Unions say no to crisis cuts Leaders say they won't reopen contracts to help reduce state spending
By VALERIE BAUMAN, Associated Press First published in print: Tuesday, November 11, 2008
ALBANY — Three of New York's most powerful public employee unions say they won't reopen contracts to any concessions despite the state's fiscal crisis, delivering an early blow to Gov. David Paterson's plans to fill a $2 billion deficit next week.
"I don't see any local leader wanting to come to the table to give something up," said Richard Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers.
Civil Service Employees Association President Danny Donohue said reopening contracts is "not acceptable."
It's unclear what incentives may sway the unions, which carry tremendous power with lawmakers.
Ken Brynien, president of the Public Employees Federation, said "nothing that comes to mind" would be incentive enough for his union to reconsider opening talks.
"I don't believe that further reduction in staff would benefit the taxpayers of the state," he said. "We're having a difficult enough time providing services."
Paterson wants $2 billion in spending cut from what remains of the $120 billion 2008-2009 budget. Paterson said the recession, overspending by the state and Wall Street's meltdown will result in $47 billion in deficits over the next four years if nothing is done.
"The governor will be releasing his proposals later this week," spokesman Jeffrey Gordon said. "And he has said that, given the magnitude of our fiscal crisis, no area of state spending can be off the table."
The governor is expected to issue further proposals Wednesday.
The biggest chunks of the state's $120 billion budget are Medicaid and school aid, which have historically been protected by the unions. But Paterson has said billions of dollars in cuts next year and midyear cuts to school aid are all on the table.
Even if the unions agree to contract talks, it's unclear how much New Yorkers would know about the fiscal impact of contract negotiations before any agreements are ratified, said Lise Bang-Jensen, a senior fiscal policy analyst for the fiscally conservative Empire Center for New York State Policy.
In New York, details of collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions are at times under a "shroud of secrecy," offering local governments protection from public protest and the unions heavy sway during negotiations, Bang-Jensen said.
In New York, details of collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions are at times under a "shroud of secrecy," offering local governments protection from public protest and the unions heavy sway during negotiations, Bang-Jensen said.
so basically it's a case of neighbor looking out for neighbor----HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's just as bad as wallstreet greed.....freakin' dorks..........
No compromise----LAYOFF!!!! SUCK IT UP!!!!!!
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
I think it is pretty simple, and that is even IF it can even be done....make the retired state workers pay taxes on their pensions. Ya know, like the rest of the private sector does. Just think of the money the state could bring in JUST by taxing their pensions!
The old timers say that the reason for the 'no taxing the state pensions', was an incentive to have them stay in this state after retirement. And not only is it free money for the retired public employees, if they are eligible, they can also get other tax paid services such as HEAP!
It's no wonder why NYS is called the 'give-a-way' state!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
They will throw the 8 letter dirty word at ya......C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T......and then laugh........
So layoff and there go the 'free HEAP' workers....no workers no heap etc........you can be tax free but, if there are no services to provide to you via the taxes you should be paying (like everyone else) but, dont,,,,GUESS WHAT----we're even........
Or better yet---let the unions provide 'THE SERVICES' directly themselves......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Re Nov. 11 article, “Unions reluctant to reopen pacts”: Good going, elected officials. Keep on supporting the unions just so you can get their votes. In hard times, they don’t give a damn about you or the public, as long as they get everything they want. In the article, it stated that they are reluctant to give in. That is why we need a tax cap, so they can’t dictate what they want. Wake up and smell the roses, and start working for the public — not just the unions. Maybe someday, the public will wake up and vote you out. Remember, the unions aren’t the only ones that vote.
David Mearns of Glenville sent an editorial into the Gazette today. Here is a portion of what he said:
Quoted Text
So here is a proposal that doesn’t require them to give up their precious raise. The first step is for all union leaders to give up any salaries or other compensation. The second step is for every union member to donate 50 cents per week to the state budget. Now, let’s say 40,000 members do this: It would add over $41 million to the coffers, and everyone comes away smiling. I know they won’t accept this proposal, because it’s really about power, not money. I’m challenging the unions, right now, to come up with a plan that will really work toward solving the problem without requiring someone else to make a sacrifice. Personally, I don’t think the unions are up to it. Well?
The CSEA and the United Teachers Unions are the first to complain about everything but when they have a chance to help they refuse. Those two unions have no trouble sucking the life out of the tax payers to keep getting more money and benefits for their members.
Wanna hear something funny? A freind of mine was in downtown Albany where they are re-doing a state building. I THINK itis the Senate building. Not really sure. Well they were dumping all the 'old' office furniture to replace with new. My freind took a couple of upolstered computer/desk chairs out of the dumpster. They said they were like brand new. Almost like they were never used. Our tax dollar at work.
Unions go hand and hand with our government. They spend, tax and waste! They will both be our demise!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I saw the same thing when the phone company threw out almost new furniture and wouldn't let anyone have any of it because of fear that someone could get hurt while using the furniture and sue them and it all went to the dump.
Jay Janczak of Ballston Spa wants Gov. Paterson to show the state legilature that he is the boss, which he suggests in an article in the gazette. Below is a portioin of that article:
Quoted Text
Why not have the governor suspend the Senate and Assembly for a year? Have the leader and minority in each house stay on, along with a few of their staff, for any routine work. The rest of the Senate and Assembly would receive their base pay with no stipends and be sent home. Their staff would be laid off and receive unemployment insurance for the year. These people are all political appointees, not civil servants, and are not protected; thus the unions are happy.
What I'm about to say does not necessarily reflect local or private unions, just commenting on state.
I'm surprised more are not aware of this....in any case I'll tell you then...most of the state unions do not care much about layoffs (relative to any concessions). There, I'll say it one more time... the state unions do not care much about layoffs(again, relative to concessions). Sure, they'll make a lot of noise about it, perhaps make a fancy commercial or two, maybe a demonstration outside the capital, but opening up their contracts do much more harm to them than layoffs. The reason? "Last hired, first fired." Much of the general public have wonderous visions of lazy fat cat beurocrats with their $75k - $100k a year job walking out the doors with their tails between their legs. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
If layoffs are enacted (I am quite certain they will be) most of the people that will be affected are the 20-35 years olds making much less than the industry standard. These folks, with their fancy new college educations and crazy new ideas about how things should be done, have little value as of yet to the unions (many were hired at the end of the Pataki era to replace the baby-boomersin the workforce...so plenty of padding for the unions to work with). If the young kids are laid-off, one of two things will happen...
1) They'll get placed elsewhere in the state, so no harm to the unions. 2) They won't get replaced, but some even newer folks will get hired within a few years anyway, to start replacing the ranks of those laid-off/retired. Again, little effect on unions.
To put it another way...layoffs will only affect those few hundred or thousand young people that have not contributed much to the unions anyway. If they open up their contracts, who will it effect? All their members. They can and will sacrifice those few for the good of everyone else. If Paterson does a LARGE layoff, it could potentially do more...but he probably won't do that as almost half the current workforce are at or near retirement age anyway. Furthermore, our region (for good and for bad) is extremely dependent on the state workforce to stay afloat (the employees' tax dollars for local municipal governments, and the money they spend on area businesses). A large scale layoff would cripple our area, and that's putting it kindly. Our region has so far, by and large, escaped most effects of the recession. Anyway, I am certainly not going to argue against it (many areas need to be cut: education, medicare, state workforce, local support, etc) but I just wanted to make those that were not aware, of what effect it will ultimately have on the state unions. You hurt them during contract negotiations...after that they hold most of the cards.
Quoted from 47
If the unions don't want to come to the table for discussion then Lay Offs.........NOW.
Interesting perspective that I hadn't thought about Possum. Sacrificing the few to protect the many by not opening themselves up to negotiation. I had not considered that. The only saving grace could be that the few who are layed off may become much more independent thinkers and contributors to society overall. It would seem the state in many cases is a good place to stifle personal growth and independence. I don't intend that to be a blanket statement applying to all state workers but I'm sure there are many it would apply to. I agree our local economy has not felt the effects of the recession as much as other areas in large part because of the sheer size of government, but think about that for a minute.....how pathetic is that? There are so many government workers it can actually steer a local economy. I still think there should be layoffs, perhaps I was wrong in generalizing and indicating layoffs as being the only effective method of reuducing the state deficit, but there are way too many state workers sitting at their desks reading/forwarding emails. There are just too many. I also stand by my statement that if the unions will not even come to the table for discussion....then lay off. Considering the state of the state it seems to be a no brainer that either there are concessions or the members will lose their jobs.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you have to say either Rene. There's plenty of deadweight that would be better off working for something other than a tax dollar. And as an economist, the region would certainly be better off if it could become less dependent on the state (preferbly, this would happen in better times, to avoid exacerbating a bad situation, but that's another story). I will say, however, in my dealings with some agencies, the newer, younger employees are (in some cases) their best assets as the state actually made a concerted effort to attract highly motivated, college educated people during the past 10 years. Since those are the folks that will be laid off, perhaps they'll be better off than most in similar circumstances.
Paterson is well aware the unions would not agree to it...that's why he didn't even bring it up in his meeting with the unions just prior to releasing his plans. He's a smart guy and is working all sides the best he can to get the results he wants.
Quoted from 47
Interesting perspective that I hadn't thought about Possum. Sacrificing the few to protect the many by not opening themselves up to negotiation. I had not considered that. The only saving grace could be that the few who are layed off may become much more independent thinkers and contributors to society overall. It would seem the state in many cases is a good place to stifle personal growth and independence. I don't intend that to be a blanket statement applying to all state workers but I'm sure there are many it would apply to. I agree our local economy has not felt the effects of the recession as much as other areas in large part because of the sheer size of government, but think about that for a minute.....how pathetic is that? There are so many government workers it can actually steer a local economy. I still think there should be layoffs, perhaps I was wrong in generalizing and indicating layoffs as being the only effective method of reuducing the state deficit, but there are way too many state workers sitting at their desks reading/forwarding emails. There are just too many. I also stand by my statement that if the unions will not even come to the table for discussion....then lay off. Considering the state of the state it seems to be a no brainer that either there are concessions or the members will lose their jobs.
Logged
