|
March
2007, Volume 9, Number 1
« Back to PBA
Publications
CONTRACT NEWSLETTER
SINCE WE WENT TO PRINT WITH THIS NEWSLETTER, The
Albany County Supreme Court rendered its decision on the City lawsuit,
see see below, seeking to appoint as the neutral
arbitrator the person who was responsible for handing down the disastrous
double zero award to NYC police officers in 1995-2000.
The Court sided with the PBA, which intervened in the lawsuit, and
dismissed the City’s petition. Agreeing with the PBA, the Court
specifically found that the process of appointing a neutral arbitrator
is a PERB Board function, not the function of an individual PERB employee.
Since PERB was not a party to the lawsuit, and the existing employees
have no authority to act absent a duly constituted Board (who are now
awaiting senate confirmation), the Court dismissed the City’s lawsuit. |
|
|
 This is the latest newsletter for this round of bargaining.
I want to begin by updating you on developments in bargaining,
summarize additional settlements of other unions, describe
for you favorable budget and finance news, and to discuss the
importance of our public relations efforts relative to collective
bargaining and why we have spent time and money in each of
the rounds of bargaining on such efforts. Some of this information
may have already been communicated to you through our contract
updates or delegate’s reports, but we wanted to set forth
in one place an update that brings us to the last step in the
process, the PERB arbitration.
NEGOTIATIONS SUMMARY
The PBA had been meeting with the City for some time, attempting
to reach an agreement at the table. While the climate in bargaining
had improved somewhat in this round, the substance did not change.
We continued to do everything in our power to reach a fair resolution
for the membership at the table. However, we would not compromise
on the fundamental issue of closing the salary gap with police
officers in surrounding jurisdictions. To achieve this goal,
the City needed to be a willing partner and negotiate in good
faith, taking concrete steps to move us forward to a market salary.
At the bargaining sessions, we essentially reiterated the PBA’s
position that any give back or demand that wages be paid for
with what the City calls “productivity” is unwarranted
and makes little sense, particularly in light of the differences
in our pay with that of police officers in surrounding communities.
On many of the proposals, we indicated to the City that we believe
it is heading in the wrong direction.
We let the City know that we must fix the wage problem in its
entirety, not just the front end of the salary schedule, and
that basic maximum salary (top pay) is the most important number.
We cited as an example supporting our position the Nassau County
P.D., which started its officers at $21,000 but tops off at over
$90,000 and has no recruiting or retention problem. We also proposed
that federal money for anti-terrorism work be used to provide
a terrorism premium for all of our members. (Such money can now
be used to fund salaries).
ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE PROPOSALS
At other meetings, we discussed in detail a number of our other
proposals. Each of these proposals would provide our members
with monies above and beyond any wage settlement. As explained
to the City, if they were interested in reaching a deal at
the table, the proposals discussed would provide the significant
raises needed to get an agreement done.
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE PAY
The first proposal discussed by the PBA was the PBA’s
Education and Experience Pay proposal. We pointed out that
the relationship between a well-educated and experienced police
officer and better performance has been long recognized, as
in the Zucotti Report in the 1980’s. (John Zucotti was
a former deputy mayor who investigated issues within the Department
and made recommendations in a report that garnered much attention.)
We stated that there were several programs existing around
the country providing education pay for police officers, but
that the PBA would like to see implemented a plan similar in
magnitude to that provided in Massachusetts, by way of the
Quinn Bill, which provides significant financial benefits to
its police officers. We said that as a result of the recruitment/retention
problem, the NYPD is reaching a point where something has to
be done to attract and retain quality officers, and that Education
Pay is recognized nationwide as a mutually productive way to
provide more compensation for police officers.
TERRORISM WORKLOAD AND SAFETY RISK PREMIUM
We then turned to the PBA’s Terrorism Workload and Safety
Risk Premium proposal. We explained that this type of pay exists
elsewhere and that in New York it is not only deserved but
should be multiplied. We pointed out that since 2003, the number
of hours spent on anti-terror training per year increased from
86,000 to over 315,000 and that we are the only City to suffer
from two strikes by international terrorists. Our members continue
to be sick, and unfortunately worse, from our last terrorist
attack. This responsibility, like no other, distinguishes our
responsibilities from other employees.
GAINSHARING FOR REDUCED STAFFING
We then introduced the PBA’s proposal for gainsharing
for reduced staffing. We indicated that using the 1999 benchmark
as representing the full complement of police officers, the
NYPD was approximately 10-15% below its proper staffing level.
Since each officer is now burdened not only by the extra work
that was formerly done by other officers, but also with increased
anti-terror responsibilities, it is proper to implement some
type of gainsharing measure to properly compensate PBA members.
This proposal would result in a significant increase for those
officers remaining. This program would not be unlike paying
sanitation workers extra money for going from 3-person to 2-person
trucks.
MODERN CHART
We then discussed the adoption of a modern chart. We showed
that the adoption of this proposal makes sense for economic
reasons and because it would also increase the morale of police
officers. The modern chart can generate savings and serve as
a funding source to put extra money into PBA members’ pockets.
SICK LEAVE
The next proposal discussed was the PBA’s Sick Leave
Incentive Proposal. We introduced the proposal as a positive
way of addressing sick leave utilization, allowing police officers
who voluntarily reduce (or who do not utilize the benefit — which
implicates many of our members) their amount of sick leave
taken to be financially incentivized. We cited the NYPD’s
statistic that a NYPD officer takes approximately 9.2 sick
days on average per year. That number is around seven when
LOD sick days are removed. We then added that Yonkers, Nassau
County, Suffolk County, and Boston all had sick leave incentive
programs of the type proposed by the PBA. We pointed out that
this proposal is an example of a way to increase productivity
through collective bargaining (albeit at the employee’s
option), a concept often touted by Mayor Bloomberg.
CITY’S RESPONSE
TO ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE PROPOSALS
We asked the City for specific responses to these proposals.
The City rejected each of these proposals out of hand, essentially
indicating that they had no desire to voluntarily give police
officers any additional monies.
As to the education proposal, the City said that it was management’s
right to set pre-employment requirements and that they had
no desire to pay additional monies for educated officers.
As to terrorism pay, the City said that everyone received the
terrorism training and it made no sense as a proposal for a
differential. Unbelievably, the City added that terrorism risks
were like computer training; now everyone needs to be computer
trained and that “the job of police officer has changed
over the years to conform to current conditions.” The
City saw no difference between computer training and the very
real risks we face from terrorism responsibilities and how
the training with respect to terrorism has different connotations
for both the members and the public and different benefits
and consequences for the City and its citizens.
As to the gainsharing based on reduced headcount, the City
stated, again incredibly, that it was not a benefit to the
City to be paying thousands of fewer police officers. They
also seemed to suggest that if headcount were increased, salaries
would need to be cut.
As to the modern chart, the City said that it was willing to
talk about this as part of an overall economic package. According
to the City, reducing the number of appearances will result
in a cost to the membership, an assertion that is belied by
its own document, which was introduced in evidence in the last
arbitration which valued the change resulting from one modern
chart at a 15% + savings for the City. (Incredibly, but not
surprisingly, one police union agreed to go to longer tours
with no corresponding benefit, despite the increased efficiencies
to the NYPD. We believe this was done by this other police
union, at the urging of the City, with the hope that it could
possibly serve to dissuade a PBA arbitrator from awarding police
officers extra monies to go to a modern chart. This is another
example of how other police unions’ actions negatively
affect our negotiations.)
As to the PBA’s sick leave proposal, the City explained
that sick leave is a benefit that an employee may only utilize
when sick and unable to work so the City saw no purpose in
paying any differential.
CITY’S RUSH TO ARBITRATION
The City then handed over its wage proposal, which is available
on our website. It is more of the same from the City in that
it simply chooses to deny the existence of a problem that is
destroying our job. It includes the DEA and LBA pattern of
3% and 3.15%, but no additional Health & Welfare monies,
uniform allowance, or any other item of compensation. It provides
that the new hires pay will be increased to $36,123, with moderate
increases at other steps. However, new hires would have to
give back 10 vacation days, 6 holidays, and reduced annuity
contributions of $100 through top pay.
We see no reason police officers should have to pay for any
wage increase and we believe this proposal does not do anything
to resolve our pay disparity with local police forces. On its
face, this proposal requires us to again pay for wage increases
with zero recognition of the gross wage disparities between
our compensation and those of police officers working in other,
local jurisdictions. In fact, given the recent raises in other
police departments, this proposal only puts us further behind.
At the June 28, 2006 session, the City put across the table
two proposals (one slightly modifying the original proposal
and costing delivered only weeks earlier), both patterned after
the DEA and LBA settlements, which called for raises of 3%
and 3.15% over two years and certain increases on the lower
salary steps in exchange for certain givebacks for new hires,
including 10 fewer vacation days, 6 fewer holidays and $100
less in annuity monies. These givebacks are very similar to
what the City was pushing in the last arbitration. We have
made copies of those proposals available on our website, nycpba.org.
We indicated to the City on June 28th that we would get back
to them with a counterproposal at the next negotiating session.
After the 4th of July weekend, or about one week later, we
learned from the media that the City was going to file for
impasse on the afternoon of July 7th. And, without waiting
for our counterproposal, the City filed for impasse.
For our part, we responded in writing that we did not believe
we were at impasse because the PBA had only recently received
the City’s wage demands and had not yet provided our
responsive proposal and that the City failed to engage in meaningful
negotiations. However, we stated that given the history of
the City’s failure to bargain with the PBA and the City’s
actions in this round that we supported the appointment of
a mediator.
THE CITY BARGAINED
IN BAD FAITH — AGAIN
On a separate track, we filed an improper practice accusing
the City of not bargaining in good faith in this round, similar
to all others since this administration took office. The
City said to us in bargaining — you get what other
police unions get and we are not interested in hearing from
you. Over the course of this round, they also failed to provide
us with the information we needed to bargain intelligently
on the issues. It is important that we publicly document
the City’s failure to bargain as required under law.
This failure to bargain, as a City strategy, goes back almost
twenty (20) years now. We need to continue to shed light
on the City’s unlawful practices that we see round
after round. This improper practice will not affect the timing
of the mediation or arbitration.
MEDIATION - A FUTILE EXERCISE
WITH AN UNWILLING,
UNINTERESTED AND UNGRATEFUL PARTNER
Shortly after we filed our response to the City’s impasse
filing, we received a notice from PERB, appointing Phil Maier
as mediator. Maier, an Administrative Law Judge at PERB, mediated
a number of the police and fire contracts in the last round
and presided over our PERB scoping proceeding (a proceeding
ancillary to the main arbitration that determines which contractual
proposals the arbitrator can hear) in the 2000-2002 round of
bargaining.
While we approached the mediation seriously, the City did not
move off of its pattern position. We met with the mediator
on two occasions — September 5th and September 29th.
It was clear that the mediator was trying to push a four year
deal. He emphasized that the City would not move off of a pattern
conforming deal for the first two years of a potential four
year agreement. In other words, the City would only offer the
below inflationary raise of 3% and 3.15% over the first two
years, consistent with the Lieutenant’s and DEA deal.
The City was willing to discuss the possibility of a four year
agreement, but did not offer a specific percentage increase
for years 3 and 4.
For our part, we did not reject outright the concept of a 4-year
deal. However, we laid out two interests that we needed addressed
in order to consider a 4-year deal:
Not surprisingly in light of past practices,
the City was unwilling to offer any alternatives to get
us to a market rate. They insisted that a deal be pattern
conforming and made no effort to address our competitive
pay issues. As a result of the wide gap that continued
to separate the parties, the PERB mediator concluded
that nothing further can be accomplished in mediation.
CITY CONTINUES ITS RUSH TO GET TO PERB
On October 24, the City filed a petition for interest arbitration.
This is the first time anyone can recall the City filing a
petition for interest arbitration, clearly demonstrating that
the City is not interested in resolving the issues at the table.
The PBA responded to the petition on November 22nd. These papers,
then, essentially framed the issues that will be decided by
the arbitration panel.
This will be the 5th time in 6 rounds that the City and the
PBA have gone to arbitration. While we believe it is better
to get a deal at the table, we will not compromise on the principal
that NYC police officers need to be moved toward a market rate
of pay. Below inflation raises do not move us towards our goal.
Why was the City rushing to get to PERB? One theory had it
that the City counted on the departing Pataki Administration
to leave the City a parting present — a one sided PERB
arbitration list — and that the City feared that the
incoming Spitzer administration might actually discharge its
responsibilities at PERB of ensuring a fair process.
Whether true or not, the PBA was later confronted with an unfair
arbitration list, as discussed later in this newsletter.
THE IMPENDING ARBITRATION
We will again use the firm of Kaye Scholer to present our arbitration.
Over the last two rounds, Kaye Scholer has done an excellent
job in presenting our case and in discrediting the City’s
arguments. The last arbitrator, who had 50 years of experience
in the business, complimented our counsel as putting on one
of the finest cases he had ever presided over. Kaye Scholer
has built up a significant knowledge base on issues that
affect our case, which we expect will be used to our advantage
in this arbitration. We expect the same solid performance
from them in this round.
Arrayed against us is the largest management side labor firm
in the world, Proskauer Rose, the City’s outside counsel.
The stakes are high and the City will not spare any expense
to defeat us in arbitration. Therefore, it is important that
we match the City’s skilled professionals, to the extent
that we can within our resources. It is noteworthy that each
additional 1 % raise for PBA members is valued at in excess
of $20 million to our membership. By virtue of our arbitration
awards in the last 2 rounds we have brought back to the membership
hundreds of millions of additional salary and benefits beyond
what was last offered at the table. That is what is at stake
in each arbitration and that is the prism through which we
consider the expenditure of union resources in arbitration.
Both parties have named their partial arbitrators. The PBA
has named Jay Waks, a senior partner at Kaye Scholer who tried
our 1st PERB arbitration and was our partial arbitrator in
the 2d PERB arbitration. His experience with the PBA and City
Labor negotiations goes back to the early 1970’s. He
understands the facts and law concerning our case like few
others.
For their part, the City has named Carol O’Blenes. She
is a retired partner of Proskauer, Rose, as mentioned, the
largest labor firm in the world. She was the City’s partial
arbitrator in the last arbitration and was the lead counsel
in all of the previous arbitrations against the PBA going back
to the 1990’s.
As we move through the process, we will keep you posted of
significant dates. In advising your members, we believe the
arbitration will likely play out over the first half of this
year, to be followed by briefing and deliberations by the panel.
And the timing could vary, depending on who the neutral arbitrator
is. For example, in the last round, we had 15 dates for arbitration
whereas in the 2000-2002 round we had 7 days. Also, the length
of time it takes to seat a PERB Board could impact the timing
of the arbitration, as explained later in this Newsletter.
THE PERB ARBITRATOR LIST CONTROVERSY
AND
WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT
PERB issued its list of 9 arbitrators in December, in advance
of the striking process. That process, if you recall, requires
each party to strike alternatively a name from the list of
9 until one arbitrator remains. That remaining arbitrator will
be our neutral arbitrator.
Prior to the issuance of the list, PERB had indicated that
no one would be included on the list who was objectionable
to the parties. Later, PERB indicated that, in putting together
the list, it had excluded from consideration any arbitrator
who had previously been involved in a PBA arbitration. We believe
that that rule was implemented for the first time in this round
to keep our past two PERB arbitrators from being considered,
likely at the City’s request. Prior to engaging in the
striking process, the PBA raised an objection to the list,
based on the fact that two of the nine arbitrators had sat
on a PBA panel in the past. To put it bluntly, the “deck
was stacked” unfairly against the PBA.
When PERB was informed by the PBA that two of the arbitrators
had in fact been on the panel that issued the disastrous double
zero award of 1995-2000, PERB’s representative first
said they shouldn’t be expected to know things that happened
15 years ago (actually 10 years, and 3 arbitrations ago). PERB
later took the position that, since the 1995-2000 proceeding
was an Office of Collective Bargaining arbitration, its rule
regarding disqualification did not apply. Still later, PERB
attempted to back away from the statement that it had such
a rule, even though a representative made the statement in
a discussion with up to 10 people.
We also learned that the list was put together by a staffer
rather than the PERB Board, as required by the language of
the PERB statute.
In any event, on December 27th, we raised the
deficiencies in the list in a conference call with PERB and
the City. We indicated that PERB should not go forward with
this list until we had an opportunity to challenge the PERB
staffer’s actions. However, at that time, actually by
day’s end on December 27th, there was no PERB Board.
The two remaining members resigned, the second of which was
effective that day.
As a result, and absent the existence of a Board, we were asked
by a PERB representative to brief these issues in a written
submission to PERB. The PBA filed its written challenges to
the list. The City filed a response, where they asked that
PERB appoint their 1 st choice as arbitrator and we filed a
written reply.
We have received no ruling on these issues. In the end, PERB
could either refashion the list to ensure compliance with its
stated rule or it could order us to participate in the striking
from the current list, in which case we will consider our various
legal alternatives, or it may support some other resolution.
While this issue was pending, the City sued PERB to have appointed
its choice of arbitrator. Not surprisingly, the City asked
the Court to appoint Arnold Zack, one of the arbitrators who
gave us Zeros in the 1995-2000 round. The PBA intervened (seeking
party status) in that action because the outcome of the proceeding
could have significant implications for the union.
On February 23, 2007, the parties argued the case before the
Court. The primary focus of the Court was the fact that PERB
had not yet acted and therefore the Court should not hear the
case. A decision has not yet been issued though we believe
the law supports the dismissal of the proceeding. As mentioned,
should the court case be dismissed, PERB (at least initially)
will end up resolving all the issues raised by the PBA’s
challenge.
Before concluding on this issue, I want to make sure that everyone
understands that we are breaking new ground here. No party
has ever objected on these grounds to the issuance of a proposed
list. So, there is certainly some uncertainty as to how this
all works out.
Why is this issue so important? To the PBA, the makeup of the
list is a fundamental issue going to the fairness of the process.
Why should the PBA have to use two strikes to eliminate arbitrators
who should not have even been on the list under the guidelines
PERB purported to apply? The swing of a single name could be
the difference between a good and bad arbitration award.
We have in the past, and will continue in the future, to take
a hard line where we feel we are not being treated fairly,
particularly in a process that means so much to this union
and its members.
BUDGET
The latest on the City budget is more positive news. The City’s
budget situation has never been better. In the latest plan,
the preliminary budget for Fiscal 2008, released by the Mayor
on January 25, 2007, the City is projecting for the current
and upcoming fiscal years the largest surpluses ever at this
point in the budget cycle.
The current fiscal year surplus is now estimated at $3.9 billion
and the upcoming fiscal 2008 budget is being proposed with
a surplus of $1.4 billion, both of which will increase when
the new budget is adopted in June. This is after adding over
$900 million in new spending and $1 billion in tax reductions.
These surpluses are on top of an unprecedented Fiscal 2006
surplus (our arbitration is for years 2004-06) that was really
$5.7 billion, although the City only reported $3.7 billion
(they didn’t count payments into reserves and deferrals
of revenue both of which will either reduce future expenditures
or increase revenue).
With part of that historic surplus, the City had established
a Retiree Health Benefit Trust Fund. The City ultimately put
$2 billion into the fund. This fund is purportedly to pay for
health and welfare benefits for retirees. The creation of this
fund in reality creates a $2 billion “Rainy Day” fund.
This is because each year’s expenditure for retiree health
and welfare funds is already in the budget. So, as reported
by the fiscal monitors, this fund enables the City to use $2
billion for any purpose without creating a budget deficit.
Clearly, the City has the ability to pay more for Police salaries.
The real story is they are choosing not to, as they have in
every budget for the past 20 years.
As stated above, the City is adding over $900 million to the
budget to be spent over the next eighteen months, most of which
will be spent in social services and children services. Furthermore,
the budget plans for the future add over $2 billion in new
spending for Fiscal years 2009 through 2011 and not a dime
to bring Police salaries in line with other jurisdictions.
SETTLEMENTS WITH OTHER UNIONS
UFA
SETTLEMENT (2007)
The City and the UFA have recently announced a tentative settlement
for the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2008. As reported
in our last newsletter, the UFA had previously settled a 50
month contract with yearly increases of 5%, 5%, 3% and 3.15%.
The contract provides for:
-
4% wage increase as of August 1, 2006
-
4% wage increase as of August 1, 2007
They also received an extra 1 1/2 % which has been
characterized as a uniformed differential and went to fund
the following items:
-
95% increase in chauffeur differential as of 9/1/07
-
$1,000 increase at each longevity step
-
An agreement to pick up certain LOD drugs (which we will
talk about in another segment)
-
$80 into their Retiree Welfare Fund as of July 31,
2008 and $1100 for Fire Marshall’s uniform allowance
as of that same date
-
They also agreed to support legislation to expand the number
of medical boards in exchange for a small credit.
-
The new hire schedule was increased at each step and the
stretch out to top pay was reduced from 5 1/2 years to 5
years.
These changes were fully funded by the following givebacks:
-
50% Reduction in NSD for first 5 years
-
6 fewer paid holidays for the first 5 years
-
Annuity reduction of $1,150 for the first 1 1/2 years.
If you recall this was just gained in the last round
because the City would not let them put the 3 and 3.15%
on the first 5 steps of the salary schedule.
-
The ordinary annuity of $1044 was eliminated for 5 years.
Finally, effective July 1, 2007, the UFA agreed to accept
a differential of 12% or a “Special assignment” differential
for certain employees in the following units: HazMat Company;
HazMat Battalian; Rescue Companies and Squads; and HazTech
Engines. We understand somewhere in the neighborhood of 400
firefighters will receive this differential. The criteria for
awarding the differential will be decided solely by the Department.
In commenting on the deal to the media, we expressed our congratulations
to the Firefighters but indicated that the deal was not sufficient
to address our wage problems, including the recruiting and
retention problems in the NYPD. Again, as mentioned previously
here, in the period of greatest prosperity for the City, we
believe that it is time to make up ground between our pay and
the pay of police officers in surrounding communities. Inflationary
raises or below do not do that.
Will the City try to use this settlement against us — absolutely.
For our part, we will need to show that the settlement does
not address our unique needs, as the Taylor Law requires. Also,
by settling contracts early for years beyond the two year period
covered by a PBA arbitration award, the City hopes to put pressure
on our members to settle for a raise they otherwise wouldn’t
accept. We need to continue to stay united as we move through
the arbitration process.
As to the probability of ratification by the UFA, the jury
is still out. One issue that seems to have aroused a lot of
comment is the differential, which treats certain firefighters
differently in the area of pay. We will keep you advised as
the tentative settlement winds its way through the UFA’s
internal ratification process.
Having seen one uniformed group settle, don’t be surprised
to see others falling all over each other to settle their own
agreements. We understand that members of the uniformed coalition
were unhappy with the UFA, but with the City looking to lock
some uniformed group up, it was all but inevitable that one
from this group would succumb, particularly given their past
actions.
DEA SETTLEMENT (from City costing)
Since we last wrote, the DEA reached a second agreement with
the City. If you recall, the first agreement was rejected
by the membership. This second agreement, which slightly
modified the first, was accepted by its membership. The terms
of the contract as gleaned from public sources are as follows:
-
A 49 1/2 month agreement or 4 years, 1 1/2 months. This
is an extension of 1.5 months from the previous agreement
and represents another 1.5 months of zeros. The new agreement
would expire on or about March 30, 2008, meaning they are
now fully 20 months behind the PBA, or just less than 2 full
years.
-
The agreement calls for increases of 5%, 5%, 3% and 3.15%
over that time period.
-
Those persons performing 8 hour 10 minute and 8 hour and
15 minute tours in a 5x2 chart will work 18 additional minutes
per tour. This amounts to approx. 73 to 75 hours of givebacks
to the City or, depending of the length of tour, approximately
9 extra days of work.
-
Similarly, those working a 4x2 detective chart will work
15 additional minutes per tour. This amounts to a giveback
of about 61 extra hours worked or almost 7.5 days of extra
work.
-
Uniform allowance will be increased by $140.
-
Newly promoted detectives will not reach top pay until
their 7th year. They will lose chart days and receive no
annuity until the 7th year, representing another $522 reduction
in pay for new detectives.
-
The DEA will lose $50 in the Civil Legal fund per member
per year.
As you can see, particularly with respect to the below inflationary
raises that were accepted in year 3 and 4, the Detectives deal
is not very attractive. Our last look at the Consumer Price
Index [CPI-U (NYC area) December 2005 from December 2004] showed
that inflation was at 3.6%, meaning that the raises accepted
for the years 3 and 4 are less than inflation, meaning members
will receive a real wage cut for that period.
The DEA/LBA deals were used by the City in negotiations to
limit the offer to the PBA and the City will attempt to use
them in arbitration to hurt us. Still worse was the fact that
the DEA increases for years 3 and 4 completely abandon the “uniformed
differential,” or monies uniformed unions had traditionally
received in excess of civilians in the last two rounds of bargaining
and at other times in the history of bargaining in the City.
At times, that amount has been as much as 1 % extra per year
and even higher for the PBA in the last few rounds. For the
last two years of the proposed contract, the DEA/LBA accepted
exactly what civilian groups had accepted.
Why has the DEA and LBA abandoned those extra monies and not
sought them in this round? I don’t have the answer, but
the City will argue that the DEA/LBA’s actions will bind
the PBA. However, the PBA will continue to push for amounts
that will satisfy the City’s obligations under the Taylor
Law, particularly where we continue to lag far behind other
local police jurisdictions in pay.
LBA SETTLEMENT (from City costing)
Term: June 16, 2003 – August 31, 2007
(25 months, 15 days)
General Wage Increase 6/16/03: 5% 6/16/04:
5% 7/31/05: 3% 7/31/06: 3.15%
Savings items (effective 6/16/2006)
- 5 additional rescheduled tours
- 6 named days – detective rules
- All new promotees work 8:35 and give up 13 chart days for
7 years
- Additional 10 minutes per tour
- LBA withdrew certain pending arbitrations
Cost Items (Effective 7/31/2007)
- $300 City contribution to 401K-type account
- $500 on step 2/$1000 on step 3 for Lieutenants SA/CDS
- $120 uniform allowance increase
- $427 lump sum annuity payment
CORRECTION OFFICERS SETTLEMENT (from City costing)
The Correction Officers also reached a settlement. The settlement
is a 27-month deal. They accepted raises of 3% and 3.15%
over 24 months. They then effectively took a zero for three
months and agreed to a cash payment of $1085. Other components
of the deal include a $100 increase in Uniform Allowance
per year and $475 for the Annuity Fund.
What they have essentially done is trade in a rate increase
for a one-time cash payment, which is not available in future
years and will not serve to compound future increases, add
to overtime payments or lead to a greater pension down the
road for retirees.
DC-37 SETTLEMENT (2005 Memorandum of Economic Agreement
Dated 9/29/06 and www.dc37.net)
Term: July
1, 2005 – March 2, 2008
General Wage Increase
7/1/05: 3.15%
8/1/06: 2% (compounded) 2/1/07: 4% (compounded)
Savings
Effective 9/29/2006, the appointment rate for newly hired employees
is 15% less than the incumbent minimum for the applicable title
on the date of appointment.
Additional Costs
-
“Additional Compensation Fund” to address
certain unique specific issues for each of the 56 locals
of DC-37 ( to be used for items such as recurring increments,
longevity, annuity, uniform allowance and assignment
differentials).
-
Effective July 1, 2006, an increase in the City’s
contribution to DC 37’s Welfare Fund by $100 per
annum as well as a one time payment of $166.67 for each
covered individual on 11/1/06.
Cost Neutral Items
-
Agreement to support legislation that would allow employees
to reside in counties contiguous to the five boroughs of
New York City.
-
Expansion of Transit Check program to include LIRR, LI
MTA buses and Metro North.
-
Salary Review Panel established to review selected titles
and occupational groups to determine salary adjustments or
other compensation modifications.
-
The parties agree to discuss pension matters in joint labor
management committee.
-
The parties agree to discuss cost-containment initiatives
and modifications to the City Health Benefits Program with
the Municipal Labor Committee consistent with past practice.
-
Privatization: Contracting Out/Contracting In: The City
will have advance discussions with the union before privatizing
any unit work, and the union shall have an opportunity to
make a formal proposal to the employer demonstrating that
the work should continue to be performed by its members.
The final determination of whether to contract out work remains
with the City.
UFT SETTLEMENT (Memorandum of Agreement
Dated 11/06/06)
Term: October
13, 2007- October 31, 2009
General Wage Increase
1/1/07: $750 lump sum payment (pensionable)
10/13/07: 2%
5/19/08: 5% (compounded)
Additional Costs
-
Effective May 19, 2008, Teachers receive $1000 longevity
from 5-10 years of service (longevity formerly began at 10
years for Teachers).
-
Effective May 19, 2008, Paraprofessionals receive $500
longevity from 5-15 years of service (longevity formerly
began at 10 years for Paras).
-
Effective October 13, 2007, increase of City contribution
to Welfare Fund by $100 per annum.
-
Effective May 1, 2008, a lump sum payment to the welfare
fund in the amount of $166.67 per member.
-
Effective October 21, 2009, an additional $35 rate
increase in the City’s contribution to the welfare
fund per member.
-
Effective May 19, 2008, an increase in the uniform allowance
payable to Supervisor of School Safety.
-
The DOE will increase by 12 the maximum number of sessions
of paid extracurricular activities for which compensation
will be provided to coaches and teachers in charge of various
athletic and extra-curricular activities.
Cost Neutral Items
- The parties agree to establish a voluntary new peer intervention
program to assist struggling tenured teachers.
UFOA SETTLEMENT (City of New York Press
Release)
Term: January
1, 2003 – March 19, 2007
General Wage Increase
1/1/03: 5% 1/1/04: 5% (compounded) 3/20/05: 3% (compounded)
3/20/06: 3.15% (compounded)
Savings
-
Modified salary schedule for promotees to Lieutenant and
Supervising Fire Marshall.
-
The Department will have the right to schedule an annual
eight hour training day at the straight time rate.
-
All fire officers designated “Special Assignment” or “surplus
officers” will be advised at least 48 hours prior to
a scheduled tour of the Department’s intent to
reschedule that tour. This intended to reduce overtime
expenses.
-
Effective April 1, 2006, there shall be a decrease
in the City’s contribution to the annuity fund
in the prorated amount of $261 per member.
-
The UFOA agrees to withdraw or discontinue pending litigation
against the City and the Fire Department.
-
During weeks where there is a holiday, all members who
would otherwise have a regular day off during that workweek
will be required to forego their regular day off.
-
Effective March 20, 2006, the Supervising Fire Marshall
classification will include a new Assignment Level II having
a certain salary per annum. The duty chart for this position
will have 8 hour tours and rescheduling without payment of
overtime is permitted. Level II Marshalls will receive compensatory
time in lieu of cash overtime.
Cost Neutral Items
- The Fire Commissioner now has the latitude to select from
among the employees in the civil service title of Deputy
Fire Chief in making the appointment to Chief of Department.
The parties agree to jointly support an amendment to the
Administrative Code to make this possible.
CORRECTION CAPTAINS SETTLEMENT (from
City costing)
Term: June
1, 2003 – December 15, 2007
General Wage Increase
6/1/03: 5%
6/1/04: 5%
11/11/05: 3%
11/11/06: 3.15%
Costs and Savings
- Range day on vacation day
- 5 fewer vacation days for all new hires
- First 6 years of service
- New promotee salary schedule
- Charge for delay in salary schedule
- 3 add’l work days for new promotees — first
5 years
- 6 additional work days — 6th year
- Military credit leave
- Captain academy to be paid at CO rate
- Vacation smoothing
Additional Items
- $389 annuity increase effective 11/11/2007
- Annuity funded by — Additional 1 month,
5 day contact extension starting 11/11/2007
STAFF NURSES (from City costing)
Term: March 16, 2003 – September
30, 2006
General Wage Increase
3/16/04: 3%
1/1/05: 2%
7/1/06: 3.28%
(Effective – July 1, 2006)
- 9 month contract extension
- Delay 3% – First wage increase by 2.5 months
- Credit Delay contract extension funding
- Lump Sum Converted to Rate
- Parity Changes and Contract Reforms
- Additions-to-Gross
- Eliminate Uniform Allowance
- No retroactive Payment for persons no longer employed
- Conversion of 3 holidays
- Sick Leave Citywide Credit
- Experience Schedule beginning January rather than on Anniversary
- New Annual Leave Schedule for New Hires
- No Accrual of vacation time for first 6 months – tied
to new schedule
- Charge for advancing 1% from 7/1/06 to 1/1/05
10/1/2006 through 11/30/2007
- GWI Effective (first day of new contract) 10/1/2006
- 2 month contract extension
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (EMS) (from City costing)
Term: July 1, 2002 – June 30, 2005
(02/05 — 36 month contract)
$1000 Lump Sum Cash Payment upon Ratification subject to certain
rules.
General Wage Increases
| |
7/1/03: |
3% |
| |
7/1/04: |
4% |
| |
7/1/05: |
3% |
Productivity savings effective: (4/1/06)
- Productivity charge moving 1% from 4/1/06 to 7/1/04
- EMT New hire salary reduction
- Paramedic salary proposal
- Annual leave stretch
- $800 Appl, trade in for those not completed 15 years service
- Citywide sick leave credit
- Recertification change from 3 to 5 years
- Heat Days
- Remainder Productivity for creation of a longevity
ANOTHER UNIFORMED COALITION?
On a separate front, we were informed that the Police Lieutenants
and the Uniformed Fire Officers Association have put together
a coalition for the next round of bargaining. Again, they
had invited all uniformed groups to participate, including
Corrections and Sanitation.
As in the past, we did not see how a group comprised of all
of these various unions would benefit the PBA in bargaining.
None of these unions is in the comparative position we are
in with police officers in other jurisdictions. For that reason,
we did not join this group. For a more detailed explanation
of our position on coalition bargaining, see the PBA’s
January 2006 Newsletter. And, as you know, the firefighters
untimately pulled out of this group and reached their own settlement.
THE PUBLIC DEBATE WITH OTHER POLICE UNIONS
In our last newsletter, in a departure from past practice,
we took on some of the other police union’s public
statements and criticisms with respect to the PBA’s
PERB award and our negotiations with the City.
This is very important. I feel we are at a crossroads in the
City with respect to bargaining for police officers. We had
a very favorable decision from a PERB arbitrator in the last
round and many other favorable developments since we took over
this union in 1999. Certain other police unions have acted
to return us to the dark days of the 1990’s by voluntarily
accepting patterns with civilians and by seeking to blame
others for their failure to fight for their members.
In the special pullout, we took on the other unions who have
chosen to publicly criticize our last PERB award in an attempt
to insulate themselves from scrutiny of their own members when
the reality is they and their memberships have benefited to
the tune of tens of millions of dollars from our efforts but
have never paid us a dime.
They also have endorsed a Mayor that has now announced that
he wants to diminish our pension benefits, degrade our health
and welfare benefits and pay us below inflationary raises.
They also have voluntarily abandoned gains that we have won
in bargaining for all police unions.
As that Newsletter concluded, the time has come for a change
in bargaining strategy by other City police unions. They are
hurting all of us. While they are marginally better off than
police officers vis-a-vis their comparable titles in other
jurisdictions, they still lag significantly behind the other
jurisdictions. Their bargaining strategies will ensure their
members’ poor stepchild status in the future.
Not surprisingly, our Newsletter produced responses from the
other police unions. Rather than debate the merits of the points
raised in our Newsletter about bargaining, the other unions
continue to maintain our getting them 7% above the civilian
pattern in the first two years of their contract is somehow
bad for them. In addition, I have not seen one of them justify
why a police union should voluntarily accept less than inflationary
raises (like they did in years 3 and 4 of their agreements)
when the City will have the largest surplus in its history.
This public debate with the other police unions will likely
continue and I encourage you to read and familiarize yourself
with the Newsletter so you can respond to any questions you
receive from others.
THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW
I want to address for a moment the importance of media and
public relations to our contract fight. The PBA spends a significant
amount of effort and some resources describing the rationale
that supports our demands for significant raises, publicizing
in detail what happens in contract negotiations with the City,
describing how NYC Police Officers’ compensation compares
to other police officers and workers, and getting into the
detail of other issues affecting our contract fight.
These efforts take the form of television, radio and newspaper
advertisements, appearances on talk shows, billboards, signs,
posters, bumper stickers, newsletters, rallies, Op-ed pieces,
our web-site and a number of other coordinated vehicles to
get our message out there. Are those measures worth all the
efforts? We think so. One recent event shows the importance
of our public relations efforts.
As you all know, the City has always had a powerful media machine,
but it has reached its most powerful point during this administration.
The Mayor, of course, is a billionaire who has earned his fortune
in part as a media player, and has otherwise extended his financial
clout through every realm of City life, including its news
rooms and editorial boards. At several points over the years,
on issues that were of critical importance to our members,
including contract, the City has been able to have pro-city
stories and editorials appear in multiple local newspapers
and media outlets on the same day.
In many areas, particularly contract, much of the media reports
merely parrot City propaganda and distortions. Some of these
stories and editorials are premised on the City’s belief
that if they could only get the word directly to our members,
that there would be support from the membership to accept below-inflation
proposals and givebacks. The Mayor believes that our members
like him and the only obstacle to our membership accepting
these poor proposals is the PBA, this Executive Board and the
delegate body.
Well, immediately after the City gave its 3%
and 3.15% proposal over the table, a story came out from the
City about the details of the proposal. That was followed,
like night follows day, by a NY Post editorial extolling the
virtues of the City’s offer and suggesting that we should
jump on it.
Just as quickly, the Post was inundated with letters to the
editor from our members and citizens alike, calling into question
the Post’s propaganda. In addition to my letter to the
Post, I recognized letters from our members taking the Post
to task for its editorial in a well reasoned way that gave
further exposure to our message.
This is not the first time we have seen this phenomenon. Whether
it is radio call-in shows or other letters to the editor, I
often see members, spouses, family members and just ordinary
citizens and taxpayers articulating our message and arguments.
That has been repeated on numerous occasions since that time.
That is one reason we will continue to spend the effort and
resources to keep our members and the public educated on the
real facts in contract bargaining. Our best allies in the fight
for fair pay is a well informed membership and a well informed
public.
As we have in every round, we will ramp up our public relations
campaign as we head toward arbitration. The campaign will consist
of various forms of media, including press conferences, media
buys, talk show appearances, and other efforts designed to
get our message out there. Just as hard as the City and Department
pushes the message that the NYPD’s recruitment and retention
crisis is about starting pay, we will continue to emphasize
our message that raising top pay is the single most important
factor in addressing the NYPD’s personnel problems. In
any event, the Taylor Law requires that each step of our schedule
be competitive.
THE CHIEF LEADER ADS
Those of you who are readers of the Chief Leader over the years
may have noticed there has been very little separation recently
between City management policy and propaganda and the editorial
and other views expressed in that paper. What was once the
so-called civil servants’ newspaper is now little more
than the public relations arm of the City of New York.
While the Chief has basically stood mute on the issue of the
inequities of our salaries at basic maximum, they have taken
shots at every effort the PBA has taken to ensure fairness
in the collective bargaining process. The Chief’s positions
against the rank and file go back to at least the 1980’s.
Now, the only thing new at the Chief is the degree to which
their so-called news stories and editorials mirror the words
and policies of management and the Office of Labor Relations.
To set the record straight and put our positions out there,
we have decided to buy a full page of the Chief on a periodic
basis and use it to advocate for our viewpoint, correct the
record when necessary and to raise issues that no other media
outlet will cover. This will not only serve to correct the
skewed news stories and the one-sided editorial policies of
the Chief, and to take on others who regularly side with management
against the PBA’s and its members interests, but also
to influence policymakers to side with us on issues important
to our membership.
Look for the PBA column in the coming issues.
THE PERB PROCESS
To reiterate, the PERB arbitration process will play out over
the future months. Because the issues pending before PERB,
and the uncertainty surrounding the question of when a PERB
Board will be appointed, it is difficult to predict with any
degree of certainty when the arbitration will go forward. We
will continue to push for a speedy resolution of our contract
issues, but will not sacrifice fairness in the process for
the sake of expediency. We will keep you updated throughout
that process.
CONCLUSION
As
we advance toward arbitration, I will continue to ask for
your support, unity and patience. In the end, the union is
only as strong as its membership. We need to stay united
and on message through the process, i.e., that we need to
be valued by the City and paid like police professionals.
IN UNITY,
WE WILL PREVAIL |
Fraternally,
Patrick J. Lynch
|
