Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 20, 2012 9:47:57 GMT -5
As usual, our favorite right-wing puppet is whining on about Triborough again - this time in response to Rick Karlins article this morning about mandate relief. While EJ laments (correctly) that Rick has his facts wrong (what else is new), EJ isn't really the master of Triborough facts either (again, what else is new). I respond, and I will post a copy here, as EJ generally likes to simply delete my comments:
www.nytorch.com/?p=6312
While you are correct in that Karlin, as usual, is factually wrong when it comes to the Triborough amendment, you generally are as well.
For example, the Triborough decision - which is the basis of the Triborough doctrine and the Triborough amendment, was not a decision by some po-dunk labor arbitrator. It was a decision by PERB, which basically states that if unions do not have the power to strike, then longstanding contract provisions should remain in place, because labor effectively has no power to fight back and the employer has all the power.
What Triborough has done is brought relative labor peace. Wildcat strikes, which occurred in violation of the no-strikes provision of the Taylor law, are now a rare thing. While the TWU has conducted one or two since Triborough, they have suffered significant consequences for each one especially the last one. If Triborough was to go away, I'd bet unions would again be far more apt to call for wildcat strikes in direct contradiction to the no-strike provision of the Taylor law.
Removing Triborough will effectively do one thing and one thing only: delay - not remove - step increases. Health insurance would continue, because there is now sufficient case law that reflects it would be protected under the Triborough doctrine that would remain in force even after a repeal of the Triborough law, while as you correctly note, steps are not protected under the Triborough doctrine - which I suspect would eventually be challenged in court again anyway if the Triborough law as repealed. Why do I say that step increases would merely be delayed? You and I both know they aren't going anywhere. You were a state manager at one point managing professional and paraprofessional staff. You know just as well as anyone how large the gap is between the meager starting pay for a professional level state job and what the norm would be for such jobs in the private sector. Such a gap could not stand, as the state would not be able to recruit. Additionally, you are well aware that steps themselves on the state level are a previous concession. It wasn't that long ago it only took 3 years to move from the hiring rate to the journeyman rate, and today, it takes 7, saving the state tens of millions each year. Finally, teachers steps are not going away either. Why? Because without steps, an entry level, 1st year teacher with only a Batchelors and still needing to work for their Masters would make exactly the same as a teacher who has been on the job for 30 years and has a Masters, and that just won't work either.
Another area you get wrong on Triborough is that it always gives employees the power and employers are powerless because of it. That is yet another bogus claim. Look at NYSCOPBA - did Triborough help them? They went 9 YEARS without a contract, which means 9 years without a general salary increase. The employER had all the power there, because while Triborough maintained their health care and steps, those that were at the top of their payscale went for almost a decade without a raise, with more and more employees reaching that plateau each year for those 9 years. This effectively save the state millions, as retroactive raises are effectively cheaper for the state due to inflation.
Finally, you miss one more item that effectively negates the repeal of Triborough: Most labor contracts in either the public or the private sector tend to stipulate that the provisions of the contract will remain in force when the contract ends and will continue to remain in force until a successor agreement is made and ratified. So this leaves you dealing the with the contracts clause of the US Constitution when trying to not honor the long term terms of a contract, which I don't see working out too well for employers trying to break such terms.
So while you keep sounding the "alarm" that Triborough is so expensive, the reality is that even if it is repealed, not much will change - except labor might be more inclined to strike in contradiction to the no-strikes provision of Taylor. Whether you and other right-wingers like it or not, employees should be fairly compensated.
www.nytorch.com/?p=6312
While you are correct in that Karlin, as usual, is factually wrong when it comes to the Triborough amendment, you generally are as well.
For example, the Triborough decision - which is the basis of the Triborough doctrine and the Triborough amendment, was not a decision by some po-dunk labor arbitrator. It was a decision by PERB, which basically states that if unions do not have the power to strike, then longstanding contract provisions should remain in place, because labor effectively has no power to fight back and the employer has all the power.
What Triborough has done is brought relative labor peace. Wildcat strikes, which occurred in violation of the no-strikes provision of the Taylor law, are now a rare thing. While the TWU has conducted one or two since Triborough, they have suffered significant consequences for each one especially the last one. If Triborough was to go away, I'd bet unions would again be far more apt to call for wildcat strikes in direct contradiction to the no-strike provision of the Taylor law.
Removing Triborough will effectively do one thing and one thing only: delay - not remove - step increases. Health insurance would continue, because there is now sufficient case law that reflects it would be protected under the Triborough doctrine that would remain in force even after a repeal of the Triborough law, while as you correctly note, steps are not protected under the Triborough doctrine - which I suspect would eventually be challenged in court again anyway if the Triborough law as repealed. Why do I say that step increases would merely be delayed? You and I both know they aren't going anywhere. You were a state manager at one point managing professional and paraprofessional staff. You know just as well as anyone how large the gap is between the meager starting pay for a professional level state job and what the norm would be for such jobs in the private sector. Such a gap could not stand, as the state would not be able to recruit. Additionally, you are well aware that steps themselves on the state level are a previous concession. It wasn't that long ago it only took 3 years to move from the hiring rate to the journeyman rate, and today, it takes 7, saving the state tens of millions each year. Finally, teachers steps are not going away either. Why? Because without steps, an entry level, 1st year teacher with only a Batchelors and still needing to work for their Masters would make exactly the same as a teacher who has been on the job for 30 years and has a Masters, and that just won't work either.
Another area you get wrong on Triborough is that it always gives employees the power and employers are powerless because of it. That is yet another bogus claim. Look at NYSCOPBA - did Triborough help them? They went 9 YEARS without a contract, which means 9 years without a general salary increase. The employER had all the power there, because while Triborough maintained their health care and steps, those that were at the top of their payscale went for almost a decade without a raise, with more and more employees reaching that plateau each year for those 9 years. This effectively save the state millions, as retroactive raises are effectively cheaper for the state due to inflation.
Finally, you miss one more item that effectively negates the repeal of Triborough: Most labor contracts in either the public or the private sector tend to stipulate that the provisions of the contract will remain in force when the contract ends and will continue to remain in force until a successor agreement is made and ratified. So this leaves you dealing the with the contracts clause of the US Constitution when trying to not honor the long term terms of a contract, which I don't see working out too well for employers trying to break such terms.
So while you keep sounding the "alarm" that Triborough is so expensive, the reality is that even if it is repealed, not much will change - except labor might be more inclined to strike in contradiction to the no-strikes provision of Taylor. Whether you and other right-wingers like it or not, employees should be fairly compensated.