Scroll down to read this
month's member's letters.
Contract good, but could
be better
To the Editor:
With the determination and hard work of many dedicated PEF
members, a contract was finally negotiated and ratified. Though I
am very appreciative of all that was done, I still have some
concerns about this as well as future contracts.
After accepting four years of zero raises in the ’90s, and
with most of our salaries lagging far behind industry standards
as well as inflation rates, PEF rightfully requested 5 percent
raises for four years.
However, as soon as the Civil Service Employees Association was
offered 3 percent, 3 percent, 3.5 percent and 3.5 percent,
PEF’s rallying cry changed to, “We want the same as
CSEA.” Why was our demand of 5 percent dropped? It was a
fair and much-deserved request, but the outcome only helped
perpetuate the notion that what one union gets, they all get.
I feel PEF should work to repeal or amend the law that allows the
state to evade retroactive payment after a contract settlement.
Stalling negotiations and then not making payments retroactive to
the end of the last contract has become normal operating
procedure. Is their anything PEF can do to stop the state from
taking advantage of its employees in this way?
I also would like to see PEF aggressively pursue location pay.
Living in Orange County, we, as well as surrounding counties,
receive no location pay, although the cost of living is
substantially higher here than in most other regions of the
state.
I would like PEF to conduct a survey that would take into
consideration such things as housing prices, rents, taxes, food,
etc. that would more accurately reflect the cost of living
differences between regions. PEF could then use this data to
negotiate location pay changes that more realistically represent
the higher cost of living in these regions.
Again, my deepest appreciation for all that PEF and its dedicated
members have accomplished and for all that will be accomplished.
BILL REESE
Middletown
Editor’s note:
PEF’s contract negotiators report that they moved the
pattern as much as possible, but were not able to get annual
raises of 5 percent after CSEA members ratified their agreement
with smaller raises.
However, PEF’s negotiators felt the additional pension
benefits, including elimination of the 3 percent member
contributions after 10 years of service, were so beneficial that
they made the smaller raises acceptable in the overall package.
Again, PEF tried as hard as it could to avoid the lagged
retroactivity for pay raises, but eventually had to accept it in
order to achieve the overall package.
Location pay is a subject for bargaining and the level of this
pay was raised in the contract. However, PEF intends to meet with
the state to discuss the situation in Orange County and in other
areas with higher costs of living.
Questions timing of
dues request
To the Editor:
Prior to the ratification of the new contract, the only selling
point that the union was pushing seemed to be that the membership
would see the money from the retroactive salary increases by
early September.
PEF’s funding is directly related to the earnings of the
membership.
The leadership has negotiated the union a pay raise that is not
large enough to meet PEF’s future financial needs. While
still crowing about the successful contract negotiations, the
leadership told us that it needs a dues increase, because they
project a budget deficit that will reach $2.6 million by the year
2005.
This information should have been released at the time of the
ratification vote, not after the votes had been counted.
Can this really be called a success?
SHAUN SNEE
Patchogue
Editor’s note: The
request for a PEF dues increase was sparked by dues increases
approved at the conventions of PEF’s two international
affiliates, in May and July — shortly before
PS&T-contract balloting ended.
A portion of the dues PEF collects from its members must cover
the per-capita dues PEF pays to its international affiliates.
Thanks members who sign
petitions
To the Editor:
I am very grateful to all PEF members who signed a petition for
the PEF vice presidential race, regardless of the candidate they
supported.
It seems that many PEF represented people don’t understand
that an elected-position vacancy needs an election to fill the
vacancy. If no candidate gets the required number of member
signatures for a nomination, then the entire election process
must begin again.
Please remember: a petition signature was not a vote and all
votes would still occur by secret ballot if more than one
candidate got enough signatures.
I would like to thank PEF members for supporting PEF and signing
nominating petitions
PRISCILLA J. SWEET
Pattersonville
PEF needed bigger dues increase
To the Editor:
In response to the letter from Michael Izzo that appeared in the
November issue, I voted for the dues increase and feel that even
it was too small.
As a former Executive Board member, I have seen how our contracts
were negotiated in the past. I have seen a weak union go to the
governor on the bent knees of a supplicant and beseech our
all-powerful liege for an additional pittance.
We could not strike, as it is against the law. We had to beg.
That is why we received no pay increases in four of the previous
eight years.
Since Roger Benson has become president, this has been rapidly
changing. For the first time that I can remember, PEF got in the
governor’s face and made it clear that we would no longer be
negotiating from an inability to fight back. I saw President
Benson do everything he could with the very limited money
available. As a result, we managed to get our members a decent
contract for the first time in 20 years. My members no longer
call PEF “PUFF.”
The term of this contract is already half over. Preliminary
activities are ready to begin on negotiating the next contract.
We cannot strike, therefore, it’s imperative that we are
prepared to get in the governor’s face with the truth at
every opportunity. This governor (or any successor) will
understand only one thing: power.
Public awareness is power. Truth is power. We must make the
public aware through the truth squads that were so successful and
through extensive use of the media.
This takes money, much more money than we had. The dues increase
helps to correct this problem. We needed the dues increase to
guarantee that our liege understands the peasants will no longer
tolerate crumbs.
RALPH SCHWARTZ
Hopewell Junction
Objects to SEFA-caution ad
To the Editor:
In the September issue, you have an ad which states in bold
letters, “Support SEFA, but don’t give away your
job!”
You then go on to list four private agencies that compete with
public employees for work. The admonition is clear: do not donate
to these charities.
Is your concern for PEF members’ jobs or for PEF membership?
Are you more concerned that PEF members will lose their jobs or
that PEF will lose members?
Irrespective of your motives, shame on you! Do you seek to
deprive well-meaning charities and the people they serve of the
funding they require out of some misplaced concern for
employees’ job security?
Is this the best way for you to spend your time and energy? Is
the only way that you can secure the jobs of your members upon
the backs of those less fortunate and who are seeking funds so
that they might help themselves?
If you truly wanted to demonstrate your capacity for charity and
compassion, you would issue a retraction and an apology to the
SEFA agencies you have insulted and maligned.
For myself, I plan to donate to each of the four agencies you
listed.
LAWRENCE SLOMIN
Poughkeepsie
Voted for dues hike to
build PEF
To the Editor:
This is in response to Michael Izzo's comments regarding the
voting for the dues increase.
The vote for a dues increase was overwhelming. The only region
that voted it down was Region 8, the Capital District. So, if
delegates from Region 8 say they voted no, they probably did.
I voted for the dues increase, although I did not vote for the
PS&T contract. As a long-term state employee, I actually see
that PEF is starting to become a legitimate union.
Although I believe this contract could have been better, a union
cannot operate without adequate working capital. Hopefully, we
will be a smarter and healthier union for the next round of
contract negotiations.
Unfortunately, like many of my co-workers, I will be retired
within eight years. It will be up to the next generation to build
upon the first 22 years of PEF.
STEVEN FARBER
Albany
Letters policy
The Communicator welcomes
letters to the editor about union issues and events relevant to
PEF's diverse membership.
All letters are subject to editing for space, fairness and good
taste.
Please keep them brief (up to one page, double-spaced or a
maximum of 250 words), and please include your name and phone
number for verification.
Send letters to:
The
Communicator
Public Employees Federation
P.O. Box 12414
Albany, N.Y. 12212-2414
or email Denyce Duncan Lacy,
Executive Editor The Communicator - Director of Public Relations mailto:dlacy@pef.org
or Sherry Halbrook, Editor of The Communicator- shalbrook@pef.org