|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jul 16, 2011 10:57:43 GMT -5
blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/75062/cuomo-and-pef-reach-contract-deal-w-furloughs/After weeks of negotiating, they apparently reached a deal that mirrors the CSEA contract. I'm glad it gets our members off the hook for layoffs for now. I think that the unions should have went for an injunction on that though to send Cuomo a message that we will not be bullied, and we will not let him shoot hostages just to blackmail us to take a shitty fucking contract. I'm not in agreement with the capitulation strategy. If the injunction failed, a strike could have been called for. The mere threat of a strike would have gotten the attention of the national press, which would have put Cuomo in a politically dangerous situation. Think about it: neither union has taken one fucking action against this guy. No real protests (save for one small one by PEF), nothing. No wonder why Cuomo thinks he can just push us over. I think the officers of both unions need to go - they forgot how unions are supposed to fight for their members, not bend over and take it up the ass. I will be voting no. Between the furloughs, the lack of any real raise (2% at the end won't even make up for inflation), and the huge increase in health care costs, this contract amounts to nothing more than wage theft. The ratification vote should take place after the vote for the CSEA contract, meaning we'll be able to see the outcome and aftermath of their vote first.
|
|
|
|
Post by uncivilservant on Jul 16, 2011 11:17:46 GMT -5
No. I told them those terms were unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jul 16, 2011 11:57:52 GMT -5
I believe this is a stalling tactic. It seemed pretty clear that they polling PEF was doing was indicating the vast majority of the membership did not support givebacks of this magnitude based on the way PEF had been acting.
I think they expect the CSEA contract to go down, and they chose to accept the CSEA terms to stave off the layoffs temporarily, so we can then vote this down and fight Cuomo together - which is what should have happened in the first place.
Let's not forget Donohue has a history of accepting horrible contract terms while telling his members it's the best he can get, only to have it voted down and for him to change his tune and act like he never supported the original contract in the first place.
Both unions should vote no and take this clown on head on.
|
|
|
|
Post by gfo on Jul 16, 2011 13:01:11 GMT -5
Where can I find out exactly how healthcare costs are rising? I mean, I defintely understand overall it's 60%. But in terms of an outpatient surgery copay - or a doctor's co-pay....if I have to be admitted to the hospital copay...I need hard numbers. Anyone know this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jul 16, 2011 13:19:58 GMT -5
If it follows the CSEA agreement as a pattern, CSEA say no increases in MOST copays. Take a look at the CSEA side by side comparison with the old contract that was posted on Capcon or the CSEA website. That should give you an idea - but I would wait to review the details from PEF, because it may not be exactly the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by adirondackguy on Jul 16, 2011 23:59:31 GMT -5
Here's what I posted:
Ok, I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, my boss won’t get laid off, so obviously I’m very happy about that. He’s a good boss, and I would have missed him. So as a delaying tactic, accepting the contract could be viewed as a good thing.
On the other hand, the contract stinks. The state’s revenues are up, there’s no reason for the Governor to continue to demand givebacks from us, and there aren’t any layoff protections. Although the Times Union claims we have protections for five years, that’s bunk.
The TRUTH is, you have “kinda sorta” protection for 2012 and 2013, and even then, the Governor has his three magic loopholes: he can still throw a layoff if the SAGE commission says to; he can still throw a layoff if the state’s financials change; and he can still throw a layoff if he decides to close a facility.
BASICALLY, he can still throw a layoff anytime he wants. All he has to do is phone up one of his appointees at the SAGE commission and say “I’d like to do a layoff. Please recommend one for me.” PRESTO! Layoff.
On yet another hand, layoffs are politically unpopular, and would cause him to lose a lot of Democrat street cred. It might be difficult for him to try for national office once he does something so anti-Labor. His layoffs may have been nothing but a grandiose bluff designed to terrorize the unions into accepting his demands.
If he is willing to settle for his pound of flesh and not lay anyone off for the remainder of his term, some givebacks MIGHT be worth considering. But I do not trust his goodwill. I feel as though he would LOVE to lay off large numbers of state workers. Thus I find it very hard to trust him.
SO…
What to do? What to do, that is the question. Personally, I don’t really care about the zeroes in the contract. I don’t like the 60% increase in health care costs. I think the furloughs will be a nice way for me to either take an unpaid week and go on vacation, or have five weeks with a four-day weekend, so I’m OK with that.
I really DON’T like the lack of layoff protection. A contract that claims to protect against layoff but inserts three gigantic loopholes in it is like a submarine with a screen door in the conning tower. Oh, sure it may float for a LITTLE while, but as soon as the captain tries to dive, the sub’s gonna sink.
What to do? I need to think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by donnah on Jul 17, 2011 8:19:42 GMT -5
I can't believe they caved! Why did they even make a show of standing up to the Governor? This is ridiculous. I hope the Governor's wrong in thinking that the passing of same-sex marraige is all the disguise he needs to keep the (D) after his name and retain voters that always vote (D) but, sadly, I suspect that he's not wrong about that. Dems need to be fucking stopped! They are getting away with much that Repugs are criticized harshly for just because of the (D) and the idiots keep voting (D) any way and cry voting third party is throwing away your vote.
Yeah, right. Not if more people had the balls to actually fucking do it already. I voted for Howie Hawkins and am damned glad that I don't have to be ashamed of my vote for having voted for this bully. If all the thousands who are feeling the pain he's now inflicted had voted for Howie Hawkins, he'd have stood a chance. Even if he -- or some other third party -- didn't win but garnered thousands of votes away from the Dems, it would send a message loud and clear that just having a (D) after your name does not guarantee your victory even in New York State. If you want (D) to mean something then act old-school (D), not Republican. (God, I can't even say Republican-lite any more; they really have gone that far around the bend.)
|
|
|
|
Post by adirondackguy on Jul 17, 2011 17:49:49 GMT -5
If the union reps could be given a truth serum...
Interrogator: "So why did you guys give in to Cuomo? You could have gotten some kind of legal injunction, couldn't you?"
PEF Rep: "Look at the governor. Look at those eyes. He has the mad stare of a serial killer! The first time I met him, I wet my pants."
Interrogator: "What are you saying? He can't actually hurt you."
PEF Rep: "Oh, SURE, you say that now! But when I go to bed, I can feel him under the bed, waiting for me to to go sleep. Sometimes he's in the closet. Staring. With those bug-eyes of his." (squeals and tries to hide under a newspaper).
Interrogator: "Oh, for the love of God, pull yourself together! He's just a man, and he can't do anything to you!"
PEF Rep: "Just thinking about him I wet my pants again! Don't you understand how SCARY he is? When I met with his people to talk about the contract, he shook my hand! He shook it and started at me with those eyes and said something about hoping we can come to an agreement. I almost fainted! Just thinking about it I feel like I'm... I'm... " (Faints).
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jul 17, 2011 19:02:45 GMT -5
They don't call him "The Dark Prince" for nothing!
|
|
|
|
Post by donnah on Jul 18, 2011 10:09:03 GMT -5
Even while LMAO, Techie, I'm thinking that's pretty damned accurate.
I got sucked into that whole thread -- PEF's FB page. A few of the no-backbone's there did not take too kindly for me calling them out for the cowards they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by donnah on Jul 18, 2011 10:10:00 GMT -5
I should probably change my profile pic. I think people are mistaking me for someone 34 years younger. lol
Actually, I was thinking of putting it up here too -- if I get around to bothering.
|
|
|
|
Post by aurelis on Jul 18, 2011 16:52:24 GMT -5
Does anyone have a guess as to when the full contract proposal will be available to analyze? I want to see more than just the summaries. The details are important, especially with the SAGE recommendations being hidden from us in the wings, potentially wiping out my IT career path anyhow.
As for my voting decision, I'm leaning no, but I'll wait until I can compare the total compensation package to what is getting offered in the private sector.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jul 18, 2011 17:02:22 GMT -5
I've heard nothing yet on when we can expect the complete details. But I will be sure to post a link to them on the forums as soon as they are online.
|
|
clues
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by clues on Jul 19, 2011 1:50:07 GMT -5
spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvQwF_h9pPKudHkwbzY1cExTdWpxNmxJcV9zRTdmR2c&hl=en_USIf you plug in your salary, whether you have single or family plan insurance and the biweekly premium, it will calculate what the difference between what staying on the current contract would net you vs what being on the proposed contract would. I did it in excel and uploaded it so if it doesn't work let me know. I hate google docs but alas it's the easiest way to share docs with people. I'm sure all the other unions will fall in line with the CSEA and PEF ones to send to vote. I don't particularly care for my union to begin with so I'll be a major pain in the ass to them if they accept a matching proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by donnah on Jul 19, 2011 9:30:52 GMT -5
Any word any place on how it's going to effect retirees' premiums and copays. I'm in serious dread because I'm already cancelling doctor's appointments and not making ones I should. For now, I've refills enough on my meds and am managing them through the mail order program. If I get the SSD, I'll have money enough but, frankly, with the President threatening that SS checks aren't even going to go out on the third and putting that and Medicare on the table so the rich assholes don't have to pay taxes, I'm not optimistic about automatic denials being overturned on appeal even when they should be. Dollars to donuts, that that automatic denial despite having doctor's verifications policy at the application level is going to start being applied at the appeal level too where 80% are currently now granted because they should have been in the first place. Yes, I know they're supposed to be in front of impartial hearing officers. Impartial hearing officers can get in their annual reviews bad points for approving too many if the higher ups get the word to come down on them for it.
Some of the quotes on copays in that thread were quite scary and I'm wondering if they're at all accurate or if people were just throwing out paranoid assumptions. In other words, talking out of their ass.
|
|
