|
Post by Tom on Jun 27, 2012 19:36:14 GMT -5
Is there a reason they would want to go after Triborough? I heard some discussion that Andrew left it on the table had we no taken that contract., so I guess I already did my part my helping the second contract.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 27, 2012 19:46:39 GMT -5
That's more like it. Thank you for moving back to the issues.
Yes, the press all week has been saying that it's quite possible that Cuomo will make a repeal of Triborough a part of the legislative pay increases that will be voted on after the elections. The rhetoric in both the press and in the conservative echo chamber (IE: people like EJ McMahon) has hit a fevered pace on Triborough as "mandate relief." So it is quite likely that it will face an attack later this year.
So I ask again: What do you suggest we do to combat this?
And I should add this: as a union member, your part NEVER ENDS in combating attacks against us. Whether Cuomo made a threat about Triborough previously or not, that doesn't change the fact that it's quite possibly under siege again, and we'll need all hands on deck to defeat such an attack. ALL HAND ON DECK.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 27, 2012 19:52:54 GMT -5
It can't be stopped if that's the will of legislature and the people of NY. Just like Sue Kent couldn't be stopped. It was the will of the membership. Check mate. Next topic please.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 27, 2012 19:54:27 GMT -5
Defeatist attitude fail Tom. Certainly it can be stopped.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 27, 2012 19:55:46 GMT -5
Ok, I'm all ears. Tell us how the force will stop it.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 27, 2012 20:01:16 GMT -5
I've been discussing that already Tom. We need to be proactive about the situation and head it off at the pass.
The echo chamber idea of Triborough is that it's simply a "costly mandate" that allows government workers to get raises in perpetuity. We know that isn't the case. We must start addressing that public perception of Triborough NOW with an effort to educate the public on what Triborough really does, utilizing traditional advertising and social media, and we must get EVERY public sector union in the state involved in that effort. Additionally, we must start lobbying against it in the legislature NOW, before the elections - and get concrete, public commitments from legislators that they will not vote for a change and that they support Triborough. If they won't do such a thing, then we should pull any political support for them immediately and offer it to their opponents.
Shortly, I will be posting an FAQ or essay about Triborough on my Facebook page. Fans can then share said essay. It's a start until we see what the Kent administration does when they take over in August, because obviously, Brynien isn't going to do a damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 27, 2012 20:06:35 GMT -5
It seems Tom has come to his senses. Very well, let us focus on Triborough.
I don't care one way or the other whether Triborough gets repealed or not. Triborough is a MacGuffin, something meant to distract everyone and follow a plotline. It's not very important in the overall scheme of things.
If Triborough gets repealed, it doesn't remove all the case law that resulted in the original Triborough doctrine. The bottom line is that one of two things MUST EXIST: the right to strike, or Triborough. The "people" must choose which one they want. "Neither" is not an available option, and never has been.
If Triborough gets repealed, I expect NYUP to immediately sue for the right to strike. Once that's granted, the Governor will have painted himself into a corner. "Oh, is that a pattern agreement?" GENERAL STRIKE. "You don't want to negotiate?" GENERAL STRIKE. "Layoffs, you say?" GENERAL STRIKE. And every strike would shut down the whole government. Cuomo wouldn't even be able to get into his office because the building would be locked and security would be on a picket line.
People should be very, very careful what they ask for.
I say, "you want Triborough? Here you go! See you after the strike!"
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 27, 2012 20:12:27 GMT -5
Actually Techie, that illustrates the problem with the repeal of Triborough: the no-strikes clause in Taylor is not dependent on Triboroughs existence.
While I have discussed previously how even if the Triborough amendment is repealed the Triborough doctrine based on 1972 case law from PERB then takes over, the 1972 case law is not as all encompassing. For example, a court has previously ruled that steps are not a "negotiated" item and are therefore, not subject to the terms of the Triborough decision. In other words, take a union like NYSCOPBA that waited 9 years to get a contract: What would they have settled for if their steps suddenly stopped?
While I would agree with a repeal of the Triborough amendment *IF* the Taylor law was also amended to repeal the no-strikes clause (because I know the power that a strike would give us), that isn't what they want to do. They only want to repeal the Triborough amendment under the false pretenses that it's an "unfunded mandate" that costs shitloads of money.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 27, 2012 20:21:05 GMT -5
Yes, but the law of unintended consequences applies.
Talking heads: "Repeal Triborough, and show those union guys who's boss!"
Politicians: "Yeah! Repeal! Repeal! Repeal!"
Assembly: "Ok, it's repealed."
Union lawyers: "AHEM."
Judge: "In order to balance power between employer and employee, I've decided that the part of the Taylor law which outlaws striking must be nullified."
Talking heads: "Wait, what?"
Judge: "The unions can strike now."
Talking heads: "But... But..."
Union members: 'Fuckin' A! General STRIKE!"
The Public: "GODDAMMIT!"
Politicians: "Now, wait just a cotton picking minute, here!"
Union Members: "Ha ha ha, fuck you! We're on strike!"
Politicians: "You're all fired!"
Union Members: "RING RING! Is this the NLRB?"
Politicians: "Just kidding! But seriously, come back to work."
Union Members: "Here is our list of demands. You'll note that this is a PATTERN LIST..."
|
|
|
Post by Tom G on Jun 27, 2012 20:26:00 GMT -5
Well that's the obvious but you well know that it may not do a bit of good. We have been hammering the outsourcing and how much it costs the state and it's only getting worse. That's not to say we shouldn't try but I think you get the point. Are you a shop steward? I am. I'm involved.
|
|
|
Post by warmcuckoounfed on Jun 27, 2012 20:31:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure that the Judge in NYS Techie's script actually exists. And I doubt anyone would actually pick up the phone at the offices of the NLRB. If the world were fair, however...
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 27, 2012 20:42:42 GMT -5
Yes, but the law of unintended consequences applies. Talking heads: "Repeal Triborough, and show those union guys who's boss!" Politicians: "Yeah! Repeal! Repeal! Repeal!" Assembly: "Ok, it's repealed." Union lawyers: "AHEM." Judge: "In order to balance power between employer and employee, I've decided that the part of the Taylor law which outlaws striking must be nullified." Talking heads: "Wait, what?" Judge: "The unions can strike now." Talking heads: "But... But..." Union members: 'Fuckin' A! General STRIKE!" The Public: "GODDAMMIT!" Politicians: "Now, wait just a cotton picking minute, here!" Union Members: "Ha ha ha, fuck you! We're on strike!" Politicians: "You're all fired!" Union Members: "RING RING! Is this the NLRB?" Politicians: "Just kidding! But seriously, come back to work." Union Members: "Here is our list of demands. You'll note that this is a PATTERN LIST..." The problem is this: the union lawyers, arguing that the no-strikes clause of the Taylor law was unfair already happened. That's where the Triborough doctrine came from - the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority case in 1972. That was the central argument of that case. In other words, that's set in stone case law at this point because it's already been argued. It's won't change merely because we attempted to re-argue it at PERB.
|
|
|
Post by NYS Techie on Jun 27, 2012 20:49:10 GMT -5
But DARTH, if it's already been successfully argued and is part of case law, a judge could easily restore Triborough based on the argument.
I affirm that one or the other MUST EXIST: The right to strike or Triborough. The public must choose. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 27, 2012 20:49:14 GMT -5
Well that's the obvious but you well know that it may not do a bit of good. We have been hammering the outsourcing and how much it costs the state and it's only getting worse. That's not to say we shouldn't try but I think you get the point. Are you a shop steward? I am. I'm involved. So far Tom, you've added nothing to the discussion other than a defeatist attitude. Defeatist attitudes are why unions all over the nation, in both the public and private sector are floundering. I'm asking you for your ideas. If you don't have any, simply say so. If you have some, contribute. But to keep saying "there's nothing we can do" or some derivative is EXACTLY why you Members First guys just got defeated in the election, because it's a weak cop-out. There are no members on the line here. Even those that didn't want to take harsh action during the contract fight can take action NOW, because the "save jobs" argument doesn't apply. I don't mean to sound like a a-hole here Tom, because really, I'm glad you are participating now. And I mean that - seriously. But how much do you really know about Triborough? Being a steward is irrelevant - it doesn't mean anyone knows anything. This is an extremely complex issue, and it requires intimate knowledge of Triborough to know how to react and formulate a plan. Please, don't take that the wrong way and think I'm insulting you. That isn't my intention. My intention is just to see what you know, and what you don't. Because what you don't know, I can help fill in the blanks - and we need more people educated about the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Stateworker on Jun 27, 2012 20:50:09 GMT -5
But DARTH, if it's already been successfully argued and is part of case law, a judge could easily restore Triborough based on the argument. I affirm that one or the other MUST EXIST: The right to strike or Triborough. The public must choose. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The judge would reaffirm the doctrine. Not the amendment. There's a difference.
|
|