All photos by Carl Varela

Q: WHAT WAS THE PERB DECISION?

You already know the basics: 5% and 5% over 24 months with a 1.5% additional compensation added on the last day that actually compounds out to an 11.75% raise. You know that it will be retroactive, with a payment of about $7,500 for those at top pay, plus retroactive for overtime earned since August 1, 2000. The contract also calls for increased Health and Welfare contributions by the city of a $350 lump sum payment and a $200 rate increase.

Q: WHEN WILL WE SEE THE MONEY?

Pat Lynch and the PBA board pressed the city to expedite your back pay with good success. The new rate of pay was in the Oct. 11 check. That's when you saw your base salary go up by 10%. The retroactive pay, including recalculation of overtime and night differential, will be in the Nov. 11 check. Unrelated to this PERB decision, an extra 2.5% in Increased Take Home Pay was in your Oct. 25 check.

Q: WHAT IS THE 1.5% ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION?

The 1.5% is an additional benefit worth about $30 million. The city wants to build up the starting pay. The PBA is arguing that it should be more fairly distributed. Negotiations with the city regarding this issue are continuing at this writing.

Q: HOW DO YOU THINK WE DID IN ARBITRATION?

We are disappointed in the outcome. The evidence we presented clearly proved our case. We believe that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center solidified our status as heroes in the hearts and minds of Americans. The arbitrator did not grant our 21.9% wage demand, calling it "a historic time in the history of New York….in modern memory there has never been a time when the city was so challenged to do more for people with fewer resources."

Click on the picture of Pat Lynch with Sopranos star James Gandolfini and United Firefighters Association President Steve Cassidy below for more pictures of rally.

Still, we were awarded a better contract than any other union. We broke the pattern for the first time, we didn't give anything back and we didn't do a self-financed raise with longer workdays. Look at Mayor Bloomberg's reaction to the decision. He was furious and let it show at his press briefing the day of the decision.

Q: THE MAYOR SAID WE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER? IS THAT TRUE?

The Mayor was angry with the contract because it contained what the city called "an unjustified deviation from the pattern" — in other words, pattern-breaking. He also tried to make you think that the PBA was turning down more money.

The Mayor did his best to try to make you think he would have given you a better deal. Well, we know the reality of his better deal and it stinks. The Mayor wanted us to work 10 extra tours generated by a 20-minute reduction in tour length for which we would have received only 2% above what the arbitrator awarded.

Our Times Square rally, in effect, told him what we thought of that deal. We work too hard and long as it is. There's no question the arbitrator heard your chants from Times Square and dropped the extra tours.

Q: WHY DID THE MAYOR THINK WE WOULD GO FOR 10 EXTRA APPEARANCES?

In truth, this Mayor simply doesn't understand the risks we take and the pressures we work under. He doesn't understand that 10 more appearances would only add to those risks and pressures. It's 10 more chances to become a line-of-duty statistic. It's 10 more days away from the families that we don't see enough already. And it's 10 more days when we can't work that extra job we need to support our families. Furthermore, the future reduction of headcount would make it even more difficult for us to get a day off when we really need or want it, again adding to our stress level and general dissatisfaction with the job.

Q: SO WHERE DID THE 10 EXTRA TOURS COME FROM?

We find the basis for the 10 extra tours goes back to the initial offer made by the city when they wanted to take us back to a chart system from many years ago with 253 appearances. Going to a chart system with shorter tours and more appearances flies in the face of modern policing. Departments around the nation are moving towards longer tours with fewer days worked. That arrangement provides for more officers to cover high-crime periods while giving officers more days at home with their families.

Q: WAS IT A PLOY TO MAKE US HAPPY TO TAKE LESS?

No, the Mayor really wanted those extra tours. They would allow the city to further reduce the PO headcount by about 1,000 police officers, saving the city about $50 million a year, increasing to as much as $70 million in the sixth year.

Mr. Bloomberg thought we'd jump at the chance to work the same number of hours for more money. It just shows you how out-of-touch with reality our billionaire Mayor is. Maybe next time, he'll ask first. Another theory is that the city wanted to "punish" the PBA for forcing it to go to PERB. If the city convinced the arbitrator that paying more money for the same number of hours would produce a productivity improvement, then they could have the arbitrator force us to work the 10 extra tours in his binding decision.

With that outcome, the city would also be sending a message to all unions: If you go to PERB, you'll wind up with a deal you'll hate. The city's motto would become, "Go to PERB, get more work days." That would have persuaded most unions to stay away from the state arbitration board, and that is exactly what the city wanted to happen.

Q: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF TOUR CHANGES AT ALL?

Yes, but not about more appearances. In fact, the neutral arbitrator had outlined a different deal for 30 months with some tour adjustments but no additional appearances. It would have given us a 17.5% package that we would have accepted on your behalf. But when our panel member indicated that he would accept it, the city backed off. And a contract longer than 24 months has to be accepted by both sides for PERB to enact it.

Q: WHY DID THE CITY REFUSE THE DEAL?

We don't know this for sure but suspect that the city realized that a 17.5% package would play publicly as 1% better than the teachers' contract, and they didn't want us to win big at PERB — that would only encourage other unions to take a shot there. The city doesn't want to loose control of the labor negotiations process and arguing a contract at PERB is very expensive. Legal costs and the cost of expert witnesses, economists and other professionals are steep. If every union went to PERB, the cost to the city to argue those cases would be astronomical.

Q: SO WHAT'S NEXT?

Once we have concluded the arbitration for the August 2000 to July 2002 contract — remember, we're still negotiating the 1.5% additional compensation — we can start negotiating our August-2002-to-July-2004 contract. In fact, we have already notified the city Office of Labor Relations that we're ready to begin negotiating our next contract.

Q: WHAT WILL HAPPEN THEN?

That depends entirely on the city's willingness to negotiate in good faith. We think we have a better chance for a real dialogue now because the city doesn’t want to go back to PERB. That might open the door for some honest negotiations, something we didn't have in the past.

Q: WILL WE GO TO PERB AGAIN?

If the city is willing to negotiate in good faith, we will not need to resort to PERB. If the city continues its past practices of bad-faith bargaining, then we can resort to the hard-won victory of taking the city to PERB immediately for arbitration. It's a good option to have in the poker game of negotiations.