Saturday, September 10, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS based upon the contract forums around the state
Please consider these before you vote!
Link to leaflet version of this document here.
Q: Many seem resigned to the idea that this is “the best we can do.” They cite the poor economy, that the Democrats have joined the Republicans to embrace austerity measures across the nation, or they say “the Governor is such a bully. But sometimes you just have to run away and hope to fight another day.” What do you say?
A: Consider the recent fight back campaign by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) against Verizon. Their members were vocal and stood strong and united and have succeeded in getting Verizon back to the bargaining table. We can have that same opportunity by voting no to go back to negotiate with the State. We will never be treated with respect if we don’t speak up for ourselves.
Q: But how bad has the bullying really been? Didn’t PEF endorse Cuomo for Governor and doesn’t that count for something?
A: True, the Governor negotiated in bad faith. He extended one hand to demand $450 million in recurring annual givebacks by public employees while he put up his other hand to protect New York’s millionaires from paying their share of taxes. But it was worse than that. At a contract forum meeting in Albany led by the Contract Team Chair, a PEF Vice President, it was revealed that two PEF officers and a PEF staff member were threatened with targeted layoffs. (PEF’s Secretary Treasurer confirmed this report.) The implications are alarming – for everyone involved.
Q: If PEF members don’t approve the contract, some say we will be blamed for any future layoffs. If we approve the contract then, at least, the coming layoffs will sit in the Governor’s lap. If you look at it this way, why vote “No”?
A: A layoff is a layoff is a layoff. It doesn’t matter if you’re a “round 1 targeted layoff,” or a “programmatic layoff,” or a SAGE Commission layoff, or just the innocent victim of a bully. Every layoff is the Governor’s. Our Union must fight to protect every member at all times from layoffs. Our position is NO LAYOFFS! PEF members are not responsible for the decisions that management makes with respect to the deployment of the workforce. A “No” vote is a vote to return to the bargaining table, nothing more.
In addition, the austerity measures lack justification. Layoffs spell a reverse economic stimulus, worsening unemployment. Public sector layoffs cause private sector layoffs. Also, public service has been downsized for decades while privatization of public services, at a much greater cost to taxpayers, has expanded. Plus, the wealthy and the corporations have enjoyed 30 years of successive tax breaks, shifting taxes to the middle class and the poor.
Q: Why are the PEF contract team meetings so demoralizing? What can we really do?
A: PEF members should vote on the merit of the proposals contained in the contract. It is not surprising that the contract team members can’t point out reasons to vote for an agreement based on threats and intimidation. The contract is full of givebacks and concessions and inserts language that sanctions layoffs for any reason other than the $450 million gap identified by the Governor when the budget was passed in April 2011. And even though we can see that the contract team is doing the best that it can, they were forced to negotiate against their own interests. They evidently saw no alternatives. Asserting this is “the best we can do” can not change the fact that this contract, if passed, will set dangerous precedents in givebacks, retirement benefits and layoffs. Vote on the merits of the contract! Act not from weakness and demoralization, but from strength and courage: we can only win respect if we stand up together and make each of our voices heard.
Q: Are furloughs now a reality in the lives of union public employees across the country? Have we opened ourselves up to additional furlough days (even in between contracts) now that furloughs have been introduced as an article in our contract?
A: “Furloughs” are a simply a clever pay cut. The work still has to get done. For the employer, at best, “furloughs” amount to a work speed-up. But at worst, the money the State spends to allow “furloughs” will end up costing the State even more. In the facilities that run 24-7, for example, covering furlough days will require paying overtime. But there is more. “Furloughs” are a dangerous precedent. Similar to what happened in prior contracts, when PEF agreed to move steps to reach top of grade from 3 to 5 to 7, the State will most likely seek increases in the number of furlough days in future contracts. Also, Article 21 (Deficit Reduction Leave/Workforce Reduction Limitation) is a new Article in the contract which now makes the discussion of furlough days a mandatory subject of bargaining in the next contract if this proposal is approved. We have no evidence to support the need for furloughs. Negotiations should include a good faith effort from the State to explore the cost cutting measures PEF provided in PEF’s Fact Sheets on the PEF website at www.pef.org. It is time for public employees to say NO FURLOUGHS!
Q: Will PEF members lose any benefits if the contract is defeated?
A: If PEF members reject the contract, we will maintain our current contract and the benefits in the 2007-2011 contract. This should protect us from the substantial losses we will suffer if the proposed contract ratifies.
Q: Doesn’t the state budget require givebacks and a 5-year contract?
A: New York State faced a $10 billion deficit at the start of 2011. The Governor used this to demand, through budget assumptions, that public employee union members owe givebacks totaling $450 million, recurring annually, so-called “workforce savings.” Now the state budget deficit is about $2 billion. Yet the Governor has not reduced his demand for “workforce savings.” If the Governor really thought the union members’ “share” of the deficit were less than 1/20th of the total, he would be now seeking under $100 million in givebacks.
PEF members have shared many ways in which the State can save money without reverting to layoffs. For example, this past year, the Tax department collected $600 million more than was budgeted. That amount alone can cover the Governor’s invention of “expected workforce savings.” And there is no reason for us to agree to 5 years, particularly an agreement that ignores cost of living increases. If the falling buying power of the dollar is considered, a “zero increase” is really a pay cut.
Q: Shouldn’t PEF members accept the contract since CSEA members have already agreed to essentially the same proposal?
A: The negative fiscal impact of this contract proposal is greater for PEF members than CSEA members. Two-thirds of CSEA members are below a grade 10 and thus are less impacted by the health care proposals. And yes, it is further distressing to think that the actions of CSEA seemed designed to leave PEF out in the cold. But to those who complain about how lonely we will feel if only PEF stands up to the Governor, we reply: no one will stand up with you if you won’t stand up for yourself!
Link to leaflet version of this document here.
Friday, September 2, 2011
3 printable flyers to share
(Links to pdf versions.)
1. Calling all PEF Members
2. Why I Voted "NO"
3. No Layoffs????? Think Again!!!
1. Calling all PEF Members
2. Why I Voted "NO"
3. No Layoffs????? Think Again!!!
No Contract is Better Than This Contract!
The following is the text of another flyer presently being distributed by a member of PEF. Click here for a pdf version.
What are the real costs for these concessions?
Summary of Givebacks for Top of Grade 18 with Family Insurance
For 2% inflation with 10% increase in health premiums
Does not include increased out-of-pocket medical expenses
(1) Current pay keeping up with 2% inflation – Proposed contract pay
For Grade 14: Total Loss for Proposed Contract - $19,223
For Grade 23: Total Loss for Proposed Contract - $27,987
What do we get from these concessions?
Not a guarantee against layoffs, but merely a layoff “pledge” that’s
Full of holes and exceptions (see Article 21 on other side) and incredibly
Binds PEF to agree to layoffs and not fight against layoffs!
Cuomo lied to the contract negotiating team about no layoffs during negotiations.
Cuomo is lying to us now about layoffs.
Cuomo’s only focus is to hurt state employees via
SAGE Commission (only goal is to eliminate state employees), Tier 6, Pension Reform, . . .
This PROPOSED CONTRACT does nothing but lower our standard of living while providing meaningless layoff chatter
Is This Fair to Your Family?
Remember all this pain & extortion is because Cuomo doesn’t want to tax Millionaires!
Vote No Against The Proposed Contract
NO LAYOFFS?????? Think again!!!
Proposed Contract for PEF Members - Excerpts
NEW Article 21 – Workforce Reduction Limitation
For Fiscal Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, employees shall be protected from layoffs resulting from the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the present need for $450 million in workforce savings.
For the term of the agreement, only material or unanticipated changes in the State's fiscal circumstances, financial plan or revenue will result in potential layoffs.
Workforce reductions due to the closure or restructuring of facilities, as authorized by legislation or Spending and Government Efficiency (SAGE) Commission determinations are excluded from these limitations.
{No authorization from Legislature needed}
Workforce Reduction Limitation Sideletter (For FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13:)
For layoffs resulting from facility closures and/or SAGE Commission actions announced subsequent to ratification of the Agreement, employees shall receive sixty (60) days notification prior to the effective date of the termination.
As a Commission, is the SAGE Commission unbiased/objective and the sole authority on proper or necessary consolidation? What actions are they limited to? Are they allowed to abolish smaller units such as Divisions, Bureaus and Sections?
For layoffs resulting from other changes in circumstances (separate from facility closures and/or SAGE Commission actions), employees shall receive thirty (30) days notification prior to the effective date of the termination.
The State will encourage agencies to utilize the Agency Reduction Transfer List (“ARTL”) process where appropriate and feasible?????. (PEF reserved right to challenge that ARTL currently is mandatory under Civil Service Law).
How enforceable are the words “encourage” or “appropriate” and “feasible” when defending your Civil Service job and rights to reappointment?
Could this affect you?
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm by Jimmy Vielkind, Capitol bureau
Click here for a pdf version of this flyer.
What are the real costs for these concessions?
Summary of Givebacks for Top of Grade 18 with Family Insurance
For 2% inflation with 10% increase in health premiums
Does not include increased out-of-pocket medical expenses
For Grade 14: Total Loss for Proposed Contract - $19,223
For Grade 23: Total Loss for Proposed Contract - $27,987
What do we get from these concessions?
Not a guarantee against layoffs, but merely a layoff “pledge” that’s
Full of holes and exceptions (see Article 21 on other side) and incredibly
Binds PEF to agree to layoffs and not fight against layoffs!
Cuomo lied to the contract negotiating team about no layoffs during negotiations.
Cuomo is lying to us now about layoffs.
Cuomo’s only focus is to hurt state employees via
SAGE Commission (only goal is to eliminate state employees), Tier 6, Pension Reform, . . .
This PROPOSED CONTRACT does nothing but lower our standard of living while providing meaningless layoff chatter
Is This Fair to Your Family?
Remember all this pain & extortion is because Cuomo doesn’t want to tax Millionaires!
Vote No Against The Proposed Contract
NO LAYOFFS?????? Think again!!!
Proposed Contract for PEF Members - Excerpts
NEW Article 21 – Workforce Reduction Limitation
For Fiscal Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, employees shall be protected from layoffs resulting from the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the present need for $450 million in workforce savings.
For the term of the agreement, only material or unanticipated changes in the State's fiscal circumstances, financial plan or revenue will result in potential layoffs.
Workforce reductions due to the closure or restructuring of facilities, as authorized by legislation or Spending and Government Efficiency (SAGE) Commission determinations are excluded from these limitations.
{No authorization from Legislature needed}
Workforce Reduction Limitation Sideletter (For FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13:)
For layoffs resulting from facility closures and/or SAGE Commission actions announced subsequent to ratification of the Agreement, employees shall receive sixty (60) days notification prior to the effective date of the termination.
As a Commission, is the SAGE Commission unbiased/objective and the sole authority on proper or necessary consolidation? What actions are they limited to? Are they allowed to abolish smaller units such as Divisions, Bureaus and Sections?
For layoffs resulting from other changes in circumstances (separate from facility closures and/or SAGE Commission actions), employees shall receive thirty (30) days notification prior to the effective date of the termination.
The State will encourage agencies to utilize the Agency Reduction Transfer List (“ARTL”) process where appropriate and feasible?????. (PEF reserved right to challenge that ARTL currently is mandatory under Civil Service Law).
How enforceable are the words “encourage” or “appropriate” and “feasible” when defending your Civil Service job and rights to reappointment?
Could this affect you?
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm by Jimmy Vielkind, Capitol bureau
Which agencies are on the consolidation block?
At the first meeting of the Spending and Government Efficiency Commission, two Cuomo administration staffers presented members with areas of focus, which they hope will scrutinize and make recommendations that “range from either some shared services along certain functions up to and including a potentially full consolidation,” according to Derek Utter, deputy director of agency redesign and efficiency.
Some agencies look ripe for consolidation. Others could share services. Here are the groups that are being looked at, which have some overlap in their missions and people who are served.
1) Department of Transportation, Thruway Authority and Bridge Authority
2) Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; Department of Environmental Conservation; coastal management at the Department of State
3) Office of Children and Family Services and Office of Temporary and Disability Services
4) Department of Economic Development and Empire State Development Corporation, which Utter said are already “functional merged.”
5) Department of Health, Office of Mental Health, Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, Office for People with Developmental Disabilities and the Office for the Aging. Oversight agencies include the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General and the Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for People with Disabilities
“When we look at whether there are any reorganization opportunities in the various areas, we’re trying to balance. There are some efficiencies that can be applied or some other form of cooperation, against the clear need to make sure that these very distinct core missions are not resolved,” Utter said, referencing OCFS and OTDA.
Click here for a pdf version of this flyer.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Why I Voted "No"
The following statement was provided to PEF members by an elected member of the PEF Executive Board, an explanation to his constituents. The author encourages people to share this document (pdf link here and at the bottom).
Why I Voted "No"
On Thursday, August 11, 2011, the PEF Executive Board decided by a vote of 85 to 38 to send the tentative contract to the membership for ratification. I voted “no” because I think that acceptance of this agreement is not in our best interest for the following reasons:
• While the current threatened layoffs may be cancelled if the contract is ratified, there is no guarantee against future layoffs.
• We are locked into a five year contract with no protection against future inflation.
• The five unpaid furlough days by the end of March 2012 would result in an approximately 4% pay cut spread over the remainder of the current fiscal year. For a Grade 18, there could be a decrease in pay of up to $1,300 by March 31, 2012.
• The change in the employee share of the cost of health insurance would increase your premium for family Empire Plan coverage by just under $1,000 per year, almost $5,000 over the term of the contract. For individual coverage, your premium would increase by around $425 per year, almost $2,000 over the contract.
• The Empire Plan out of network provider annual deductible would increase to $1,000 per person from the current $388. The maximum out of pocket would go from $1,069 to $3,000.
• Empire Plan prescription co-pays for a 90 day supply of a brand name drug would go from $30 to $50 and $70 to $90.
• Updated life expectancy tables would be used to determine the monthly value of unused sick leave for employees who retire on or after October 1, 2011. While the affect would vary based on your age, salary and amount of unused sick leave, for me it would increase my retiree health insurance cost by almost $40 per month or more than $8,000 over my life expectancy.
• According to a press release issued by the Governor’s Office, the proposed contract will result in almost $400 million in savings over the contract term. Based on 54,000 PEF members, this means that we are giving up over $7,000 a member.
While the majority of the Executive Board voted to send the contract to the membership, several Board members who voted “yes” have told me that they wanted to give their members a chance to vote but will campaign against it.
Ron Goldstein
The author represents members at the Department of Labor on the PEF Executive Board.
printable version available here
Why I Voted "No"
On Thursday, August 11, 2011, the PEF Executive Board decided by a vote of 85 to 38 to send the tentative contract to the membership for ratification. I voted “no” because I think that acceptance of this agreement is not in our best interest for the following reasons:
• While the current threatened layoffs may be cancelled if the contract is ratified, there is no guarantee against future layoffs.
• We are locked into a five year contract with no protection against future inflation.
• The five unpaid furlough days by the end of March 2012 would result in an approximately 4% pay cut spread over the remainder of the current fiscal year. For a Grade 18, there could be a decrease in pay of up to $1,300 by March 31, 2012.
• The change in the employee share of the cost of health insurance would increase your premium for family Empire Plan coverage by just under $1,000 per year, almost $5,000 over the term of the contract. For individual coverage, your premium would increase by around $425 per year, almost $2,000 over the contract.
• The Empire Plan out of network provider annual deductible would increase to $1,000 per person from the current $388. The maximum out of pocket would go from $1,069 to $3,000.
• Empire Plan prescription co-pays for a 90 day supply of a brand name drug would go from $30 to $50 and $70 to $90.
• Updated life expectancy tables would be used to determine the monthly value of unused sick leave for employees who retire on or after October 1, 2011. While the affect would vary based on your age, salary and amount of unused sick leave, for me it would increase my retiree health insurance cost by almost $40 per month or more than $8,000 over my life expectancy.
• According to a press release issued by the Governor’s Office, the proposed contract will result in almost $400 million in savings over the contract term. Based on 54,000 PEF members, this means that we are giving up over $7,000 a member.
While the majority of the Executive Board voted to send the contract to the membership, several Board members who voted “yes” have told me that they wanted to give their members a chance to vote but will campaign against it.
Ron Goldstein
The author represents members at the Department of Labor on the PEF Executive Board.
printable version available here
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Calling all PEF members!
If you're looking for an alternative to the tentative agreement - or even if you simply want to pause to evaluate the serious predicament we face - it is time to unite and work together. Consider this:
The Public Employees Federation was founded to represent the professional, scientific and technical workers of New York State. Our employment contract with the state ought to represent our interests. Soon you will receive a ballot asking for you to vote yes or no on a contract based upon the CSEA contract.
The Public Employees Federation was founded to represent the professional, scientific and technical workers of New York State. Our employment contract with the state ought to represent our interests. Soon you will receive a ballot asking for you to vote yes or no on a contract based upon the CSEA contract.
Please vote NO! This contract is not in the best interest of PEF members!
"No layoffs" must mean NO LAYOFFS
(Proposed contract language in fact protects the governor's power to lay off PEF members.)
5 years is TOO LONG for this contract
(Economic and political circumstances will change.)
Dramatic increases in our health care costs amount to A PAY CUT, A GIVEBACK
(All benefits amount to foregone wages.)
The contract must PROTECT OUR RETIREMENT BENEFITS
(To justify a proposed cut in retiree health benefits, we stand accused of living too long!)
The "furlough days" in fiscal year 2011-2012 are simply a GIVEBACK
(Biweekly compensation will be cut by nearly 4% for 13 pay periods to pay for the “furlough.”)
The givebacks in the contract have been presented as a trade-off, a way to prevent layoffs. But even if we ratify this contract, we will face the prospect of layoffs. Layoffs of PEF members are happening right now!
The Governor has given PEF and the other unions a false choice: givebacks or layoffs. To accept this false choice is to embrace concession bargaining at its worst. If we accept this false choice, we negotiate against ourselves, against our own interests. It is time to go back to the bargaining table.
In reality there is no reason to lay off New York's public servants in 2011 or 2012 or in the years to come. Decades of successive tax cuts for New York's millionaires and billionaires have trashed a once-progressive tax system and under-funded public service. And as the tax burden has been shifted to the middle class and the working poor, essential services have been contracted out to private profiteers, to the further detriment of public welfare. We, the professional, scientific and technical workers of the State understand better than anyone the harm this has done the health and education, safety and environment of New York. It is time for us to stand up and defend public service.
In reality there is no reason to lay off New York's public servants in 2011 or 2012 or in the years to come. Decades of successive tax cuts for New York's millionaires and billionaires have trashed a once-progressive tax system and under-funded public service. And as the tax burden has been shifted to the middle class and the working poor, essential services have been contracted out to private profiteers, to the further detriment of public welfare. We, the professional, scientific and technical workers of the State understand better than anyone the harm this has done the health and education, safety and environment of New York. It is time for us to stand up and defend public service.
Join PEF Professionals Reclaiming Our Union Decisions: PEF PROUD. We need to stand together to FIGHT EVERY LAYOFF while we demand a FAIR CONTRACT.
Email us: pefproud@gmail.com. Print and share: Link to PDF version here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)