Page 7 - Work Force May 2016

Fight for fairness brings back union jobs
SOUTHAMPTON — Paying attention paid off in great measure for CSEA members who had seen their unit strength weakened over time by town leaders.
It’s a lesson union members across the state should study and embrace, because a similar situation may be occurring in your workplace.
After reading an article about another CSEA PERB case in our union’s legal publication, The Advocate, Smith decided to fight back.
She contacted CSEA’s Legal Department and was told by a staff attorney that the unit “absolutely” had grounds to pursue a case through PERB.
“I thought, ‘if they can do that, so can we,’” Smith said.
After PERB’s recent decision, the non-union positions in question will be represented by CSEA.
Bringing the titles under the umbrella of CSEA isn’t the unit’s only victory; unit activists were also able to secure some financial benefits for members.
Members will now have value for any sick time accrued during their service to the town. When they leave, they will get paid out for the time they did not use.
Those who are paying 20 percent of their health care premium will see their payments reduced to 10 percent. The town will pay for all health care costs for future retirees once the workers are vested. This benefit does not apply to those who have previously entered the
Suffolk County Local President Matt Hattorff and 1st Vice-President Peter Collins go over details of the PERB case.
The state Public
Employment
Relations Board
(PERB) recently ruled in favor of the CSEA Town of Southampton Unit after years of the town’s egregious attempts to undermine CSEA members by continuing to keep many non-union titles.
Town officials had created staff positions that were not part of CSEA’s bargaining unit, yet the duties of these jobs would have placed them in our union.
“Those positions were created
to weaken our union,” said CSEA Southampton Unit President Laura Smith. “The positions were around so long that people didn’t even bother to question them.”
retirement system.
The new settlement also
guarantees proper placement of members on the salary schedule. Before, the town had their own promotional salary schedule in place, which did not include all members. Now, everyone will have the chance to receive the salary increases they deserve.
The town will also be paying for technical and safety training, something the town highway superintendent originally did not want to do.
CSEA members employed by the town are happy with their success in achieving parity for workers.
“I think this is fantastic,” said Peter Collins, a unit activist and
1st vice president of CSEA’s Suffolk County Local. “Having been the past president of this unit, I tip my hat to Laura. She did a great job.”
“Members are saying that this is the best thing we’ve ever done as a unit,” said Smith. “They say they’re happy that we stood up for ourselves.”
— Wendi Bowie
Smith
There’s more evidence that the Cuomo administration’s Start-up New York program is nothing but a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money that could be better spent on real human needs.
Key state lawmakers have expressed concern that the state missed the early April deadline to report on the program’s progress
on promised job creation. Last
year, the state spent more than $50 million on advertising to promote the program and only 76 jobs were created — a cost of $697,000 per job.
The administration has spent more than $207 million on advertising promotion over the past three years but has yet to show any further results.
Start-Up New York is the governor’s controversial corporate welfare program that exempts start-up companies connected
to college campuses from local property taxes and their employees from paying state income taxes, for the first 10 years of their existence.
“The Cuomo administration has largely abandoned people
suffering from mental illness; there are waiting lists of individuals
and families who need access to developmental disabilities services, to name just a few examples of real need,” said CSEA President Danny Donohue. “But money’s no object when it comes to their self-serving promotion of Start-Up New York.”
Donohue and CSEA criticized the plan as a really bad idea when it was launched in 2013. Others have pointed out that the program undercuts localities by letting companies avoid local property
taxes. Another criticism is that it boosts start-up companies while ignoring established businesses that have long paid their taxes and operated by the rules to make a contribution to the state’s economy.
Incredibly, the head of the Empire State Development Corp., which oversees Start-Up New York, stated at a public hearing a few months ago that the program’s impact on public perception was more important than the number of jobs it has created.
:
a bad idea that’s still bad
and costing New Yorkers even more
May 2016
The Work Force 7
If you are interested in this story and other legal matters concerning CSEA, you can read The Advocate and other Legal Department publications online at cseany.org/legal-services-2/legal-services-publications/