This is a post today on the PEF Facebook page. PEF (this is the official website) is the Public Employees Federation, which is the second largest employee union of New York public employees. The larger union is CSEA, Civil Service Employees Association.
Both unions are in the midst of negotiating a contract with New York. As has taken place in Wisconsin, California and other states, there is a new reality. To use the vernacular, the paradigm has shifted. No longer are unions feared. There are new fiscal constraints, caused partly by the economy, partly by fanning the flames of public discontent with state workers, partly by the politicians working (SURPRISE!) for their own interests. And partly by the public sector workers themselves. It is a stew of blame, and frankly, it tastes terrible. Welcome to the world of 2011.
Admittedly, this posting is self-serving. But read it, comment, and watch for a local version of this coming to a state near you.
"I have never been a big fan of labor unions, and the current proposal is just another reason why. In this statement I want to differentiate between the union membership and the union hierarchy. Historically, unions were needed to protect workers, and that mission has not ended. However, they, along with policy makers continue to hit new lows in the name of progress. It has been shown time and time again that union leaders are just as guilty of poor judgement, poor policy and incessant babble as anyone in management. PEF, as an organization, is displaying the mirror image of the Governor's public image - all sound bites and attacks, rather than both sides setting serious about the shape the state is in and what our participation should be in resolving the issues.
Let's be perfectly honest here. PEF, along with big brother CSEA, have ridden the coattails of the membership for years. They gain our support by declaring another entity to be the enemy, beating the drums about 'solidarity' and 'standing up for the common' membership. Nonsense. Not to be cynical, but the reality is that Danny Donahue, Ken Brynien, and others of their ilk are first and foremost concerned with their own livelihoods. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. After all, at the end of the day, most of us would have to admit to ourselves that we're guilty of that ourselves. And in that light, as unpopular as it is to say this publicly, I'm much more interested in how any proposed contract effects my family than anyone else. Anyone who really believes that their needs are subservient to those of the group, well, you're either misguided, delusional or you're a much better person than I am. Sorry to be crass, but there it is.
So from the dribs and drabs we've heard, trying to cut through the posturing and deceptions, what does the proposed contract look like? Some are probably much more informed than I am. but here's my two cents.
No raise for three years.
2% in years 4 and 5.
5 days furlough, affecting retirement benefits, possibly affecting accruals
4 days furlough, to be repaid (which is a shell game at best).
Percentage shift in health care costs. As an aside, does no one understand that while the State's dollar contribution has increased, ours has increased the same? The fundamental difference in the new proposal is the RATE change.
Increased copays.
Absolutely no guarantee of future layoffs. In fact, you can rest assured that there absolutely will be layoffs, because the language appears to give coverage unilaterally to the Governor, simply by SAGE suggesting it's necessary. Don't think for a moment that deal's not already in the works.
And the 800 pound gorilla - Assuming passage of the contract, the State is in the driver's seat when that contract expires when the Triborough compact is invoked.
As an aside, you can wager that your union dues will rise.
So what would a fair contract look like? To start, a governor who is committed to fundamentally change how our state got into this mess in the first place would really force some issues. These would necessarily include consolidation of services, elimination of unneeded bureaucracy, freezing if not cutting back on some popular programs such as Public Assistance, eliminating some Authorities, and generally running the state as a business. It does not make a whole lot of sense to go to your employees and say, 'you know, we've been spending money like drunken sailors and want to continue doing so, so we need you to stop taking home so much pay'. Of course, a sane person might say that they don't need to work for someone who disregards reality. Of course, that also means that the employee would have someplace else to go. Not too many of us have that luxury.
How about this? No raise for 3 years. That's the length of the contract, not this silly 5 year proposal. Raise copays modestly - say from $20 a visit to $25. Create the tier 6. We do need to seriously consider the ability of the state to afford future retirement benefits - we can't go on as those of us in tiers 1-4 have enjoyed. It's not reality.
Accept the fact that at the time being we probably will not be able to hire new employees. However, that also means we cannot continue hiring outside contractors. Evaluate and sunset current outside contracts. It just makes good sense.
Allow attrition to clear some of the ranks. The savings created by normal retirements and resignations cannot be a small sum.
Most importantly - both sides need to act like adults. No name calling, no public posturing. Just lay out what you would accept and negotiate in good faith from there. It doesn't need to become as filled with hyperbole as it's become.
Now let's get on with it."
No comments:
Post a Comment