ne of the handicaps we face in each round of contract negotiations is the very law that governs collective bargaining by municipal employees in New York State — that too often unfair piece of legislation known as the Taylor Law. Pat Lynch tackled the issue head on in April when he became the first PBA president ever to testify at City Council hearings on the Taylor Law. In that testimony he spotlighted the PBA’s many and varied problems with that law and pressed our continuing fight for a fair contract.

The media attention his testimony attracted, including lengthy coverage in The New York Times, achieved our goal of getting our message to the Council, other government officials and the public about the law’s deficiencies and about the inadequate compensation of New York City police officers.

In 35 minutes of testimony and a question-and-answer session, Mr. Lynch described to the Council this organization’s history with the Taylor Law, focusing for the most part on our experiences in interest arbitrations. In four of the last five bargaining rounds, Mr. Lynch testified, the PBA was forced to seek arbitration because the city had refused to bargain in good faith. He described the sham arbitrations that had been conducted before the Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB) in the 1990s and how Mayor Giuliani’s own Task Force on police-community relations had characterized those OCB proceedings as a “joke” and a “stacked deck.” He attributed principal responsibility for our lingering salary issues to an OCB process that could provide support to the city’s position that its entire workforce — and, more importantly, its police officers — could receive a 0% pay raise during a 3 1/2-year period in the 1990s when the city was financially prosperous.

For that reason, and because of the OCB’s complete lack of fairness in deciding proceedings where we allege that the city has violated labor laws, Mr. Lynch characterized the OCB as nothing more than an arm of the Mayor’s Office of Labor Relations that no longer served any useful purpose and should be abolished.

Mr. Lynch pointed to the PBA’s last PERB arbitration award as evidence that the entire system, while somewhat better at PERB, continues to be broken. He explained how that panel dramatically reduced rookie salaries when there was no justification for doing so and when even the police commissioner was not in favor of such an award.

He cited the practice of “pattern bargaining” as the leading cause of the problem. Even though it isn’t mentioned once in the Taylor Law criteria, it has become an issue that we have had to overcome in every arbitration. He called for reforms that would make it unlawful for any arbitrator to consider “pattern bargaining” in determining the award.

Mr. Lynch added that if current statutory criteria were fairly applied, based on the evidence presented, the system would function properly. Let each union prove their entitlement to increases, he urged. If that were done, he believes New York City police officers might finally receive what they rightly deserve under the Taylor-Law system.

He pointed to the interminable delays associated with the current bargaining process, in which there is absolutely no incentive for the city to reach a speedy agreement, or even a speedy impasse. He explained how the city likes to pick off the union that will settle for the cheapest and then try to apply that “pattern” to all the other unions regardless of their competitive situation or any other unique circumstances associated with that union.

Mr. Lynch proposed that the city be charged interest on all salary increases and other monetary benefits owed to PBA members, dating from the expiration of the prior collective agreement through the time that they get paid under the newly settled agreement. The interest rate should be 9%, which is the amount state courts normally levy on losing parties in cases where money is owed. The idea would be to deter the city from dragging its feet in contract negotiations. Anything less than 9 % and the city could still simply decide that it makes financial sense to hold on to the funds for long periods.

Rather than focusing on the new-hire salary, Mr. Lynch again called for significant increases in top pay. The PBA, he said, believes a fair top salary is how you recruit and retain qualified candidates.

The testimony had a dual effect: It brought considerable media coverage to the continuing problems with the Taylor Law, increasing the pressure to change the law at the state level. And it highlighted again the unfair wage system and the city’s inability to recruit and retain qualified candidates under such a system.

For the complete text of the Pat Lynch’s prepared testimony, go to NYCPBA.org.