CSEA SETTLES - NEXT STEPS FOR PEF
From the Desk of Roger E. Benson, PEF President
TO:     PEF Executive Board  
DATE: March 8, 2004
SUBJECT: As Long As It Takes

We have scheduled an Executive Board meeting beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 16 at NYSUT Headquarters, 800 Troy-Schenectady Road, Latham (518-213-6000 or 800-342-9810) to consider the Contract Team’s recommendation regarding whether we take action to oppose a CSEA tentative agreement.  (A copy of the CSEA prepared summary is attached.)*  Also attached for your convenience is flight information from Buffalo and Long Island and the train schedule from New York City.  Please contact PEF Travel directly to make your reservations. Based on the convenient travel schedules, we do not believe that overnight reservations will be necessary for this meeting.

PEF’s preliminary position, which was released to the press, was that we were concerned about "the lack of an on-base salary increase in the first year and believed that all State employees deserved a base wage increase every year."

Since the tentative contract was released, PEF has received numerous messages from a variety of management and political sources regarding both the pledge campaign and the value of our contract rally, which was announced on February 24.  Many insiders are claiming that the pledge campaign raised the bar significantly for the CSEA tentative agreement.  Specifically, (1) it added the fourth year on-base percent increase, (2) eliminated the fifty and twenty percent increase in premiums for individual and family coverage, respectively, (3) added the second $800 on-base payment and (4) increased the $800 payments from $500.

For the first time in twenty-six years, PEF has directly impacted the final form of what may be the pattern without actually being the first union to settle.  We have done that by clearly creating pressure on the bargaining parties with the pledge campaign to enhance a settlement that is now significantly stronger than the original agreement.

Within the context of the Taylor Law and GOER's compelling need to settle with CSEA first, I feel considerable satisfaction regarding PEF's efforts to date in this round of negotiations.  Certainly, these negotiations are not over and we will not bring a contract to the Executive Board unless it can be ratified comfortably by our membership.

The Contract Team continues to review and formulate their recommendation. I encourage all Board members to have conversations with PEF and CSEA members and ask them four specific questions that will be helpful at our meeting:

1. Do they believe that the CSEA contract will be ratified if there is no PEF intervention?

2. Can PEF's intervention potentially stop a CSEA contract ratification?

3. Should PEF oppose the CSEA tentative contract?

4. Would PEF members ratify a PEF specific version of the CSEA contract with enhancements specific to PEF?

I recognize that many local leaders will be facing difficult questions from the membership, as I do.  Taking leadership on issues that we know are difficult to achieve is always risky.  When we embarked on the pledge campaign, we knew we might not achieve all of our goals completely.  That being said, by being the only union to risk raising expectations, there is little doubt that we pushed the state, and perhaps other unions, further than they were prepared to go in this round of negotiations.

I want to thank and acknowledge the good work of our Contract Team and local leaders in moving this process forward.  I look forward to seeing you on March 16.

 Thank you.

* Ed. Note: The CSEA side by side can be seen at http://www.pef.org/pst2003/03062004.htm

-TABLE TALK
PEF and State negotiators are back at the table today, March 11, 2004. The discussions are centered on the Schools for the Deaf and Blind. While PEF is committed to resolving the side agreements (for the schools and for Roswell park) as part of the overall negotiation, these side tables can only go so far since the main function of these negotiations is to adapt the provisions of the main agreement for the unique circumstances found at these facilities.  Still, some progress is better than none.  As to the main agreement, PEF negotiators await further feedback from the PEF Executive Board next Tuesday regarding the core pattern agreed to by CSEA. 

-FAQs
Q. What is the "pattern" and why is it so important?
A. PEF is one of nine unions negotiating with the State of New York for employees of the State. The largest union negotiating with the State is CSEA representing 70,000 plus employees. A wage pattern set by CSEA, if ratified by their membership, will result in the pattern being set for the other represented employees. The reason is simple. A wage pattern accepted by a large number of employees is used as the foundation by the State before the public, and ultimately the legislature, to paint as “unreasonable” demands of other State employees seeking greater than the pattern.  If PEF is unable to negotiate a settlement, the dispute would be resolved in the legislature.  We would then be faced with arguing that a wage pattern or increased health insurance costs were unacceptable to PEF when they were previously accepted by employees who, on average, earn much less than PEF members. Those units with binding arbitration (PBA, NYSPIA, NYSCOPBA and AFSCME Council 82) will be similarly disadvantaged as the state will argue that the pattern should apply since a large union accepted the package voluntarily.

Q. How do we impact the "pattern"?
A. We impact the pattern in a couple of ways. First and foremost, we impact it by raising the bar before the pattern is set. For example, in the instant matter 15 of the benefit enhancements CSEA has in their tentative agreement are actually proposals that PEF advanced at our table. In addition, we are confident that the very public fight PEF led in opposition to health insurance premium shifts for current employees and future retirees assisted CSEA negotiators in defeating these changes at their table. The expansion of a portion of the current Downstate Adjustment to thousands of employees who heretofore did not receive it is likely the result of PEF membership pressure via its COLA Campaign (see http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/wage_cola_for_pef). Lastly, in an apparent slight nod to PEF's demand that there be a raise in each and every year of any agreement, CSEA and the State agreed to what amounts to a lagged raise ($800 cash received in the first year which is put on base on the last day of the contract). It is what it is.

Secondly, we can impact the pattern by working with the members and dissenting leaders of the union attempting to set a bad pattern during their ratification process in an attempt to get a vote of non-support. PEF's adoption of this position is a sea change in the way we do business. The PEF Executive Board will meet next week (see President Benson's memo above) and decide the wisdom of adopting this course of action as it pertains to the CSEA deal. 

- IT'S NOT OVER 'TIL IT'S OVER
Even if CSEA ratifies the tentative agreement, it is quite possible that the state will not offer PEF the same terms, at least not initially.  In the last round of contract negotiations, the  state "blamed" PEF for all of the activities that "raised the bar" and made them spend more money in the contracts than they had planned.  As a result, the state settled the contracts with other unions before they would even meet with PEF as “punishment” for our actions.  If you remember we had several months of the "stop the stall" campaign to force the state to put the same agreement on the table. 

This time may be no different.  While CSEA had more than 50 meetings with the state, PEF had to wait nearly 2 months before the state was even prepared to ask questions about the full contract proposal we gave them in December.  Will the state string PEF along again this time? It’s hard to say, but if they pick that fight, PEF is prepared to respond.