Contract negotiations update... PEF keeps negotiating despite CSEA’s tentative agreement


By DEBORAH A. MILES As The Communicator goes to press,


PEF’s negotiating team is meeting with state negotiators to discuss the second proposal the state put on the table. PEF leaders said the proposal was “incomplete,” and are seeking members’ input on negotiations through a brief survey on the PEF website. Leaders of the Civil Service Employees


Association (CSEA) announced June 22 they accepted a tentative contract agreement. CSEA members still need to ratify the deal, and the vote isn’t expected to be final until August. One of the main areas of concern during


negotiations for both unions has been the governor’s threat of layoffs. PEF Vice President and contract team


chair Tom Comanzo said, “By continuing negotiations with the state, we hope the governor will view that as a good-faith opportunity to suspend his efforts to lay off our members.”


How we got here Negotiations between PEF and the state


began March 16. At first, the negotiating teams played their cards close to their vests. Things changed June 9 when Gov.


Andrew Cuomo announced the state would proceed to lay off 9.800 employees because the unions had not accepted his demand for $450 million in concessions. That’s when the union decided to break the silence and let members know exactly what has been happening at the bargaining table. Up until the end of June, PEF received


only one proposal from the state, while the union gave the state two proposals. Comanzo said the only proposal from


the state went far beyond what the governor asked for in his budget, which is one of the reasons PEF rejected it. “That proposal could require a PEF


member to give up as much as $10,000 in salary and benefits every year of the contract,” Comanzo said. “The state’s negotiators also made it clear that even if the union accepted these concessions, there still would be no guarantee to


Page 6—The Communicator July-August 2011 protect members from layoffs.”


The state’s proposal The state’s original proposal included a


six-year contract with no across-the-board raises for the first four years, and then raises of 1 percent and 2 percent payable October 1 in years five and six, respectively. The proposal would have eliminated all


longevity payments and increments for all six years of the agreement. The state also proposed excluding any


charged accruals from the determination of eligibility for overtime. “PEF members are willing to share in


the sacrifice, but not be sacrificed,” said PEF President Ken Brynien. “Members have said they are willing to endure some fiscal hardship to preserve the jobs of their co-workers, but they will not accede to all of the state’s egregious demands.”


Health insurance changes The state proposed to eliminate sick-


leave offset for retiree health insurance for all current and prospective retirees. Insurance premiums would have been increased: from 10 percent to 20 percent for individual coverage, an increase of $709; and from 25 percent to 35 percent for family coverage, an increase of $1,622, based on current rates for the Empire Plan. The state’s proposal included increased


co-pays, up to $260 for outpatient hospital procedures, a jump from $20 to $40 for a visit to a primary-care provider, and a new split co-pay for specialists with an increase from $20 to $60.


PEF’s counter proposal Comanzo said PEF offered the state’s


negotiators a proposal that includes 2011- 2012 budget-gap-closing concessions. “The givebacks in PEF’s


counterproposal add up to the union’s share of the work force savings called for in the state budget. If the union’s proposals are extended to the full state work force, the savings would provide the cash savings necessary for the state to avoid layoffs,” Comanzo said.


PEF’s counterproposal included no


base wage increase, four days of furloughs and four days of deferred pay, all in 2011- 12. PEF indicated a willingness to accept changes in health insurance including co- pay levels for medical services and prescription drugs. The union said it would consider an increase from 10 to 15 years in the vesting period for current employees to establish eligibility for retiree health insurance. Finally, it also agreed to accept a portion of the state’s proposal to exclude charged sick leave from calculation of eligibility for overtime.


PEF’s enhancements Comanzo said in exchange for these


concessions, PEF proposed enhancements during a four-year agreement. One is a salary increase in an amount equal to an agreed upon measure of inflation, such as the Consumer Price Index. The raises would be for the second, third and fourth years of the agreement, based on the inflation rate of the previous years. Other proposed enhancements include


expanding overtime eligibility, standardizing benefits for employees injured at work, expanding access to telecommuting and alternate work schedules, strengthening seniority rights and requiring a cost-benefit analysis for any proposed contracting-out services in the PS&T unit. PEF Director of Labor Relations and


chief negotiator Robert Carrothers said, “PEF has tried to be reasonable and do our part to address the state’s fiscal needs while protecting our members from lasting financial harm.” Brynien said PEF is urging the governor


to accept PEF’s proposal with the union’s concessions because it would result in the savings the state needs. Both the state’s proposal and PEF’s


counter proposal are on the home page of the PEF website, pef.org. To keep informed on breaking contract


news, members should sign up for the Active Informed Member (AIM) bulletins, check the PEF website and follow PEF on Facebook and on Twitter.


PEF Information Line: 1-800-553-2445


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28