After union vote, NY will lay off 3,000 public workers
The state’s second largest union, the Public Employees Federation, has rejected the contract deal negotiated with the state by its leadership. The Albany Times-Union is reporting that the vote is expected to trigger 3,000 lay-offs statewide.
With layoffs now looming, PEF workers who are the lowest in seniority will be getting notices of their impending firing shortly. The layoffs will take place across the state, but should hit some areas particularly hard including the Capital Region since some 17,000 PEF members live there. There also are about 5,000 in New York City and 4,200 on Long Island.
I don’t have good data on PEF membership and/or vulnerability in the North Country, but this will certainly affect some positions in the region.
Someone I am very close to is a PEF member, and reported that nearly every member she talked to at the State facility where she is employed planned to vote against it. She was in the minority, “We should be grateful to have good paying, secure, jobs with good benefits when so many others are suffering,” faction, a definite minority. A lot of bloodymindedness there, as the Brits say (or used to say).
Apparently one deal-breaker was a concern the provisions of the new contract would, in addition to the various give-backs, have an impact on members retirement pay. Don’t know if this is true, or not.
We’ll see what happens when the layoff notices arrive.
I would like to see a reasoned argument for why the contract was rejected, here, or somewhere.
I wonder if Andy’s popularity will go even higher as a result. Can it?
I would be very surprised if Cuomo doesn’t start laying off. How could he do otherwise when he is demanding through the 2% cap that towns, counties and schools keep wages flat and/or lay off their workers.
I would like to hear the reasons as well. The PEF employees are professionals, and more educated then most people. I think we can assume that they read the fine print and many thought it was unfair.
PEF was created when CSEA agreed to a no increase contract and then the union leaders gave themselves a pay raise for doing such a good job. I don’t know all the details of the contract that the membership turned down but as a former PEF member I think it was foolish. They have made substantial gains in recent contracts so they aren’t really hurting and the economy is in the ditch so… OTOH I remember other members saying in the past that “if voting it down means layoffs, that just leaves more for those who are left”. What’s “fair” too often boils down to self interest.
“PEF workers who are the lowest in seniority will be getting notices of their impending firing shortly”
What a messed up system. Doesn’t matter how good you are, time is all that matters.
Actually Paul, its the rules that matter. (as spelled out in the contract).
If layoffs happen it won’t be the state that did it. They will have voted to lay themselves off. I’d really like to see a breakdown of the vote but of course we won’t see that. I’ll be that the no vote was weighted toward the top of the union totem pole where jobs are secure and to hell with the “brothers and sisters” at the bottom.
I think the true beliefs are shown of the top level union leaders (not the rank and file). Protect the higher paid jobs don’t give up any pay and reduce the number of jobs as long as they are lower paid. This is the old time union model and I understand it, I just don’t think it works anymore. It is the reason that unions are basically not relevant outside of government and some larger old line industries.
Mervel – I think you got it backwards. In my experience (as a public employee union delegate) the public employee unions are primarily concerned with protecting the number of jobs, and they work harder to boost salaries and benefits for the lower wage employees than the higher paid ones. (At least ours is).
You might be right.
It just seems that when push comes to shove union leadership is not interested in giving up pay and benefits that would save jobs, they would rather take the layoffs.
“Actually Paul, its the rules that matter. (as spelled out in the contract).”
The contract should read “we are going to fire the under-performing workers first”
We should demand that our tax dollars be spent wisely.
Paul – it could say that, but it doesn’t. (and there would have to be some agreed upon system for grading employees).
It does say that employees can be fired for cause.