Home Page Patrolment's Benevolent Association

PBA Newsletter
Volume 8 Number 1: January 2006

« Back to PBA Publications

CONTRACT

This is the first contract newsletter for the new round of bargaining. I want to begin by recapping the last round of bargaining, discussing the award, the opinion of the chair, Click here for insertand the concurring opinion, covering some of the same ground that I covered in the summer issue of the PBA magazine. I will then summarize some of the settlements reached with other City unions after the PBA Award and set forth the PBA position on collective bargaining and why the actions of certain other police unions threaten to undermine gains we have made in bargaining, and conclude with an update of developments in this round of PBA bargaining and a budget update.

CIVILIAN SETTLEMENT

The last round effectively began with the City’s settlement of an agreement with DC 37, the union representing over 100,000 employees holding various titles in various City agencies. The agreement provided for a 3-year contract of $1000 lump sum payment and a zero wage increase for year one, a 3% increase for year two and 1% increase for year three, or 4.17% compounded over 3 years. To achieve an additional 1% in the 3rd year of their contract, DC 37 agreed to a reduction of pay for new hires, a reduction in sick leave, a reduction in terminal leave and night shift differential and the elimination of a floating holiday. This settlement set the tone for the round, striking an agreement that many, including some in the media, said was “too favorable” for the City.

We took the position that, while the agreement may have been acceptable to DC 37 and its members, it did not begin to address the compensation issues for the Police Officers. Our view is that the agreements of other unions in this city should not dictate our bargaining, especially given the standard under PERB, which calls for police to police pay comparisons.

PBA BARGAINING

Nevertheless, as might be expected given past conduct, the City sought to have us accept in bargaining the civilian agreement. And we indicated in many ways, in many different venues, that what was acceptable to the civilian unions was not acceptable to Police Officers. We waged a media advertisement campaign, made public appearances too numerous to count, appeared on radio and TV, demonstrated at the Republican National Convention and picketed the Mayor at public appearances and other locations, including his residence, all to highlight our wage plight. While the City may not have been moved by our campaign, the public, press and ultimately the arbitrator heard our public arguments and we believe that the public campaign strengthened our position at PERB. Finally, with the City unwilling to move off of what was essentially the DC 37 package, offering in PERB mediation what we termed the 6 “insulting proposals,” we proceeded to PERB arbitration, as we had in the last round.

THE PBA AWARD AT PERB

On June 28, 2005, after 14 days of arbitration and numerous days of other hearings and meetings, an award was issued by the PERB panel in our 2002-2004 Contract Arbitration, ending a protracted round of bargaining that began in September 2002. As you know, this produced an award of 5% per year over two years, or 10.25% compounded. While we deserved much more and that was clearly proven in our arbitration hearings, this award represented a significant upward departure from anything offered by the City across the negotiating table or during the mediation process.

It also represented the second in as many rounds that an arbitrator has awarded amounts well in excess of the civilian settlement in New York City, reversing a trend that held Police Officers salaries down throughout the 1990’s and dramatically influenced in a negative way our current salary structure. By virtue of the last two rounds of bargaining, which included four years of 5% increases plus 1.5% in additional compensation, Police Officers have received approximately 23% in increases on a compounded basis.

In addition, the arbitrator wrote an opinion that addressed in a favorable manner issues that the PBA has been looking to have decided for the better part of two decades. With respect to the quality of our presentation, the arbitrator said the “case was tried with extraordinary skill.” He continued:

“[o]ver the almost fifty years I have practiced as an arbitrator in labor management disputes and as a labor practitioner in which I have heard and decided some 10,000 grievance cases and dozens of interest cases in New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Haven and Philadelphia, none have been as comprehensive, as detailed and as well tried as this instant matter.”

Significantly, he concluded that we needed 20% (or two additional 5% increases in the next round) to bring our pay more in line with other jurisdictions, but that he was limited by PERB’s two-year time frame. We will use that part of the decision, and other favorable statements and conclusions made by this arbitrator, and discussed more fully later, as a starting point in this round of bargaining.

With respect to future hires, the arbitrator implemented a new salary schedule that we frankly believe makes little sense in light of the already existing recruiting and retention difficulties. Notwithstanding City propaganda (and its amen chorus in certain other police unions), the idea to seek salary and benefit reductions from future hires was first raised by the City in bargaining, was pushed by the City in mediation, was outlined in two City Exhibits in arbitration, 150(A)-(E) and 151(A)-(E), some of which proposed an even lower starting salary, and was adopted by the arbitrator in fashioning his award at the behest of the City, over repeated objections by the PBA.

Our position from the outset through arbitration and deliberations was that the Department is in a crisis and is unable to recruit enough qualified candidates. The NYPD and the City disputed the PBA’s position and produced high ranking members of the Department to testify under oath that the NYPD has plenty of qualified candidates. That is the genesis of the future hire salary schedule — plain and simple. They asked for it and now they will need to live with it and try to recruit under it.

For current MOS, the Arbitrator removed the Personal Leave Day (“P.L.D.”) that was lost by other police unions in previous rounds and allowed 5 additional rescheduled tours, a change with little consequence since the Department does not currently come close to fully utilizing across our bargaining unit the 10 reschedulings allowed.

For current MOS and those hired in the July 2005 academy class, the new salary schedule is set forth below:

Academy 1st year - $40,658
  2nd year - $42,648
  3rd year - $44,145
  4th year - $46,240
  5th year - $47,526
  6th year - $59,588

With longevity, shift-differential, holiday pay and uniform allowance, an average officer at sixth year will receive just shy of $70,000 in compensation.

As to future hires, those who are appointed beginning January 2006, the following will be the salary schedule:

Academy - $25,100
After 6 months - $32,700
After 1.5 years - $34,000
After 2.5 years - $38,000
After 3.5 years - $41,500
After 4.5 years - $44,100
After 5.5 years - $59,588

THE PERB OPINION

As mentioned, the opinion of the chairman of the PERB panel was historic, securing for the PBA determinations that the union had sought for decades, including the following points, as described more fully in the PBA’s concurring opinion:

  • New York City’s Police Officers must be “among the highest paid in the nation” (the “Goldberg Panel standard”) but are not, and this standard controls in setting their “just and reasonable” compensation under PERB standards;
  • In applying this standard to the City’s Police Officers, the Taylor Law requires looking at Police Officers pay in both the 20 largest U.S. cities and higher-paying local jurisdictions in comparison to that of the City’s Police Officers;
  • In making the national pay comparisons, cost-of-living adjustments must be made because New York City is more costly to live in than other larger cities to which the City compares its Police Officers’ pay;
  • In making comparisons of police officer pay, any alleged differences in benefits that may favor the City’s Police are so insignificant as to be irrelevant. Specifically, alleged differences in pension plans, annuities, disability retirement legislation, medical and health coverage, the types of hours worked and charts used, and the relative amounts of overtime are to be disregarded;
  • A significant wage increase for New York City’s Police Officers is justified alone by the national pay comparisons of police officer pay in the 20 largest cities that the City refers to as being national comparators;
  • A significant wage increase for the City’s Police Officers is justified alone by pay comparisons of police officer pay in the highest-paying local jurisdictions;
  • The City’s Police Officers are the “Finest”, and this status is “relevant” in setting their pay.
  • The City’s Police Officers may not be compared to other New York City employees, and any such comparison is not relevant.
  • Compensation accepted by other City employees does not constrain the formulation or amount of Police Officer compensation under the Taylor Law.
  • There is neither merit nor factual support for the City’s fundamental position that the Panel is obligated to follow the City’s bargaining pattern absent a compelling reason not to, and that position is rejected in total;
  • Productivity enhancements and savings do not have to match the increases awarded over and above budgeted settlements with other groups of City employees;
  • The determination of pay raises for the City’s Police Officers and the City’s ability to pay them are not dependent upon and are independent of their impact on negotiations between the City and its other municipal unions. Their “impact on other negotiations” is not relevant in determining the Police Officers’ pay raises;
  • In viewing the City’s ability to pay raises to its Police Officers, the City’s fiscal year revenues in excess of expenses is what counts, and the City’s roll-over of that surplus to the next fiscal year is not relevant.
  • The City always projects large deficits and has balanced its budgets for decades despite unpredicted and unbudgeted payments it may be required to make.
  • The City has the ability to pay market-level salaries to Police Officers, to correct market pay inequities and to pay the huge increases needed to satisfy the Goldberg Panel standard referred to above; and
  • Retroactive pay raises of no less than 20% are justified and warranted for New York City’s Police Officers.

Significantly, this was the first panel to recognize the difference between the standards applied at PERB versus that applied by the Office of Collective Bargaining. The standard set is a market standard, or a comparison of police wages in New York City with police wages in the top 20 cities (adjusted for cost of living) and Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Yonkers, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Port Authority, New York State Troopers and MTA Police. Given that we continue to lag behind these jurisdictions, future negotiations or arbitrations should be focused on how to raise our wages to place us “among the highest paid” Police Officers in the country – the objective recognized by this panel as the proper level of pay for New York City Police Officers.

IS THE PERB FIGHT WORTH IT?

To recap briefly, during negotiations, we were offered the DC 37 core package of 0 ($1,000 cash payment), 3% and 1% over three years. During mediation, we were offered the same packages described to you in our newsletter of July 2004, the so-called “insulting proposals.” In arbitration, the City continued to look for draconian givebacks.

The PERB award represented a 7.25 % greater increase than the civilian deal. Using the City’s own figures for the value of a 1% raise, this represents in excess of $180 Million in additional value for our current members.

In addition, under this award, retroactive checks were significantly greater than they would have been under the DC 37 settlement. For example, at Basic Max, without overtime, night differential and holiday pay – our members received approximately $13,782 – gross, as opposed to approximately $3,243, which was the retroactive monies we would have received under the City’s final offer. Of course, with overtime, many officers received upwards of $20,000 or more in retroactive monies, amounts that would not have been achieved under the civilian agreement.

In short, PERB, while not without its significant faults and limitations, allowed us to gain in bargaining amounts well in excess of the last offer in mediation. Absent our fight at PERB, NO City union would have received more than 0% ($1,000 lump sum) and 3% over two years, the civilian settlement.

OTHER SETTLEMENTS IN THE LAST ROUND

Since our PERB award, the City reached settlements with other city unions, including the DEA, which was alluded to above. Again, while other unions should do what they feel is best for their members, we believe our arbitration award largely eclipsed those settlements. We recite below components of those agreements that were reported publicly, though we have not yet been provided by the City with all the “official” terms and costings for these agreements.

COBA

This first settlement was with the Correction Officers Union. It provides the following:

  • 10.25% over 27 months, rather than 24 months, or effectively 3 months of zeros when compared to the PBA settlement.
  • A new salary schedule for its new hires with a starting rate of $25,100, similar to our schedule for new hires as of January 2006.
  • The elimination of the annual personal leave day for all employees.
  • A two-day per year reduction in the number of annual leave days for new hires, or a loss of ten (10) days.
  • A contractual change in the scheduling of vacations that will serve to reduce overtime.
  • A change in the military leave practices to make them similar to other agencies.

As a result of this contract and the last contract, correction officers (COBA) are now 9 months behind the Police Officers in their wage increases, effectively altering what the City has described as the longterm and historic parity relationship between Police Officers and correction officers.

UFT

The second settlement was with the teachers, which was ultimately ratified by 63% of its members. Its major features are as follows:

  • A term of 52 months or 4 years and 4 months;
  • Wage increases of 14.25% over that 4 year, 4 month period compounded to 15% or about 3.4+ % per year;
  • Significantly, we understand that this settlement only provides for limited retroactive pay for teachers. For teachers who are still active, they may receive between $2,000 to upwards of $5,000 for those with the most seniority, but far less than the retro received by our members.
  • Also notable is what the teachers received in the last 3 years of their contract, since we are still without a contract for that period. Effective 12/01/04, they received 3.5%. Effective 11/01/2005, they will receive 5.5%, and effective 10/1/2006, they will receive 3.25%. While we have not yet seen the costing sheets to determine what percentages of those raises, if any, were funded through productivity, it has been reported by the Citizens Budget Commission that the 3.25% raise in the 4th year was not funded by any productivity.
  • Other significant terms of the settlement include that the teachers’ school day will be extended by 10 minutes.
  • All teachers will work 2-3 extra days.
  • Seniority rights will end for teachers looking to bump teachers having less seniority from their positions.
  • Negative personnel evaluations are no longer subject to challenge.
  • Teachers charged with sexual misconduct will automatically be suspended without pay.
  • Finally, the parties agreed jointly to seek legislation to set the retirement age for pension at 25/55.

Sanitation

On October 12, the Uniformed Sanitationmen reached a tentative agreement with the City. The deal was for almost 52 months (51 months, 7 days). It provides for:

Effective 11/23/02 - 5%
Effective 11/23/03 - 5%
Effective 03/02/05 - 3%
Effective 03/02/06 - 3.15%
  • Extended contract by 3½ months or almost 3½ months of zero increases - (November 23, 2004 - March 2005)
  • A new starting salary schedule similar to the PBA, which puts their first step around $26,000.
  • A change from two-person to a one-person crew on certain vehicles (one person truck gets $80 extra in pay).
  • Increase in average tonnage per truck shift in refuse collection and recycling.
  • New performance measures for attaining savings from trucks “dumping on shift,” rather than overtime.
  • 83 increase for the Health and Welfare Fund (effective 11/23/04)
  • 100 for uniform allowance (effective 11/23/05)

Sergeants

  • The term is from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2005, or two years.
  • Effective June 1, 2003 - 5%
  • Effective June 1, 2004 - 5%
  • Added extra salary step and stretch-out to four years to top pay and a reduction in base pay to $61,093 for a first year sergeant.
1st Step - $61,093
2nd Step - $61,250
3rd Step - $61,500
4th Step - $62,500
5th Step - $76,413
  • Five additional reschedules.
  • Range day on RDO.
  • 6 named rescheduling days in contract will follow the detective’s rules.

Firefighters

  • 50 month deal
  • Effective June 1, 2002 - 5%
  • Effective June 1, 2003- 5%
  • Effective August 1, 2004 - 3%
  • Effective August 1, 2005 - 3.15%
  • Extended contract by two months - or 2 months of zero.
  • New Salary Schedule for NEW HIRES which includes lower salaries from $36,000 to $25,100 and 5 ½ year stretch out to top pay.
  • Right to schedule firefighters to non-firefighting duties.
  • Agreement to seek legislation to amend law that allows one to leave the NYPD or corrections and carry seniority rights over to the FDNY.
  • $100 increase to Health and Welfare funds, effective January 1, 2005.
  • $100 increase in uniform allowance effective August 2005.
  • UFA agreed to withdraw 12 arbitrations and litigations.
  • Extension of Roster staffing by five years (minimum manning).
  • UFA agreed not to increase first two steps of the new salary schedule by 3% and 3.15% increase in the 3rd and 4th years of their contract as provided to more senior members of their unit - Freeze of first two steps of the salary schedule in years 3 and 4.
  • One extra 15 hour tour (or almost 2 police officer days).

DEA

Finally, on November 2, the DEA and the City announced a tentative agreement that was recently rejected by the membership, which provided for the following:

  • 48 month Agreement
  • 5% increase - Effective February 15, 2004.
  • 5% increase - Effective February 15, 2005
  • 3% increase - Effective February 15, 2006
  • 3.15% increase - Effective February 15, 2007
  • New steps and stretch-out to 7 years to reach top pay.
  • New Salary Schedule effective January 1, 2006
  • Entry - $60,500
    After 1 year - $60,800
    After 2 years - $61,100
    After 3 years - $61,400
    After 4 years - $61,700
    After 5 years - $62,000
    After 6 years - $67,992
  • Annuity will be reduced for new detectives until they reach top pay.
  • 1st and 2nd Grade Detectives will take 2 years to reach top pay.
  • Detectives working a 5 X 2 chart will work 8 hours, 33 minutes or 18 extra minutes. Those working 8 hours, 10 minute tours will work 23 extra minutes. Hours for these Detectives will rise from 2088.6 to a 2163.15 annually.
  • Detectives will qualify at the range on an RDO or on Comp. time.
  • The Welfare Fund contributions will be reduced by $30.
  • Civil legal fund will be reduced by $50 per member.

Not surprisingly, this proposed settlement was rejected by detectives by a vote of 1946 opposed to 1835 in favor.

First, in examining all of these settlements, it appears that the PBA still has one of the most favorable settlements in this round of bargaining. While the other unions did what they needed to do to match our raises, all settlements involved the working of more hours or giving substantial new productivity. Looking at the new salary schedules for the other police groups, it is apparent that compression has resulted in the basic salaries at certain steps between Police Officers and other ranks. For example, under the proposed settlement that was rejected by rank and file detectives, the entry level third grade detective working 5 x 2 schedule would have made $60,500, but would have worked 2163 hours (not including RDO range day) a year. The hourly pay for entry level detectives would have been less than Police Officers at basic max because Police Officers will work fewer hours. The effects would have become greater when we settled future contracts since the detectives would have been contracted until February 2008, which may represent four more contract increases (or two, two-year contract periods) for the PBA.

However, also notable in these settlements is that all of these groups, except the Sergeants, reached 4-year settlements, the last two years of which are for 3% and 3.15%, though the teachers have indicated that 3.25% was rate offered by the City for the last year, meaning that unions settling 3.15% amount appear to have conceded .10% to pay for compensation or benefits in another year. As reported in the media, through these settlements in years 3 and 4, the City is attempting to box us in for the new contract period. The extension of the UFA contract to expire on July 31, 2006, the same date a two-year PBA agreement would expire (the length of a contract awarded by PERB) is also designed by the City to strengthen its parity argument.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS ROUND OF BARGAINING

Turning to this round of bargaining, we spent the summer formulating our demands, meeting with the Contract Committee and sitting down with the City for our first session. Like the previous rounds, we continue to see wages as being the most important issue affecting our members. We have fashioned our wage proposal to pick up on the language and the standard set by the Goldberg Panel (and reiterated in the Schmertz Award) that we be “among the highest paid Police Officers in the nation” and in no event less than the current salary of Port Authority Police Officers, which at Basic Maximum is currently over $78,000, or over 30% more than our current basic maximum.

We also have asked for other increases in compensation in the areas of longevity, education pay, night shift differential, terrorist workload and risk premium and training incentive pay. In addition, we have asked for increased Health & Welfare Benefits, annuity contributions and uniform allowance. We have made a number of other proposals affecting health and safety, including minimum manning requirements and have reiterated a demand seeking the latest in vest technology.

On August 9, 2005, we began negotiations with the City and explained our demands. On September 20, 2005, we met again with the City for a second bargaining session. As anticipated, the City put their demands across the table, as well as commented on our demands. As far as the City’s demands go, not much has changed. The document includes the same Preamble paying lip service to the valuable work that we do. The one significant change is the City proposal on the salary schedule. The City has proposed that “there shall be a new salary schedule for Police Officers that will more appropriately reflect ratios between basic maximum salary and Sixth Grade, to be funded through increased productivity.”

While it is unclear what that proposal means in its entirety, the City did indicate that there was a desire to compress the steps of the salary schedule and it is also clear that they are again looking to fund any future wage increases through productivity savings. In other words, they need to fix the front end of the salary schedule, which they pushed the arbitrator to change in the last arbitration and they want to charge us for it. The rest of the city proposals are self explanatory and largely ones that we have seen in the past. We have copies of the city proposals, as well as our own, on the PBA website, NYCPBA.org.

The third negotiating session occurred on January 11th, where we provided our feedback and comments on the City’s proposals making clear that any City proposals seeking givebacks was moving in the wrong direction. We also expressed our desire to set up more detailed negotiations on the most important issues, wages, to determine whether the City is serious about reaching a negotiated settlement this round. We will keep you advised as those discussions proceed.

BUDGET

By all accounts, the fiscal news in the City, as well as the country, continues to be good. The modified financial plan for the City, released November 22, 2005, projects a surplus of $1.74 billion for fiscal year 2006. The Independent Budget Office and other sources predict even higher surpluses. As previously reported, the actual budget surplus for Fiscal Year 2005 was in excess of $3.5 million. Nevertheless, in typical fashion, the City estimates a budget deficit of $2.25 billion for Fiscal Year 2007, down from the $4.7 billion deficit projected last June. Significantly, however, is the fact that the City will have substantial surpluses for most, if not at all, of the period covering August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2006, the contract term referenced in our collective bargaining demands this round.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

CONCLUSION

As this round advances, I will continue to ask for your support and unity as we battle for the wages and other conditions of employment that we rightly deserve.

As we have seen from the contentious TWU strike, whose impact we will discuss more in the future, and the results of bargaining in the last round, the City will continue to seek major concessions in bargaining, including givebacks in our pension and health benefits. Everything we do in bargaining, including public relations and public demonstrations, has a purpose. We need to continue to educate the public and secure their support in our fight for fair pay. The public pays our salaries and we need to persuade them of the fairness of our demands.
I will keep you informed of our strategies and rationale for making the demands that we make so that you are fully versed to persuade the public of our arguments. I encourage you to familiarize yourselves in all the dynamics of bargaining in the City and with the PBA, in particular, and to publicly advocate our cause.

Although these requests of your time and efforts will no doubt inconvenience your lives, they are absolutely indispensable to our fight to secure a fair agreement. We are, as a union, no greater than our combined efforts. I am confident that with your support, we can continue to make advances forward to a fair salary and other terms and conditions of employment.

IN UNITY, WE WILL PREVAIL
Fraternally,
Patrick J. Lynch



Home

What's NewContract
PBA in the NewsPBA Press ReleasesPBA Publications
From Pat LynchContact UsGeneral CounselBenefitsFormsEmployment
Political ActionOutside LinksPhoto GalleryOffers & DiscountsIn Memoriam

What's New
Contract
PBA in the News
PBA Press Releases
PBA Publications
From Pat Lynch
Contact Us
General Counsel
Benefits
Forms
Employment
Political Action
Outside Links
Photo Gallery
Offers & Discounts
In Memoriam