LM-30 Reporting to the U.S. Department of Labor

 Office of General Counsel Memo

TO:                 Statewide Officers
                        Executive Board
                        PEF Staff 

FROM:          William P. Seamon
                        Rita J. Verga 

DATE:            March 4, 2010

RE:                 LM-30 Reporting to the U.S. Department of Labor
                        Our File No: 7029-P 

This is an update to Counsel’s December 18, 2007 and March 31, 2008 memoranda concerning the revised LM-30 reporting requirements, which are available at www.pef.org.

As we previously reported, effective January 1, 2008 the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) expanded reporting requirements for individuals who may be required to file annual reports (LM-30) with the Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (“OLMS”) if they meet the conditions for reporting.  The expanded reporting requirement stemmed from the Bush Administration DOL’s redefinition of the term “labor organization employee” to include individuals who are not employed by their union, but who perform union work during their work day, and are paid for that time by the employer.  Thus, the new filing requirements were aimed at identifying how much employer-paid time is spent on union business, by union stewards and local leaders. 

Since President Obama’s appointees assumed leadership at the DOL, the Department has announced that it will engage in rulemaking to change the revised Form LM-30 and its instructions, but has not yet published a proposal.  Moreover, the OLMS has stated that it will refrain from enforcement actions in light of the pending regulatory action, stating: “it would not be a good use of resources to bring enforcement actions based upon a failure to use a specific form to comply with the statutory obligation to report certain financial information. 

We have been in touch with AFL-CIO’s Counsel’s Office, and concur with their opinion that union officers, local leaders and union employees should use the old, short LM-30 Form and the old guidance, if they have anything to report.  (See, December 18, 2007 Counsel Memorandum.)  The deadline for filing the LM-30 is within 90 days after the end of the union official’s or employee’s fiscal year, which in most cases is March 31.  The deadline for filing for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 is March 31, 2010. 

We will continue to apprise you of developments in this area.

RJV/jac

New Promotion Examination Fees and Increased Open Competitive Exam Fees

 Memo

 

TO:                Executive Board Members and Council Leaders

DATE:            March 18, 2009 

RE:             New Promotion Examination Fees and Increased Open Competitive Exam Fees

We have been getting a number of calls about the new promotion examination fees that appear on new examination announcements issued after March 13 and effective for exams administered on or after May 30. The fees for open competitive exams are also going to increase by $5. As you may remember the Department of Civil Service informed PEF about these new fees in January and we wrote about them in our January 23, 2009 memo to the Executive Board on the 30-day amendments to the Executive Budget. The new fees are

Examination Title Grade	New Promotion Exam Fee	Increased O/C Exam Fee
SG 3 – 12	$10	$25
SG 13 - 18	$15	$35
SG 19 -23	$20	$40
SG 24 and above	$25	$45

The new promotion exams are expected to raise $850,000 annually and the increased open competitive examination fees are expected to raise $210,000 annually. We are currently evaluating our options under the Contract and under the Taylor Law to determine our recourse to challenge these fees whether the setting of these new fees may be subject to a contract grievance or improper practice charge. We will update you when any further information is available.

If you have any further questions on this issue please contact the Civil Service Enforcement/Research or Contract Administration Departments.

Kenneth Brynien, President    

cc:        Statewide Labor-Management Chairs

A New Senate Majority Website Wants Input on How to Reduce the State’s Budget Deficit

 Memo

 

TO:               Executive Board Members and Council Leaders

DATE:           February 13, 2009

RE:               A New Senate Majority Website Wants Input on How to Reduce the State’s Budget Deficit

The New York State Senate Majority has launched a website that is asking for feedback from state residents on how to close the state’s budget gap. As you know PEF has advanced many options to the budget cuts the Governor has proposed and they are posted on the PEF website (The answers to the State Budget Deficit). In addition numerous members have forwarded to us examples of state agency waste and the hiring unnecessary new state agency managers that continue during these tough fiscal times.

We want to make sure that the Senate Majority (Democrats) hear from our members about our budget savings ideas and examples of waste in state government and that their website doe not just receive input from conservative, anti-union and pro-business groups. Please visit http://www.nybudgetideas.org/ and let them know how you would balance the state budget. Let them know how would you increase revenues (e.g. raise the income tax on the wealthy, reducing the contracting out of state services to private consultants, bottle bill expansion, bulk purchase of prescription drugs, using rainy day funds, federal stimulus money, reforming Empire Zones, and closing corporate tax loopholes) and any waste you see in state agencies including unnecessary hiring of new managers.

Kenneth Brynien

cc:        Statewide Labor-Management Chairs

Budget Discussions with the Governor

 Memo

 

TO: Regional Coordinators, Executive Board Members and Council Leaders

DATE: October 21, 2008

RE: Budget Discussions with the Governor

Earlier today I met with the governor along with leaders from CSEA and OMCE regarding the state’s fiscal crisis.

The governor pointed out there are no sacred cows in the budget and that all options are on the table. However, although there are many rumors regarding actions to address the budget deficit, he repeatedly stated state employees have already taken the brunt of the cuts and he did not want to take more from the state workforce.

The governor called the meeting to hear directly from union leaders, our thoughts on ways to address the deficits.

Prior to the meeting I provided his office with detailed proposals to close the budget gap (see attached).

I took the opportunity at this meeting to reiterate these proposals. I emphasized the need to reduce the number of contractors and consultants and I also took the opportunity to point out areas of additional savings already available in our contract, including telecommuting, flexible scheduling and compressed work weeks. The governor agreed that contracting out has to stop and will stop and also agreed that agencies need to be more receptive to options available in our current contract.

The governor also asked for our support in convincing congress of the need for federal assistance in this crisis.

The governor has pledged that there will be follow up meetings with the unions as well as other stakeholders. I will continue to update you as information becomes available.

Budget Cut Alternatives to Layoffs for October 21, 2008 Meeting

 Memo

 

TO: Ken Brynien

FROM: Thomas Cetrino and Brian Curran

DATE: October 14, 2008

RE: Budget Cut Alternatives to Layoffs for October 21, 2008 Meeting

We believe the State must make every effort to avoid layoffs as layoffs and other serious cuts in State services are counterproductive in a recession and according to Joseph Stiglitz are more harmful to the State economy than a temporary income tax increase on wealthier New Yorkers. A the very least the State must close its up to $8 billion budget gap with an equal share of revenue raisers and budget cuts. The following options should help the State achieve that goal.

1. Increase the income tax on wealthier New Yorkers; ranging from the millionaire tax approved by the Assembly to the temporary surcharge that we enacted in 2001. This option will generate between $2 billion and $7 billion in revenue depending on the income levels and rates.

2. Reduce consultant costs by instituting a freeze on all new consultant contracts, requiring a budget waiver to enter into those contracts, and by examining all current consultant contracts as to which can be terminated and which can be done by State employees at a lower cost. Savings: up to $750 million a year.

Discussion

State expenditures for consultant contracts have increased from $2.26 billion in SFY 2003-04 to $2.78 billion in SFY 2007-08 (see Attachment 1). The largest increases have been in Information Technology (IT) Design and Development, IT Software Maintenance, IT Hardware Maintenance, and Engineering Supervision. Consultant contract expenditures for the first five months of SFY 2008-09 show little if any reduction form SFY 2007-08 (see Attachment 1). The Comptroller, KPMG, and PEF have done studies that show that consultants cost between 50% and 75% more than State employees who could do most of their work. During the last hiring freeze State agencies found it easier to hire consultants to get work done that had to be completed than to hire State employees even if it was less expensive to hire State employees. We have anecdotal evidence from our members that this is once again occurring. The Division of Budget needs to institute new restrictions on new consultant contracts and more aggressively review currant consultant contracts for potential savings.

3. Enact the bigger better bottle bill which will generate $200 million in additional revenue in a full fiscal year.

4. Collect taxes that are due – especially cigarette taxes on reservation purchases by non-Indians

– yield estimates range from $400 million to $1.6 billion a year.

5. Reform economic development programs to level the playing field among businesses in NYS:

 improve the effectiveness and accountability of Industrial Development Agencies,

 apply Brownfield Clean Up Program reforms to “grandfathered” projects, and

 phase out the Empire Zones program (Savings begin at $50 million/yr, rising to $500 million after 10 years )

6. Improve the way Limited Liability Company’s annual fees are calculated (DOB calculated $75 million/year in savings in 2007) and close other corporate tax loopholes.

7. Use the State’s tremendous purchasing power to see reduced prices from drug manufacturers for prescription drugs for Medicaid, State employees, and other State programs. This would generate approximately $100 million a year.

8. Use the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund and the Rainy Day Reserve Fund which together have $1 billion and are intended to be used in fiscal emergencies.

9. Eliminate all “occasional” employees who are retired but have returned to work for the State on a part-time basis. Freeze all new appointments that require 211 waivers. Estimated savings up to $150 million

Discussion

The State spent over $411.2 million in SFY 2007-08 on temporary employees and has spent $200.4 million on these employees during the first five months of SFY 2008-09 (see Attachment 2). This appears to be the same rate of spending on these employees as last year. Included in these costs are the salaries of State employees who retire and come back to work for the State at a salary below $30,000 (if they are paid more they must get a 211 waiver to work for the State and collect their retirement). These employees may be able to escape a layoff using normal layoff procedures by an agency just not targeting the title they work in. We believe such employees should be the first to leave the State payroll prior to implementing any layoffs. This is consistent with the law that requires provisional and temporary employees in a title that is targeted for layoff to be the first to lose their jobs. In addition the State should freeze all 211 waivers during the current fiscal crises. Employees who are supplementing their retirement salaries should not be working over employees who depend on their salaries for their daily existence.

10. Eliminate or severely restrict overtime by hiring full-time employees to handle the overtime hours. In SFY 2007-08 the State spent $485.7 million on overtime costs that are not contractually obligated and has spent $196.1 million on such costs in the first five months of SFY 2008-09 (see Attachment 2). This appears to be about the same rate of spending on overtime as the last fiscal year. If employees are hired to work this overtime the State would save up to $160 million a year.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2