|
Post by doughnut on Sept 7, 2013 11:48:56 GMT -5
Wow, 80% of this job is eligible to retire come 2015. If the county and the PBA really want this deal to work I think they should remind Nifa of this, ohhh and the fact they lost the first lawsuit. I'm mixed on the deal, being close to retirement makes me say ok sign, on the other hand we are slowly selling out the younger guys on this job(which is happening nationwide). What ever your view of this re-negotiated contract the fact remains Nifa is not our friend nor the counties. They will most likely accuse both sides of fudging numbers and whatnot. I almost want to see the train wreck of this deal being shot down, Nifa losing the lawsuit, hundreds of guys running out the door for retirement pastures and the inability of this county to hire quickly enough. It's like a train wreck, you don't want to look but can't help but stare.
|
|
|
Post by watertight on Sept 7, 2013 12:48:37 GMT -5
Yes I agree, it would be nice to wait for the courts..... But again it's a gamble. We won on a technicality not on arguments. If it goes to state court then discovery happens all over again and it's another 2 years for year "1" lawsuit. This deal certainly isn't perfect I agree but it's not a perfect climate we are in. But it's here in front of us right now for the taking( if we want it). Ask guys in the 1st pct if they want anymore OT. OT will still be around for years to come because even if they hire 500 new guys, retirees will still out weigh the new hires therefore leaving OT available. So to show up and turn the key in the car and make 130000 isn't bad. Also again, HEALTHCARE Will be LOCKED IN for 7 more years and most likely continue to be after that for guys on this existing tier It's better to win on a technicality then an argument. Technicality is black n white, argument is not. We won with a slam dunk. Discovery is never repeated, once done, its done. Why would you request the same documents twice when you already have them??? Unless carver and the country told the judges to hold off on a decision because we have a working deal, a decision is likely to come out before the deal is completed. It's after Labor Day, summer is over and it is expedited.
|
|
|
Post by tensevencop on Sept 7, 2013 12:52:30 GMT -5
Lets no forget with the lawsuit we could also be awarded lawyer fees back.. With this deal we essentially gave our lawyers hundreds of thousands for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by mastershake on Sept 7, 2013 12:59:27 GMT -5
Just my 2 cents here. Best case scenario, we win the lawsuit and the court orders we all get our steps and raises. Right? But now what if NIFA runs back to the state leg, files the correct paperwork and immediately re-freezes us, now what, what do we gain? To top it all off our contract runs out in 2105 and, in this increasingly bad economy, and with the public becoming more and more anti-union we have to negotiate a new contract which likely will have these same give backs and perhaps more PAYING INTO OUR HEALTH INSURANCE would certainly be on the table AND our wages still frozen. Then what? PS we are bargaining from a strong position and this was the best our union was able to do. What if our lawsuit gets kicked to the state, we lose at least some of that bargaining strength, if our win is overturned on appeal, WE ARE SCREWED, we will have NO bargaining power and this will go on and on! Its not the best deal ever, but we are doing better than most of our friends and neighbors (at least I am) in this economy. Despite what is being spread here and on the street the lawsuit IS NOT a sure thing and gambling is only fun when you win. I say take the sure thing!
|
|
|
Post by crates on Sept 7, 2013 13:24:14 GMT -5
We didn't win on a technicality that some paperwork was not entered the proper way. We won on the argument that the NIFA statute expired that allows them to freeze. If we win this lawsuit and NIFA goes back to the state it has to go through the commette process in both houses get approved by both houses and then signed by he governor and then go through the waiting period to go into effect. It's a long process. There is no public safety exception for an expedited legislative process. As stated we have no reason to make a deal. We won the lawsuit and we are in the position of advantage. If we loose the county has the same need to make a deal to attract new hires. And that is ignoring the fact that even a loss for us would only make us start the process in state court. No legal argument was made that the decision was legally improper only that that argument should have been made in state court. That is an administrative technicality. We still have the best legal arguement.
Edit. Didn't carver say that since we one the lawsuit the deals were off the table? I kinda remember him saying something along those lines. If the PBA is stalling the decision comming down for the date of this deal then I really have to question them working in our best interest. It just doesn't make sense for them to put it to the membership to a vote when dealing with mangano knowing that under his administration he has cheated us out of our steps and raises and lies in court documents. He had demonstrated himself to be untrustworthy at every turn during his administration. Why trust him now ?
|
|
|
Post by tensevencop on Sept 7, 2013 13:26:33 GMT -5
AGAIN Lets not forget the 3.75% raises in 2014 and 2015 are now cut in HALF! We are only getting 1.8% raises for the next two years and NOTHING in 2016. So Everything we gave up to get the last contract extension was all for Nothing now if this deal goes through. Like someone stated earlier, we are renegotiating twice on a contract extension that is already owed to us. So Top pay in 2014 isn't 125 and its not 129k in 2015. Those numbers reflected the 3.75% not the 1.8% we are getting now. Seems like a lot of deception in the wording as if the pba is trying to pull a fast one over on us. Would they do that?
|
|
|
Post by since86 on Sept 7, 2013 13:30:23 GMT -5
In regards to a decision coming from the Court of Appeals in the midst of this deal, it doesn't work that way. When we started talking to the county the appeal process stops. The court will not render a decision during this time. If it falls thru, then it will resume....And in regards to how long OT will be here, remember that the new hires will all owe 90 hours a year for 3 years...if they hire 250, then it would be about 1900 tours owed a year and I'm sure they will make them work it in the summer and not allow them to give up vacation time in place of working.... so I wouldn't count on the OT. Just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by unregistered5150 on Sept 7, 2013 13:57:23 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but we are only out the 1st six months, and then we get the full step in July. In 2016 we have to wait until 12/31/16 to get the first raise, but then 6 months after that we get the next raise. OT will still be there, because of the amount of people retiring. I heard there were 45 more going before the end of this year (which might not happen if this deal goes through). Big gamble on the lawsuit. Things can drag on for years
|
|
zzzz
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by zzzz on Sept 7, 2013 15:45:35 GMT -5
First of all there would be discovery again because its a totally different court... State court. The process would start all over again. Delays delays delays. As for the 13,14,15 raises... They are as previously negotiated (3.5, 3.5, 3.75%) Newsday cut it in half because the raises are 6 months later. ( July) As far as lawyer expenses, they are always gonna exist. WE as a union NEED good lawyers on our payroll. But if this gets pushed to State court then it's a major blunder by our attorney's and a lot of wasted money anyway. At this point lets cut expenses as well and take the deal in front of us now. You guys are absolutely right about not trusting Mangano. I seriously doubt any union member will vote for him again...you'd be an idiot to but at least if we sign the deal the stipulations clearly say that NIFA can't freeze us again for years. That's pretty good insurance to have in our pockets. Remember NIFA was the final say for us not getting our contracts honored. So to have this agreement and that wording in it then at least we'd almost be guaranteed the deal in its entirety. Even if county states they're broke. The deal would hold up in court. It's worded pretty good...( in my opinion)
|
|
|
Post by praetorian on Sept 7, 2013 15:51:27 GMT -5
This deal is a buffer... nothing more nothing less... when the time runs out or not doesn't make a difference... The county doesn't have to honor crap because the deal that was in place was not honored... The court ruling would be binding (at some point) but even that isn't for sure... remember the tax situation with the county... have the refunds been made? as directed by the court? Here we are... smoke and mirrors that's all.... once I see the first paycheck I'll believe it. Yeah morale is down and it will continue so until something is done and we see it in green. Not black and white
|
|
|
Post by tensevencop on Sept 7, 2013 16:19:55 GMT -5
Did anyone read the informational booklet the pba just put on their website? Since when can the county and nifa appeal the appeal? Why is this the first we are hearing of this?
|
|
|
Post by nybuild1 on Sept 7, 2013 16:31:56 GMT -5
Just my 2 cents here. Best case scenario, we win the lawsuit and the court orders we all get our steps and raises. Right? But now what if NIFA runs back to the state leg, files the correct paperwork and immediately re-freezes us, now what, what do we gain? To top it all off our contract runs out in 2105 and, in this increasingly bad economy, and with the public becoming more and more anti-union we have to negotiate a new contract which likely will have these same give backs and perhaps more PAYING INTO OUR HEALTH INSURANCE would certainly be on the table AND our wages still frozen. Then what? PS we are bargaining from a strong position and this was the best our union was able to do. What if our lawsuit gets kicked to the state, we lose at least some of that bargaining strength, if our win is overturned on appeal, WE ARE SCREWED, we will have NO bargaining power and this will go on and on! Its not the best deal ever, but we are doing better than most of our friends and neighbors (at least I am) in this economy. Despite what is being spread here and on the street the lawsuit IS NOT a sure thing and gambling is only fun when you win. I say take the sure thing! Your two cents is worth $37.50. Very well said and I agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by nybuild1 on Sept 7, 2013 16:41:28 GMT -5
Did anyone read the informational booklet the pba just put on their website? Since when can the county and nifa appeal the appeal? Why is this the first we are hearing of this? Why wouldn't the county drag this out in Supreme Court? Wouldn't you?
|
|
|
Post by lost on Sept 7, 2013 17:17:50 GMT -5
Did anyone read the informational booklet the pba just put on their website? Since when can the county and nifa appeal the appeal? Why is this the first we are hearing of this? Why wouldn't the county drag this out in Supreme Court? Wouldn't you? The Supreme Court would never choose to here the issue about the expiration of the interim finance period. They would only choose to hear thr constitutional issues that Wexler did not rule on.
|
|
|
Post by watertight on Sept 7, 2013 17:19:21 GMT -5
First of all there would be discovery again because its a totally different court... State court. The process would start all over again. Delays delays delays. As for the 13,14,15 raises... They are as previously negotiated (3.5, 3.5, 3.75%) Newsday cut it in half because the raises are 6 months later. ( July) As far as lawyer expenses, they are always gonna exist. WE as a union NEED good lawyers on our payroll. But if this gets pushed to State court then it's a major blunder by our attorney's and a lot of wasted money anyway. At this point lets cut expenses as well and take the deal in front of us now. You guys are absolutely right about not trusting Mangano. I seriously doubt any union member will vote for him again...you'd be an idiot to but at least if we sign the deal the stipulations clearly say that NIFA can't freeze us again for years. That's pretty good insurance to have in our pockets. Remember NIFA was the final say for us not getting our contracts honored. So to have this agreement and that wording in it then at least we'd almost be guaranteed the deal in its entirety. Even if county states they're broke. The deal would hold up in court. It's worded pretty good...( in my opinion) So your saying we would request the SAME documents we already have and dispose the SAME people we ALREADY have. Does that sound right to you? You sound like your on the pba board pushing this nonsense. Supreme Court?? Right, they would hear this case. Ummm no.
|
|