CONTRACT 99 FAQ

See the most recent FAQ Update

HOW MUCH OF A RAISE IS PEF ASKING FOR?

A base salary increase in every year of the contract is always a primary goal. PEF has received no base salary increase in four of the last eight years. Additionally, base salary increases have been delayed until October, rather than beginning in April. Traditional negotiation protocol is to not get married to any specific number prior to negotiations, as that number may be less than the other side is prepared to pay.

HOW IS PEF DEVELOPING CONTRACT PROPOSALS?

PEF has been actively collecting information for negotiations since last summer. Two surveys were distributed: one for PEF leaders and one for the general membership. In addition, 55 town meetings were held throughout the 12 PEF Regions. At these meetings, nearly 4000 PEF members shared their concerns with the Contract Team. Many members have also submitted written suggestions directly to the Team. Finally, we have also heard suggestions from PEF Staff, and we have drawn upon the resources of our two International Affiliates, SEIU and AFT, for support. All of this information will be used to develop the issues and priorities we will bring to the bargaining table.

CAN ALL ISSUES BE NEGOTIATED IN THE CONTRACT?

Not all subjects can be addressed through the bargaining process. By law, there are mandatory, permissive, and prohibited subjects of bargaining. Although contract negotiation is a central event in the life of a union, it is not the only event. Moreover, the bargaining table is not the only venue in which the union advocates on behalf of its members. Issues pertaining to your job title and the salary grade assigned to it, for example, are addressed with Civil Service. Retirement benefits are a prohibited subject of negotiation and must be addressed legislatively. Certain agency practices are addressed through contract enforcement and the labor/management process.

WHAT CAN PEF DO ABOUT ALL THE UNFILLED JOBS IN THE AGENCIES? WORKLOADS ARE UNMANAGEABLE AND PEOPLE CANNOT GET TIME OFF.

Management determines the size and deployment of the workforce. Funding for additional staffing can be addressed during legislative hearings on the state budget. Issues such as workload and vacation scheduling can also be addressed through labor/management and through contract enforcement.

THE STATE OFTEN DOES NOT ABIDE BY THE NEGOTIATED PROVISIONS OF OUR CONTRACT.  CAN WE ADDRESS THAT IN NEGOTIATIONS?

Enforcement of existing contract language is as important as negotiating new provisions. Existing language in the contract, and sometimes in statute as well, gives PEF members opportunities to remedy problems in the workplace. However, if we attempt to change contract language because we have difficulty enforcing the current agreement, we end up bargaining against ourselves.

Why hasn't PEF agreed to those portions of the State's current offer which are acceptable?

The State's current offer is a "take it or leave it" package, not a list of alternatives from which to pick and choose.

What's wrong with 3%?

The contract package is comprised of separate elements that are linked. The 3% does not stand alone, and it does not start in April, when the contract begins, but in October a half a year later.

The delayed implementation date, offset by increased healthcare contributions, diminishes the value of the 3%, which is already minuscule in comparison to the 38% raise the Governor and other leaders are receiving, without the six month delay.

Question:

What's wrong with punching a time clock?

You already account for your time with a bi-weekly report, reviewed and signed by your supervisor. Licensed professionals and the types of job titles represented by PEF are not required to punch a time clock in other work sectors, public or private.

What about salary grade parity with CSEA; full salary protection under workers' compensation; sick leave accrual parity among all PEF members; stronger seniority; better staffing; stronger health and safety protections; and longevity enhancements?

To date, the State has shown no interest in considering these issues.

What can I do to help us get a better contract?

We all have to work together to create the necessary political pressure to increase our negotiating strength.

Without your help we will not achieve the political pressure we need.

Call the Governor at 1-877-373-7920;

E-mail the Governor at gov.pataki@chamber.state.ny.us;

Attend a rally; especially the one in Albany on January 5^th;

Encourage everyone around you to do the same;

Call, write, or visit a legislator;

Write to the editor of your local newspaper;

Everyone needs to do something. A fair contract just doesn't happen, we all have to work for it!

December 6, 1999

Q: It's been almost one year since negotiations began. Why don't we have a contract yet?

A: Our employer is still unwilling to meet any of our demands in a meaningful way or to make an offer which is fair, in the context of the economic times; our four years of no raises in the past eight years; and the 38% raises given the Governor and other State leaders. Called for increases in healthcare co-payments, in addition to an increased healthcare premium, offsets the minimal wage gains. The called for six month lag each year in payment of raises further reduces any gains. Concessions in time-keeping and EOL, not called for from other bargaining units, and the failure to offer PEF specific enhancements, as offered to other bargaining units, further obstructs a settlement.

Q: Why have we become so militant in these negotiations?

A: For the past 20 years, we have done everything in the same way, and we have always gotten the same results. The Governor's representatives believe the Taylor Law gives them all the power. They believe that because the penalties for striking are so high and because we cannot seek arbitration, we cannot hurt them. The only power we have is the political pressure generated by our members. Unless and until the politicians with whom we negotiate feel politically vulnerable, we have no chance of breaking the same cycles of the past.. In each of our past contract negotiations, the State has extracted a significant concession in return for any offerings. Lag pay, two tiered sick leave accruals, loss of full salary with workers' compensation, reduction in job security, and managed healthcare are concessions which have impacted us all. In this contract negotiation cycle, in these robust economic times, after four years of no raises in eight years; when the Governor and State leaders are given 38% raises, with no six month lag; the State's attitude and offer is simply egregious. It is time for PEF to be the union its members deserve.

Q: Why haven't we declared impasse?

A: Impasse is a long and difficult process with great uncertainty that the result achieved will equal or surpass what can be achieved at the table. The process calls for non-binding mediation and non-binding fact-finding before going to the Legislature. A legislatively imposed contract is only for one year, and it does not eliminate the need to go back to the table. We do not believe impasse is warranted now, and we will only declare impasse if and when it is the right thing to do. What we need now is patience and pressure.

January 12, 2000

Q. How will the State's change in chief negotiators affect negotiations?

A. The State's year long unwillingness to offer a fair contract emphasizes that political action away from the table will be more influential in shaping the final product than specific personalities at the table. The only factor that will move the State is political necessity. That political necessity can only be achieved by continued member activism.

Q. What's the status of support in the legislature?

A. Legislators, too, are most responsive to political necessity. Facing re-election in 11 months is their paramount political necessity. Legislative support is directly proportional to constituent pressure and the proximity of election day. Having focused direct member pressure on the Governor for the past 9 months, it is now time to direct member pressure on our 211 legislators. The more contact they receive from all 53,000 of us, the more supportive they can become. An easy way to contact them is by clicking the scrolling message on the PEF Website Homepage.

Q. What is our current position regarding raises?

A. Over the past year, the State has entered into four tentative agreements with four different bargaining units: CSEA, UUP, Thruway Authority, Metropolitan Transit Authority. Each agreement has been successively better than the previous agreement. Our position is that the last agreement, with the MTA, is the current model, especially since it is similar to our March, 1999, demand for a three year contract, with 5% raises each year, no six month lags, no concessions, and maintaining the quality and cost of healthcare benefits.

January 19, 2000

Q: "I do not understand why Governor Pataki is choosing to make negotiations so prolonged and ugly. It's like he has declared war on us. What's going on?"

A: All one can do is speculate as to what the Governor is thinking or what his motivations are. Obviously, in this historically strong economy, in which he has taken care of himself and state leaders, his position is counterproductive, threatening, and unfair. What makes his position even more irrational is the fact that, over the past year, he has entered into four successive agreements, with four separate bargaining units, with each agreement being better than the previous one. The last agreement, with the Metropolitan Transit Authority, is very similar to the demand we put on the table in March, 1999. The Governor and the 211 New York State Legislators need to hear from all of us and feel the weight of political vulnerability for not doing what's fair. It's not only the message they need to hear but the message coming from 53,000 individuals. It's all about fairness in the context of the times. It's all about numbers; big numbers. It's all about political pressure; intense pressure. It's all about staying the course; until they not only hear us, but listen to us.

Q: "Why aren't all the unions working together, rather than separately?"

A: We have reached out to others, and continue to do so. CSEA has joined us in many activities. Certainly, we are stronger together, and it is to everyone's advantage to unite. The divide and conquer tactics of the State work to its advantage, not ours. This is a message that we must all continue to reinforce with our colleagues in other units.

Q: "What is the State waiting for?"

A: Either it is currently unwilling to make an offer which it is confident will be ratified; or it is unconfident that an offer it is willing to make will be ratified; or it is waiting to see the results of internal elections to determine if bargaining positions will change.

January 24, 2000

Q: "I confess that I'm a long-time skeptical PEF member. I also confess that I'm impressed with the efforts we are making in taking a stand and getting members involved. However, I still wonder, in the end, if we can make the difference we need to make."

A: The short answer is yes. The long answer is power. We do have power. It is political action. It has, and is, having an effect. An effect is not necessarily a difference. To make the difference, we have to stay the course; keep increasing the volume; and bring everyone into the effort.

If we use the power that we have, we can make a difference. Since negotiations began last year, there has been a sea-change taking place, in several different bargaining units, in member frustration and their willingness to use the power they have. It has resulted in a rejected CSEA tentative agreement; a decertified Council 82; rallies in the streets; following the Governor as far as Detroit; protesting at joint appearances of Governor Pataki and George W. Bush; a 1000 person rally at the Governor's opening ceremony at the New York State Fair; an 18,000 person rally at the Governor's State of the State Address; thousands of calls, letters, and e-mails to the Governor; calls, letters, e-mails, and visits to legislators; and letters to the editors of newspapers all over New York State.

Following the rejected CSEA agreement last year, the Governor entered into three subsequent agreements with three different bargaining units, and each agreement was better than the previous agreement, and all three were better than the rejected CSEA agreement. The most recent agreement with the 32,000 member Metropolitan Transit Authority was consistent with PEF's economic proposal in March, 1999, which the Governor's representatives have consistently disparaged. The press we have been receiving has been favorable and supportive. With all 211 New York State Legislators facing re-election in November, they seem to be re-examining their belief in impartiality, rather than advocacy.

It's all about keeping the full press on.

February 3, 2000

Q: "I am so outraged by what is going on, and not going on, in negotiations. But, honestly, how is contacting my legislator going to help in any way?"

A: You should be outraged! Expressing it to your legislators accomplishes the following:

1. Your legislator will be hearing from a constituent.
2. Your legislator will know that you have a legitimate complaint.
3. Your legislator will know what you expect.
4. Your legislator can convey your outrage to the Governor, party leaders, and other legislators.
5. If enough legislators hear from enough outraged constituents, they will recognize political liability for not acting, and will convey a sense of urgency to the people who can influence change.
6. It's an election year for legislators.
7. The Governor has heard us, but hasn't listened to us.
8. The Governor needs to hear the message and feel the pressure from the politicians around him.
9. The Governor has the ability to do the right thing, but, as yet, not the will.
10. Asking your legislator to advocate for the same fairness they themselves have enjoyed can generate the will to act.

E-mail your legislator from the scrolling cue on the PEF Home Page at www.pef.org

Q: "Exactly what is getting in the way of a contract settlement?"

A: Lots! Here they are:

1. There is no will, currently, on the State's side, to move off its "take it or leave it" position, which offers too little to us and demands too much from us.
2. We are asking for a three year contract, with 5% annual base wage increases, starting every April, which is consistent with the recent MTA settlement. Our demand was put on the table in March, 1999, and the MTA settlement, now, supports the validity of our ongoing position.
3. The State is offering a four year contract with 3% annual base wage increases, starting every October.
4. Health premiums, which are not negotiable, have just increased up to 13%. Additionally, the State seeks negotiated increased across the board health care co-payments, which offset low and delayed raises.
5. The State seeks the use of swipe cards by employees, purportedly only for building security and health and safety, but is unwilling to offer protections that swipe cards will not be used for what is called "clocking and docking," i.e. as a time clock for monitoring time and attendance, beyond current reporting protocols, for disciplinary proceedings. The State's demand to remove Article 12.17 from the contract, which prohibits the use of time clocks, points to a wider goal for swipe cards. The job titles of our members, which include most licensed professional titles, do not punch time clocks anywhere else in the workforce.
6. The State seeks to make access for union business more restricted for members and more expensive for the union, which would most likely require a significant dues increase.
7. The State has and continues to enjoy an historically prosperous economy. When times were tough, in four of the last eight years, we agreed to no raises. When cash flow was slow, we agreed to six month lags in the raises we got. We were there for New York. We are here for New York. But now, the Governor and the 211 Legislators, are only there for themselves, awarding themselves and selected appointees large raises.
8. Other bargaining units have gone their own way, rather than negotiate in coalition, enabling the State to get low settlements from some.
9. The State has shown no willingness to consider any of the proposals our members identified and for which they asked us to advocate in areas such as health and safety, seniority, workers compensation, travel expense reimbursement, job security, sick leave accrual parity, and staffing.

February 8, 2000

Q: "Please talk some more about political pressure: what is it; how do you build it; why does it work; etc. Thank you."

A: A picture is worth a thousand words, and the Friday, February 4^th, and the Saturday February 5^th, editions of The New York Times painted the picture dramatically. On Friday, the lead headline was: "McCAIN ON BALLOT ACROSS NEW YORK AS PATAKI GIVES IN. Governor and Bush Feared Fight Aided Senator's Candidacy." On Saturday, the lead editorial used these phrases: "…Gov. Pataki's attempt to rig the election for Mr. Bush…," "Mr. Pataki and his co-conspirator in the plot against Mr. McCain, William Powers, the state Republican chairman, were routed," "…there can be no disguising the fact that political defeats can be no more thorough nor more deeply deserved than Mr. Pataki's," "… Mr. Pataki is a recidivist ballot trickster."

The events surrounding Senator McCain's placement on the primary election ballot is a stark example of how political pressure gets politicians to change their positions, and emphasizes just how powerful political pressure is when the issue is just.

The manner in which Governor Pataki handled the Republican Primary ballot eligibility is analogous to how he is handling contract negotiations. Just like he tried to rig the election, he is trying to rig the negotiations in a way that insures unequal treatment of different parties. What has already been provided to the Governor, the legislators, and the MTA can and should be provided to other bargaining units fairly.

Refer to The New York Times reporting and tie it into our contract negotiations when you contact your legislators. Make them understand that we want the same fairness in contract negotiations as in elections. Tell them that you want them to fight for this fairness. Show them Senator Breslin's letter to The Albany Times Union, which is posted on the PEF Website in the February 7^th contract update , and ask them to take just as strong a stand for us.

Q: "What do the results of the CSEA election mean for contract negotiations?"

A: With the re-election of their president, it means that they remain stable, maintain existing relationships, and business continues, uninterrupted and as usual. It also means that the historic perception that they are the "pattern setter," will probably continue. We wish them well; we hope to continue ongoing cooperation; and we hope we are both equally successful in achieving as many of our mutual and separate needs that we set out to achieve. The challenge remains, through political action, to generate the political necessity for the Governor to treat us as fairly as he has treated himself, legislators, appointees, and the MTA. The State has given others what we are seeking and it has the ability to give us what we are seeking. Please use OPERATION 211 as the vehicle to generate political pressure. E-mail your legislators via the PEF Website @www.pef.org, or call your legislators toll free at 1-877-373-7920.

February 16, 2000

Q: "I know the Taylor Law prohibits striking, but there must be other things we can do, like work-to rule. Can you give us guidance on this?"

A: Actually, the terms of the Taylor Law are very expansive, strict, and severe, and it is the opinion of our legal department that the New York State Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) would find a work-to rule campaign to be an illegal work stoppage under the Taylor Law.

We are advised that "through the years, PERB has repeatedly held that the prohibition against public employee strikes in Civil Service Law 210 extends to partial work stoppages or to any other diminution in the services normally rendered by public employees. For example, school bus drivers who refused to work regularly scheduled overtime were found to have engaged in an unlawful strike. Similarly, teachers who refused to participate in faculty meetings, field trips and parent-teacher conferences, or in any other activity not expressly required by their collective bargaining agreements, were found to have engaged in unlawful work stoppages. Generally, PERB has found that group refusals to accept either overtime or extra duties violate the prohibition against public employees' strikes."

We are further advised that "any work-to-rule campaign by PEF members could be construed as an illegal work stoppage," and that "given the problems CSEA is currently experiencing regarding the alleged wildcat strike by DOT snow-plow drivers on Long Island, PEF must exercise extreme caution in this area."

Finally, we are advised that "any encouragement or condonation by PEF of any work stoppage or slowdown could result in massive penalties to the union, including the possible suspension or loss of PEF's dues deduction rights."

Q: "I understand that the state has reached four successively better contract agreements with four separate bargaining units, and that the last agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is consistent with our original proposal in March, 1999. Is the MTA a state agency whose agreement can serve as a basis for ours?"

A: On December 16, 1999, The New York Times reported the following statement by New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani: "Although the mayor had no seat at the negotiating table, he repeatedly said that the dispute between the union and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a state agency, effectively controlled by Mr. Pataki, would catastrophically affect the city in the event of a strike." Who would know better than the mayor of New York City about these things?

Please advise your legislators to advocate for all public employees being treated as fairly as they and the Governor have treated themselves, and as fairly as the 32,000 unionized members of the MTA have been treated.

Q: "So much of what you communicate deals with the political environment, rather than the contract. I'm really just interested in what's happening in negotiations, and not all this other stuff. Am I missing something?"

A: Unfortunately, the two are inextricably entwined. The terms and conditions of our employment are determined by politicians, politically, in a political environment, at the direction of the Governor. With striking and arbitration precluded by the Taylor Law, in the face of no will by the Governor to settle fairly, it becomes inevitable that everything becomes a political issue. The following excerpts from the media over the past year are revealing.

"It's one thing for a civil servant to be assured of regular salary reviews along the way, but politicians should be held to a different standard. They should not look upon their offices as career positions with steady pay adjustments." (Albany Times Union Editorial 1/25/99)

"…the Pataki administration has been very selective and conniving…"; "There also has been an air of arrogance…"; "…it is not beneath the governor's press office to scrutinize (and sanitize) even the lowliest bit of minutiae…"; "We believe it is time for the arrogance to cease…"; "It is time for Pataki and the legislature to cut the rhetoric…and to start dealing with…reality…" (Troy Record Editorial 2/3/99)

"The governor goes ballistic…"; "The governor is wrong on the merits…"; "What he hasn't done before is to go nuts the way he has this time…"; "This is real hardball, and rather amazing coming from a …Republican…"; (Schenectady Daily Gazette Editorial 2/1/00)

"On Monday, Bruno,…showed a surprisingly candid degree of rancor toward the Pataki administration. He described top operatives of the governor as practitioners of intimidation tactics that won't work…"; "Pataki's spokesman Michael McKeon said Pataki doesn't 'engage in petty feuds'."; "The governor of this state is not a dictator, Bruno said. He's not a king; some of his staff may think that's the case, but that's not the case." (Albany Times Union 2/1/00)

"Republican Psychodrama…" It's not a vendetta. That is what Gov. George Pataki's people say…"; "This silence from Mr. Pataki, they insist, has nothing to do with the fact…"; "The political-science platitudes are nice, but…"; "Or would he and his waspish communications director, Zenia Mucha…"; "In the New York G.O.P., perhaps all politics is personal." (The New York Times Editorial 7/14/99)

February 17, 2000

Q: "It is my understanding that the first two steps of impasse are conducted under the supervision of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), before the third and final step in the Legislature. I also see information in the press that indicates concerns about PERB. What are the concerns, and how does it impact upon us?"

A: The following are excerpts from an article, by William Van Auken, in the January 28, 2000, Chief-Leader, which reports about the concerns.

"The idea of PERB was that it was to be both neutral and fair," said Denis Hughes, president of the New York State AFL-CIO. " "Now we're at a point where at least it's not neutral." "The Governor and his advisers feel that it is best to politicize the agency," said Mr. Hughes. "He added that the departure of two key staff members and their replacement by new Republican appointees represented the loss of 'men and women who represented the institutional memory of PERB'," and had contributed to an increasingly 'anti-union animus'."

"Mr. Lefkowitz, who was the first person appointed to the PERB staff when it was founded by Governor Nelson Rockefeller 32 years ago…described the board as 'much more ideological' than in the past.." "…he said the panel has engaged in 'the frequent reversal of (PERB) staff decisions upholding union positions, without thorough analysis, and often in disregard of PERB precedents'."

In editorial comments in the same edition of the Chief-Leader, it is stated that, "PERB…was created to resolve disputes in a nonpartisan fashion and is not supposed to reflect the wishes or the politics of a Governor…" "…the unions have no realistic hope of a fair hearing on important cases."

February 24, 2000

Q: "The counter-proposal PEF just made appears to exclude many issues of importance. Why aren't they included in the counter-proposal?"

A: We have been in negotiations for 400 days. The State made a "take it or leave it" offer last October, and it hasn't moved off that position. In December, the State reached an agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which was consistent with our original compensation proposal, but configured differently. Our counter-proposal reconfigures our compensation proposal to mirror the MTA provisions. Moreover, our counter-proposal reflects our core priorities in the context of an MTA framework. Negotiations are about give and take and about what is available and when you can get it. We know what is available, as the State has already given it to someone else, and it was just ratified by the transit workers in the MTA. So, we believe it is available now. We have demonstrated our commitment to the MTA compensation model; and we have identified our top priorities, as the State has identified its top priorities. The focus of negotiations is now dramatically narrowed; and there is no reason why an agreement, which meets the needs of both parties, cannot be reached quickly.

Q: "Why should we continue to be patient and struggle for a better contract than UUP ratified?"

A: We are seeking contract justice. The United University Professions (UUP/SUNY Professors) contract is disproportionately less than what the governor, legislators, and political appointees gave themselves, and less than subsequent agreements in the Thruway Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Contract justice means all public employees should be treated in an equally fair manner, which reflects past sacrifices and current circumstances. Fairness doesn't just happen. Justice isn't inevitable and automatic.

Q: "I thought these were membership driven negotiations. I don't feel like I'm driving where I want to go. I want more money than we're asking for. Why MTA?"

A: These are professionally led, membership driven negotiations. The professional chief negotiator leads us to where we can go, with membership awareness of, access to, and participation in the process. After 13 months of being in the "process," it is no secret that it is an ugly one. PEF is one of a dozen, or so, public employee bargaining units. We do not exist in a vacuum, or negotiate in a vacuum. We all want more money. We all want a good contract. Aggressive tactics must be used practically, realistically, and strategically to get the best contract we can achieve for the benefit of all our 53,000 members. The MTA agreement is better than the rejected CSEA agreement; better than the UUP agreement; and better than the Thruway agreement. It is consistent with our original compensation proposal made in March, 1999. It is a model which has been given and ratified. It meets the criteria of being the best contract we have the potential to achieve. Of course, the State has to be willing to give it. Therefore, our aggressive political action must continue to create that will. Tell your legislators that we are not asking for anything that has not already been given to 32,000 other public employees, and that you want them to apply pressure on the Governor's office to treat us equally and fairly.

Q: "I am in Tier One and wonder if reducing employee pension contributions for contributing employees jeopardizes the future of the retirement system."

A: As the retirement system has become richer, the state has stopped making its own employer contribution to the pension fund. Should circumstances so dictate, the employer contribution would be resumed. For every non-contributing employee who retires, the replacement employee contributes. 75% of PEF members are currently contributing members. By law, the system must be 100% funded, and based on actuarial assumptions and fiduciary oversight of the Comptroller, an elected official, there are checks and balances in place which protect the fund.

February 28, 2000

Q: "The salary grade of my job title doesn't reflect the compensation of my profession in the marketplace. Why isn't the union seeking specific salary increases for us?"

A: There are very few days that go by where someone, from one of the 2500 job titles PEF represents, doesn't ask this question. Certainly, it is frustrating to see someone in the private sector, with the same job title, doing the same things, being paid significantly more; and seeing how prevailing wages, especially in good times, increase the gap in wages.

The challenge for a union such as ours is to address the needs of all our 53,000 members in ways that benefit us all. Title bargaining is a slippery slope that plays one constituency against another and self-creates wider divisions among us.

There are two primary ways for us to address salary issues. The first is to successfully negotiate annual base wage increases which keep pace with what is happening elsewhere in the economy. The second is to successfully achieve agency support and written endorsement for reallocation and reclassification of specific salary grades and job titles through the Civil Service classification and compensation process.

The saying goes that "a rising tide lifts all ships," and in our sea of so many job titles, annual across the board wage increases are what lifts them all.

Other ways we can address compensation issues are with location pay, on call/recall pay, inconvenience pay, and hazardous duty pay.

Q: "Members of other bargaining units at my workplace seem to enjoy getting copies of our negotiations information. Any problem with sharing it with them?"

A: Information is power. Power increases when more people are informed and work together. We can all benefit from being aware of what others are saying and doing. The MTA agreement is the best one out there, and the more people who target the MTA for themselves, the more achievable it can be. The three core principles of activism are communication, motivation, and education. Together we are stronger. By all means, share information generously.

Q: "We're always talking about political action to achieve our goals. Are we taking a position in the forthcoming Republican Primary, as part of our contract campaign?"

A: Virtually, everything we do is done in a political environment. Supporting candidates who represent and support our positions is one of our primary commitments. PEF is truly bi-partisan in its approach. Political action must be done for the right reasons, at the right time, in the right way. The Republican Primary is not about our contract fight, it is about selecting the Republican nominee. We encourage all registered Republicans to vote, and to vote for whom they believe best represents their interests, one of which is their membership in organized labor. PEF's endorsement policy follows a very prescribed protocol which involves Regional Political Action Committees, the Statewide PAC, and PEF's Executive Board. No endorsements have been made for the Republican Primary.

March 10, 2000

Q: "32,000 public employees in the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority received a three year contract, with annual raises of 5%, 3%, and 4%, plus reductions in employee pension contributions. This is consistent with what we have proposed for one year, and exactly what we are proposing now. Why won't the governor agree to this model for us and other public employees?"

A: We ask the governor's negotiators the same question everyday. You can ask the governor, and your legislators, the same question by calling them via the AFL-CIO toll free number at 1-877-373-7920. Moreover, you can encourage other public employees to call and ask the same question.

Q: "My Division is planning on inviting our local State Legislators to a Membership Meeting. Any advice on how we should handle this?"

A: By all means, make this the number one priority. You may want to consider the following:

1. Keep your Regional Coordinator and Regional PAC Chair advised of your plans and rely upon them for assistance and guidance.
2. Contact PEF's Legislative Office at either 518-432-4003 or 800-724-4997, if you need further assistance.
3. If there are other PEF Divisions nearby, consider a combined meeting to increase attendance.
4. Tell your Legislators that your members want to both hear from them and speak to them about concerns over contract negotiations, as well as legislative needs to improve The Taylor Law, especially in the area of binding arbitration.
5. Identify a certain number of members to "speak out" on the negotiations process in general, and certain issues specifically, as well as the personal and professional impact the lack of a fair contract is having.
6. Be courteous and respectful, but firm and focused in your dialogue. Emphasize MTA Contract Equity, and that the MTA agreement of 5%, 3%, 4%, plus employee pension contribution reductions, is fair, reasonable, doable, and what we are asking for, and what all public employees deserve.
7. Make sure they know that you want their advocacy for MTA Contract Equity, and that you know how they are going to advocate.

Q: "The cost of living in the metropolitan / downstate New York area is much higher than elsewhere in the state. The current downstate cost of living adjustment that we get is totally inadequate, and the one proposed by PEF isn't nearly enough to improve the situation. Our adjustment should amount to several thousand dollars annually, not just $1200. Why aren't you fighting for what we need?"

A: Yes, the cost of living in the metropolitan / downstate area is dramatically higher than elsewhere in the state. No one can dispute this. There is very clear statistical data to prove it. Yes, our members deserve much higher downstate cost of living adjustments.Unfortunately, many factors and realities enter into negotiations that get in the way of many specific issues and needs. The first obstacle is what any of the other bargaining units agree to on various issues. The $1200 cap was defined in the first CSEA tentative agreement in February, 1999, and subsequently agreed to by UUP, shortly thereafter.The State seeks to establish as much consistency among agreements as it can. For every variation sought on specific issues, the State seeks trade-offs on other issues. Negotiations are a balancing act in which maximum benefit is sought for the most members and not some benefits sought at the expense of many others. Compromise is an imperfect exercise, but a reality. We seek the best contract we can achieve. No contract will meet all the specific needs of everyone; or even satisfy everyone. Negotiations is not about being right; it's about knowing what you can get and focusing on doing what you have to do to get it. Unless and until public sector bargaining units in New York work together in coalition bargaining, as is done in many other states, we will continue to be victim to the State's divide and conquer tactics, and end up with less than we deserve and less than we could achieve.

Q: " Have we been offered the same deal as CSEA?"

A: 1. The State has not responded to PEF's February 17^th counter-proposal

2. The State has not offered PEF the CSEA deal

3. The State's October, 1999, "take it or leave it" offer is still on the table

4. The State chose not to meet with PEF last week and this week

March 17, 2000

Q: " I have several questions as to how specific provisions of the CSEA tentative agreement would apply to my individual circumstances should we negotiate similar terms. How can I get answers to my questions?"

A: There are thousands of members, like yourself, asking this question. The most important point to remember is that we have not been offered the CSEA contract. We are gathering as much information as is available regarding the CSEA tentative settlement and examining it in the context of a fair agreement for PEF. We continue to seek an expeditious, fair, and ratifiable settlement. When we have a tentative agreement, many questions will be answered. In the meantime, CSEA has posted information at their website at www.cseainc.org.

Q: How might NYSCOPBA's membership rejection of their tentative contract affect their compensation and benefits, and will this affect PEF's contract?

A: As a result of NYSCOPBA's rejection of their tentative contract the State has moved the impasse process to fact finding. In a statement by GOER Director Linda Angello concerning fact finding, she indicated that there is no expectation on the State's part that NYSCOPBA will gain additional benefits or compensation, "The union has indicated that the issue with the contract is health insurance. I want to be clear that the State has no more to offer in this area or in other compensation areas…"

Additionally, because NYSCOPBA does not have a ratified agreement with the State, NYSCOPBA members will not be receiving the pension enhancements recently signed into law. According to the GOER Director's press statement, "Since there is no contract in place, members of the Security Services Unit represented by NYSCOPBA will not receive the same retirement benefits or salary increases as other State employees who have agreements in place."

While there are no guarantees it is unlikely that NYSCOPBA will achieve better compensation through impasse and fact finding than the compensation pattern that exists for CSEA and PEF. In the unlikely event that NYSCOPBA is successful at impasse improving their compensation package, PEF would ask the State to reopen negotiations to address any enhancements.

The full text of GOER Director Linda Angello statement concerning NYSCOPBA and Fact Finding can be found at www.goer.state.ny.us/factfinding.htm