form, calling it
"a piece of trash."
Mr. Lynch denied that the newsletter - which was written after
an earlier DEA deal was narrowly voted down but before the revised
pact was reached - was designed to urge his delegates to lobby Detectives
to vote against the DEA contract, as Mr. Palladino and Mr. Garvey
asserted. "If we had wanted to sabotage the DEA's ratification
process, we would have gone public before the [earlier] contract
was submitted to - and rejected by - the DEA membership," Mr.
Lynch said in a statement.
The original DEA contract, which called for further givebacks from
incumbent officers and required many members to work lengthened
tours but exempted others, was rejected by 111 votes in December.
Ballots for the new deal are due to be counted March 15 by the American
Arbitration Association.
| |
 |
| |
PATRICK J. LYNCH: Says colleagues kiss up. |
By most accounts, the last two years of the DEA's current deal, which
provide 3 and 3.15 percent wage increases without any concessions,
if ratified will solidify a uniformed union pay pattern.
City negotiators have maintained that the pattern was already established
by the Uniformed Firefighters' Association's 50-month deal last
fall which provides the same raises of 3 percent and 3.15 percent
in the last 26 months. That contract was overwhelmingly ratified.
Mr. Lynch said in a statement last week that his newsletter was
in response to the "unprecedented and unwarranted public criticism
leveled first by the DEA and LBA of the PBA's arbitration awards."
Defended Pay Award
He defended the award issued under the aegis of the Public Employment
Relations Board in June, arguing that "while the adjustment
of salaries of new hires was entirely unmerited, the PERB award
was considerably better than the District Council 37 settlement."
The newsletter didn't mention that the uniformed supervisory unions
have been placed at a disadvantage by that award, which was financed
by drastically slashing the starting salary and pay scale for future
Police Officers and other concessions. Because police titles above
the entry rank have a lower attrition rate than Police Officers,
the city's savings from those unions' concessions would be less,
prompting the Bloomberg administration to demand added givebacks
from supervisory unions to even out the costs.
'Lynch Doesn't Realize'
"None of the secondary or supervisory unions have been able
to settle a deal because of the magnitude of these concessions,"
Mr. Palladino asserted. "I don't think Patty Lynch and the
PBA understand the impact that their decisions have on all city
workers."
He noted that many incumbent cops are against the modified DEA
deal, which stretches the pay scale for new Detectives and requires
them to work additional tours. "I've been going around the
city trying to educate our members about the contract, and the ones
who are most vehemently opposed to it are Pat Lynch's members who
aspire to become Detectives," he said. "Eyes are starting
to open up."
But Mr. Lynch maintained the PBA's arbitration awards have helped
the other unions. "It is ironic, indeed, that these unions
are disparaging an arbitration process that has resulted in tens
of millions of dollars in additional compensation to their members
in the last two rounds," he remarked. "As in the past,
their comments lead me to believe that these union leaders are singing
from the city's sheet of music."
'Created $25G Cops'
Mr. Palladino retorted, "Their decisions have created a $25,100
cop, fireman, Sanitation Worker, and Correction Officer, and effectively
injured the promotional process in the NYPD." He was referring
to the reduced starting pay that was ushered in by the PBA award.
The PBA letter also questioned the courage of the DEA and LBA leaders,
charging that they are afraid to challenge management. "When
was the last time you saw any of these unions publicly disagree
with an action of the department or city?" Mr. Lynch asked.
"Have you ever heard them say the pay of Detectives or Lieutenants
is not acceptable?"
Mr. Palladino defended what he described as a solid working relationship
with the "department's top brass." Those ties, he said,
enable him to better help his members with transfers, disciplinary
matters, and other issues.
The first page of the PBA letter cited a 1968 panel chaired by
former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, which stated
that New York City Police Officers should be among the highest-paid
cops in the country.
Other Side of the Ruling
 |
|
| TONY GARVEY: 'PBA just enriching lawyers.' |
|
Mr. Garvey, however, pointed out that page 24 of that panel's recommendation
notes the longstanding parity between cops and Firefighter salaries
in New York City. "Parity in compensation between firemen and
patrolmen has been a historic practice for 80 years," the panel
stated. "We find realistically that it should be maintained."
John F. Driscoll, the president of the Captains' Endowment Association,
said he would be "shocked if an arbitrator would upset the
pay parity between Police and Fire."
Mr. Garvey reiterated that the LBA is also looking to negotiate
a four-year deal similar to the UFA agreement and the proposed DEA
accord. The LBA, he added, has had continued talks with the city.
"They are progressing as expected," he said. "Any
time you are in negotiations, the issue of values is always a give-and-take
scenario, but at the end of the day people acting in good faith
can come to a resolution."
The PBA letter, however, questioned Mr. Garvey's statement last
year that the fire union deal would clarify his own options. "Why
would a police union leader make that statement?" Mr. Lynch
asked. "Has he surrendered his bargaining certificate? Why
doesn't he simply allow the fire union to negotiate his contract?"
Lynch: Doesn't Bind Me
Mr. Lynch has so far rejected the city's assertion that the PBA
must agree to similar contract terms, arguing that there is no established
pattern that his union or any other uniformed labor organization
must follow.
The PBA's letter contended that many police have been "bargaining
by cover" by accepting patterns established by other unions.
"It is all about being re-elected and not about doing what
is best for your members," the pullout pamphlet stated. "In
short, that discredited theory of bargaining is largely responsible
for the hole we find ourselves in now."
Mr. Palladino replied, "If there is no such thing as pattern
bargaining, then why is the PBA attempting to interfere with my
four-year deal?"
The letter, Mr. Garvey charged, was written by the PBA's attorneys,
"who stand to gain the most." He added, "The winners
in the PBA arbitration were the attorneys who participated in the
case and [PERB panel chair] Eric Schmertz, who was compensated $287,000
for the case."
Costs' Role in Dues Hike
The PERB hearings have cost the PBA millions of dollars in fees
for attorneys and expert witnesses. Last April, the PBA increased
its membership dues by $7 per paycheck, a 35-percent hike. Mr. Lynch
said that the raise was necessary to cover the cost of recent contract
arbitration hearings and to offset the loss of roughly 5,000 union
members since he took office in 1999.
In four of the past five rounds of bargaining, dating back to 1991,
the PBA's contract has been submitted to arbitration because of
stalled negotiations, with only a 1994 contract reached at the bargaining
table.
"I don't think they know how to negotiate a contract,"
Mr. Garvey charged.
The arbitration award issued last summer marked the second time
it had been conducted under the auspices of PERB. The two previous
arbitration awards were made by the city Board of Collective Bargaining.
PBA officials have claimed that they believe the Bloomberg administration
has been intentionally driving the union into arbitration in an
attempt to undermine the union's ability to negotiate in the future.
They also faulted the other police unions for not sharing in the
cost of the arbitrations.
'Never Offered Help'
"While benefiting from our PERB decisions, did they once offer
to assist financially?" the PBA literature asked.
Mr. Palladino countered, "I'm not impressed with his strategy.
First you gain peoples' trust, then you screw them, then you blame
them, then you would like us all to chip in for it, too?"
Messrs. Palladino and Garvey repeated a charge first made last
summer that Mr. Lynch reneged on a promise not to pursue an attrition-based
deal with the city, a vow he has denied making.
"The PBA leadership is untrustworthy," Mr. Garvey contended.
"In this business, your word is your bond." He continued,
"If he had said that he could not adopt those rules, I would
have adopted a different position this round of bargaining."
Mr. Palladino added, "How the hell can they blame the DEA
and LBA when [the PBA] started the ball rolling?"
Mixed View on Impact
Mr. Driscoll said he believed the PBA's letter would not affect
the DEA's contract vote. "I think this time it will pass comfortably,"
he remarked, noting that Mr. Palladino has visited most of his members'
work sites to discuss the details of the agreement.
But Mr. Garvey was worried. "It certainly could influence
the DEA deal," he said. "Why is someone commenting at
this sensitive time? It's just bad business."
Asked whether he was concerned that the PBA might meddle with his
yet-to-besettled deal, Mr. Garvey responded, "I've been under
attack by real bullets; I'm not going to be concerned with being
attacked with rhetoric."

|