Post by sig4life on Sept 30, 2013 8:00:58 GMT -5
Setting the record straight on the NIFA Wage Freeze
Message from James Carver, President
The Newsday Editorial Board refused to print the following letter; Journalism, some might say, is storytelling with a purpose. The purpose of Newsday's coverage of Nassau County's public employee wage freeze, and the court cases associated with it with NIFA's role imposing it, seems more focused on exacting pain on employees than on conveying a fair and reliable account of facts, events, and circumstances. Doing this does not allow readers to make their own assessments.
Newsday's cover story headline on September 20th [Appeals Court Ruling: Nassau Wage Freeze Stands; Upholds NIFA power to halt raises] is misleading and the Sunday's September 22nd editorial [Nassau PBA contract on ice] relies on inaccurate details.Recently, the federal appeals court concluded that the question about whether NIFA has authority to freeze wages after the expiration of the interim finance period in 2008 "raises an unresolved issued of state law . . . that should be resolved by the New York state courts because . . . [it] implicates significant state interests." The Court did not, as reported by Newsday, uphold NIFA's power to impose a wage freeze. Rather, it simply said that the state courts must decide that issue. Notably, the federal appeals court did not say that Judge Wexler's interpretation of the NIFA statute was an improper interpretation. Unfortunately, Newsday seems more focused on the politics than on the reality.
The state courts will have the opportunity to address the legal issues surrounding NIFA's authority and the federal courts, if necessary, still have to decide the question as to whether NIFA exercised its authority properly. Earlier this year, the federal district court found that NIFA did not have the power, under state law, to impose a wage freeze after the expiration of the interim finance period. In that decision, U.S. District Court Judge Leonard Wexler explained: "It is not for the court to re-write legislation to grant NIFA powers broader than those intended by the legislature." While I would have expected Newsday to take issue with the way the legislature wrote the law, instead I find its editorial staff directing its vitriol towards police officers and other County employees, many of whom live in the County and put their lives on the line each day to protect other residents and guests of our community. Like NIFA under its old leadership, Newsday appears more fixated on union contracts and will not rest until unions bear the entire burden of fixing the County's finances, real or perceived.
Throughout its editorials about the wage freeze, Newsday has, time and again, expressed support for a settlement of the wage freeze dispute, an opinion shared by the PBA. Now that the PBA and the County have reached an agreement - one which will generate enormous savings, short term and long term, for the County - Newsday seeks to backtrack on its own suggestions. It minimizes the savings generated by employees contributing 15% toward health insurance, it ignores the fact that new employees would have to pay from 3% to 6% of their pay into the pension system when they would not otherwise have to, and it conveniently, and likely intentionally, inaccurately reports the conclusions reached by the courts, statements made by NIFA, and the legal process ahead.
The deal before the PBA's membership and the County's legislature is a fair one for both sides. While it requires PBA members to make additional concessions for previously bargained for benefits and assists the County in its ability to manage its finances, it also ends all litigation affecting the PBA's rights and maintains the integrity of the constitutionally protected right to contract.
Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. Setting the record straight on the wage freeze, the lawsuits, and the PBA's contract is a good step towards meeting that obligation.
Message from James Carver, President
The Newsday Editorial Board refused to print the following letter; Journalism, some might say, is storytelling with a purpose. The purpose of Newsday's coverage of Nassau County's public employee wage freeze, and the court cases associated with it with NIFA's role imposing it, seems more focused on exacting pain on employees than on conveying a fair and reliable account of facts, events, and circumstances. Doing this does not allow readers to make their own assessments.
Newsday's cover story headline on September 20th [Appeals Court Ruling: Nassau Wage Freeze Stands; Upholds NIFA power to halt raises] is misleading and the Sunday's September 22nd editorial [Nassau PBA contract on ice] relies on inaccurate details.Recently, the federal appeals court concluded that the question about whether NIFA has authority to freeze wages after the expiration of the interim finance period in 2008 "raises an unresolved issued of state law . . . that should be resolved by the New York state courts because . . . [it] implicates significant state interests." The Court did not, as reported by Newsday, uphold NIFA's power to impose a wage freeze. Rather, it simply said that the state courts must decide that issue. Notably, the federal appeals court did not say that Judge Wexler's interpretation of the NIFA statute was an improper interpretation. Unfortunately, Newsday seems more focused on the politics than on the reality.
The state courts will have the opportunity to address the legal issues surrounding NIFA's authority and the federal courts, if necessary, still have to decide the question as to whether NIFA exercised its authority properly. Earlier this year, the federal district court found that NIFA did not have the power, under state law, to impose a wage freeze after the expiration of the interim finance period. In that decision, U.S. District Court Judge Leonard Wexler explained: "It is not for the court to re-write legislation to grant NIFA powers broader than those intended by the legislature." While I would have expected Newsday to take issue with the way the legislature wrote the law, instead I find its editorial staff directing its vitriol towards police officers and other County employees, many of whom live in the County and put their lives on the line each day to protect other residents and guests of our community. Like NIFA under its old leadership, Newsday appears more fixated on union contracts and will not rest until unions bear the entire burden of fixing the County's finances, real or perceived.
Throughout its editorials about the wage freeze, Newsday has, time and again, expressed support for a settlement of the wage freeze dispute, an opinion shared by the PBA. Now that the PBA and the County have reached an agreement - one which will generate enormous savings, short term and long term, for the County - Newsday seeks to backtrack on its own suggestions. It minimizes the savings generated by employees contributing 15% toward health insurance, it ignores the fact that new employees would have to pay from 3% to 6% of their pay into the pension system when they would not otherwise have to, and it conveniently, and likely intentionally, inaccurately reports the conclusions reached by the courts, statements made by NIFA, and the legal process ahead.
The deal before the PBA's membership and the County's legislature is a fair one for both sides. While it requires PBA members to make additional concessions for previously bargained for benefits and assists the County in its ability to manage its finances, it also ends all litigation affecting the PBA's rights and maintains the integrity of the constitutionally protected right to contract.
Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. Setting the record straight on the wage freeze, the lawsuits, and the PBA's contract is a good step towards meeting that obligation.
