Blog

Cuomo Veto’s Cost Benefit Analysis

From: Leo, Chris
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2018 5:44 AM
To: Spence, Wayne
Subject: Cost Benefit Analysis Update

Sent on Behalf of President Spence:
PEF Leaders:
I am disappointed to tell you that Governor Cuomo has decided to veto the PEF Cost Benefit Analysis and SUNY Stony Brook retirement legislation. (Veto messages attached) (below)
Even though the measure was overwhelmingly passed by both houses of the New York State Legislature and overwhelmingly supported by both labor and good government groups alike, the Governor still saw fit to reject the legislation.
Please know we will pick up this fight again next legislative session, because nothing is more important than protecting our jobs from privatization.
We, along with other organizations, think the Governor missed an important opportunity to do right by New York State taxpayers, as this bill would have gone a long way to ensuring that state business is conducted with much needed transparency, while at the same time ensuring taxpayers are getting the high-quality, cost-effective services they deserve and have come to expect from PEF members and other  public employees.
I want to thank you for the phone calls, letters and emails you sent  in support of the legislation.  Your efforts were not in vain.  Legislative leaders from around the state heard our voices and will be working with us in the upcoming legislative session to get a new version of Cost Benefit Analysis on the books.
In solidarity,
Wayne Spence
PEF President

Sent on Behalf of President Spence:

Empire Center Opposes PEF Cost Benefit Analysis Legislation

By Ken Girardin

Ken Girardin is the Empire Center’s Policy Analyst, performing detailed analysis of data and public policy in support of the Center’s research work.

He previously worked in the New York State Legislature. He joined the Empire Center in June 2014.  ken@empirecenter.org   (518) 434-3100 ext. 103

The second bill, S383 (Robach)/A2202 (Bronson), would, among other things, require state agencies to perform cost-benefitanalyses before signing personal-service contracts with private firms worth more than $750,000. Instead of seeking “best value,” as state finance law now requires, agencies would have to prove the existing state workforce could not instead be used at an equal or lower cost.

Contracting with outside vendors can offer an attractive alternative to using state employees for anything from engineering design to information technology needs. State agency management, for instance, typically can’t have someone represented by PEFperforming work outside his or her title, while a consultant likely wouldn’t face that same obstacle. Contractors aren’t restricted by civil service rules and have more flexibility in promoting and re-assigning people based on immediate needs. And contractors’ livelihoods depend on the efficient delivery of a promised service, which does not exactly mirror the stakes faced by state employees.

The bill, a version of which Cuomo vetoed in 2012, is designed to create obstacles to outsourcing and privatization. In his veto message, Cuomo noted current law lets the administration consider “quality and efficiency,” something that wouldn’t necessarily be quantified in a strictly dollars-and-cents analysis.

It’s textbook rent-seeking by the Public Employees Federation, a government union representing about 50,000 mostly white-collar employees (and which endorsed Cuomo’s 2018 re-election after working to beat him in the 2014 Democratic primary). The number of state positions represented by PEF slid from 54,718 in 2011 to 52,335 in 2017, of which only about 50,000 were filled last year. Essentially any new obstacle stifling the use of outside contractors would ultimately benefit the union monetarily.

PEF has similarly crusaded against the expanded use of the design-build construction process, since design work is performed by outside consultants instead of public employees (read: dues-paying PEF members). A concession to PEF of this bill’s nature would signal the governor is backing away from these and other measures that have helped trim costs.

Cuomo has until Friday, December 7 to act on the bills.

Have you sent your letter yet?  Today is the last day to send support letters for PEF Cost BenefitAnalysis legislation.

PEF 2015-16 Contracting Out Analysis (1)

For the most part, consulting work is done by professionals, i.e. it is the work that PEF members would otherwise perform.

The Agencies included herein were those with the greatest dollar-amounts of contracted out consulting work during SFY 2015-16.  Unfortunately, there are some holes in the information.  While contractors are legally required to annually submit Form data, there is no current penalty for not doing so.

Nonetheless, as you will see, consultants are routinely paid more for the work they do, than corresponding State employees.

Obviously, while our analysis looks at the contracts, we cannot know what additional expenses the state agencies must employ to oversee these contracts, but we know that it is not insignificant.  This just provides further evidence of the need for Cost/Benefit legislation.

Nonetheless, and in the mean time, this is information that you may find most useful to raise at statewide Labor/Management.

Kevin E. Jones

518-785-1900 ext. 287

Director of Civil Service

Enforcement & Research

Public Employees Federation

 

What do YOU want to see in our next Contract?

Take the survey!  Tell PEF what your contract priorities are!   Speak to telecommuting!  Request our contract team negotiate telecommuting in the contract!

http://www.pef.org/survey

 

PEF Membership Benefits

PEF Membership Benefits Programs:

  1. Group Term Life Insurance
  2. Short-Term Disability Insurance
  3. Long-Term Disability Insurance
  4. Accident Indemnity Insurance
  5. Cancer Care Insurance
  6. Auto/Home/Renters Insurance
  7. Emergency Travel/Identify Theft Protection
  8. Free College Benefit
  9. Justice Center Benefit
  10. Legal Defense Benefit
  11. Discharge of Official Weapon Benefit
  12. Assault, Trauma, and Captivity Coverage
  13. Voluntary Legal Service Plan
  14. Financial Planning and Credit Counseling
  15. Purchase Power Financing Alternative
  16. Payroll Deduction
  17. Defensive Driving Course
  18. Exam Fee Reimbursement
  19. PEF Travel Services & Rebates
  20. Discounts on entertainment activities for you & your family

http://www.pef.org/blog/2018/07/19/pef-member-dont-lose-out-sign-today/

 

PEF PARADES

 

 

Post Janus Talking Points

 

While members wonder What the Janus decision means to them and Why they should remain in a Union, these talking points are a good place to start.

Post_Janus_Talking_Points

Dontloseoutsignupflyer

https://www.labor.ny.gov/janus-guidance.shtm

 

 

PEF Executive Board enacts new policy for non-members as a result of the Janus decision

Effective immediately, PEF shall not provide representation to non-members except as required by Civil Service Law section section 209-a, as amended. Namely, PEF shall not provide representation to non-members: (i) during questioning by the employer, (ii) in statutory or administrative proceedings or to enforce statutory or regulatory rights, or (iii) in any stage of a grievance, arbitration or other contractual process concerning the evaluation or discipline of a public employee where the non-member is permitted to proceed without the employee organization and be represented by his or her own advocate.

PEF will not provide representation in the above-referenced matters unless the individual is an active, dues paying PEF member at the time of the conduct which is the subject of the questioning, proceeding, conduct, evaluation or other action at issue, and remains an active dues paying PEF member during the course of the representation.

PEF_Membership_Application (1)newlyhired

Exisiting_Membership_Card

 

PEF Re-Commitment Pledge Card

Freedom to Join.

Click the link below to re-commit:
In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will decide a case called Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, that threatens to take away the freedom of working people to join together and negotiate for better wages and working conditions.
PEF expects the Supreme Court ruling on Janus to be decided very soon.
PEF is concerned that the decision will be a negative one for unions and members.
In anticipation of this decision, PEF has created a “Re-Commitment Pledge Card” and is asking that all current and new members pledge their commitment for a year for the payment of dues.
This will allow PEF to continue providing essential services to its members and provide time to make a solid plan for the future.
 

PEF DIVISION 240 SCHOLARSHIP INFORMATION

***Update, the winners will be announced by July 30, 2018.

PEF DIVISION 240 SCHOLARSHIP INFORMATION

Read below for eligibility requirements.

Scholarship applications, typewritten essays and College Transcript/College Acceptance letters MUST be received at the PEF Div. 240 P.O. Box 411, Auburn NY, 13021, by Friday June 1, 2018, COB.  Winners will be announced by Friday June 29, 2018.

PEF 240 Scholarship Flyer 2018

PEF 240 College Scholarship 2018 Application

 

State’s New Law an Incentive To Keep Paying Dues

  • By RICHARD STEIER

A case involving the Illinois affiliate of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Janus v. AFSCME, was heard by the high court earlier this year, with a decision expected in June. The plaintiff, an Illinois state worker whose legal expenses were covered by anti-union interests, claimed that it was an infringement on his First Amendment rights to pay the equivalent of dues even though he opted not to become a member of the Illinois district council.

All Activities Political?

 A 1977 Supreme Court ruling known as Abood set out guidelines for what public employees could be required to fund via the agency fees, barring the use of their payments for anything related to political activities, from supporting candidates for office to lobbying. The plaintiff in the case now before the court contends that because he is part of a public-employee union that bargains with the government, all its activities are political, including contract negotiations, and he should not be required to pay for them even though he benefits from the union’s efforts.

The new New York law, agreed to by the State Legislature as part of the budget deal late last month, is crafted in such a way that it could withstand a court challenge even if, as the unions expect, a majority of the Supreme Court rules that agency-shop fees are illegal for public-employee unions. The concern among labor leaders was that a negative ruling might prompt not only agency-fee-payers but some full-fledged members to cease making payments if no longer obligated to do so.

Under the state law, those who didn’t pay dues or their equivalent would still be entitled to wage increases and other benefit improvements negotiated by their unions. They would not, however, be entitled to other key services that many public-employee unions offer, notably disciplinary-arbitration and grievance representation. Those who opted out of paying dues would have to pay for their own lawyers.

‘Only What We’re Required’

“The union is only going to provide the services that we are contractually required to provide,” said United Federation of Teachers General Counsel Adam Ross during an April 5 phone interview. “We’re not going to provide you services we’re not required to.”

He contended that the state law represented “an effort to minimize the services that the union has to provide to people who don’t want to pay their fair share.”

Asked if there was any concern among union lawyers that if an unfavorable ruling was issued in Janus, the anti-union forces would be emboldened to challenge the state’s move to minimize the damage to public-employee-union coffers, Mr. Ross said that because of the way it was structured, “I’m comfortable that nothing in Janus is going to have an impact on this new law.”

District Council 37 Executive Director Henry Garrido said union attorneys were still reviewing the bill, but added, “I think it’s a step in the right direction. Overall the bill covers what we want it to do.”

Question of Fairness

As far as what services would not be offered to nonmembers, he said, “The way I interpreted it, the exclusion has to do [solely] with grievances and [disciplinary] arbitration. Those are very expensive for the union. It doesn’t seem fair that members who are paying dues should subsidize arbitration for those who aren’t.”

State Sen. Diane Savino, a former vice president of a DC 37 local, said what while there had been discussion of removing some other benefits for non-payers, “if you slam the door in their face out of spite, they’ll never want to join the union.”

She added, “Nobody thinks they need the union until they do. Then they become an activist.”

http://thechiefleader.com/news/open_articles/uft-lawyer-state-s-new-law-an-incentive-to-keep/article_57507a00-3c03-11e8-be14-3746cad87855.html?link_id=1&can_id=68ec92700ad5b016da5ed592a096db9e&source=email-pef-on-the-move-governor-signs-bill-to-strengthen-unions&email_referrer=email_335040&email_subject=pef-on-the-move-governor-signs-bill-to-strengthen-unions

 

Continued Attacks on the Middle Class

Right to Work law.  Call it what it is:

Right to Work for Less

Work With No Rights

If there is no union, there is no contract.  If unions are decertified and if there are future contracts, all members start from scratch.  Literally ZERO.

http://www.pef.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PEF-ReCommitment-card.pdf

Recommit to PEF by filling out the card and delivering it to your local steward or regional PEF office.

 

   

 

               

Courtesy of UTD United Teachers of Dade

One Movement