|
|
NEW VIDEO SEMINARS: WHAT TO
SAY AND DO BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS & 18 THINGS
TO DO BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS (click on the Link above)
City police 'best paid'
in Canada under deal Tentative agreement From
The National News, November 09, 2005 The
Toronto Police Services Board and the city's police union have reached a
tentative contract deal -- but the month-long job action will continue
pending the ratification of the contract and the outcome of discipline
against protesting officers. After
what was described as a marathon negotiating session lasting more than 30
hours, union boss Dave Wilson emerged yesterday to say the agreement was a
"good deal." "This
contract will make our members the best paid police service in Canada and all
the major clawbacks that we were concerned about
are gone and they've been dealt with," he said. Global
News reported that the city is offering pay increases worth more than 10%
over an almost three-year contract. Mr.
Wilson, who would not provide details of the contract, did say that a demand
for officers to work an additional 42 hours a year without pay was taken off
the table. Another
unresolved issue was an effort by the police board to scale back the
"retention pay" offered to senior officers to prevent them from
leaving the force. "We
believe that this tentative agreement best balances the interests of the
board, the men and women of the Toronto Police Service and, most importantly,
the people of Toronto," police board chairman Alok
Mukherjee said. "Upon
ratification, it will help to improve policing services and enhance safety
for all residents of Toronto." In
the meantime, the job action continues. Officers will be wearing baseball
caps and dickies and issuing fewer tickets, which
has cost the city $1.75-million. Toronto
Police Chief Bill Blair has vowed to punish the officers who defied his
direct order and wore their uniforms and guns at a rally last week held to
express anger over stalled contract talks. Of
the 150 officers who disobeyed orders at the march last week, some also
removed their badges and epaulettes to make themselves
more difficult to identify. The
fact many officers removed badges and epaulettes marked with identification
numbers prove they knew their actions were unlawful, the chief said. Officers
disregarded Chief Blair's edict because it was an unlawful order, Mr. Wilson
maintained. He insisted it was the constitutional right of officers to wear
their uniforms. Association
representatives spoke to the chief on Monday night in an attempt to work out
some sort of deal that would avoid punishing the officers. "Matters
of discipline are not in any way related to contract negotations.
That investigation is continuing," Chief Blair said. However,
he sent out an internal memo yesterday saying he would not punish anyone for
wearing hats, ties, toques and dickies bearing the
union logo. "This
unprecedented tolerance for minor infractions during a job action was an acknowledgment
of the limited ways in which police officers can express concern during
contract negotiations," he wrote. Association
members will meet on Sunday to hear the details of the contract and will have
three weeks to vote by mail. Results will be made public as early as Dec. 6.
The association represents 5,200 uniformed officers and 2,500 civilian
employees. Toronto
police have carried out a work-to-rule campaign since Oct. 11, sitting in
their parked cruisers between emergency calls and handing out information
pamphlets on their dispute. They are considered an essential service and
cannot legally strike. Teamsters challenge FOP From the City Paper,
November 09, 2005 A petition with 624 Metro police officer
signatures has been filed with Metro by the Teamsters Local Union 327 to
remove the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) from its position as the local
police representative. Police union, city headed
to mediation Union
upset with overtime rules The
Brownsville Police Officers Association and the city are headed to federal
mediation today, while a second, unrecognized police union has filed a
complaint and is considering taking its case to court. BPOA President Tony Flores said the union’s concerns
stemmed from the policy, which itself stemmed from a shortage of officers. FOP gains collective bargaining rights From The Gazette Thursday, Nov. 10, 2005 The
Greenbelt City Council and the Fraternal Order of Police now will begin the
work of instituting the newly gained collective bargaining rights for city
police after Tuesday’s election results secured them that right. Residents
voted to give the FOP collective bargaining via a binding referendum on the
ballot. Of the 2,094 total voters, 1,105 voted in favor of collective
bargaining for police and 797 voted against. Collective
bargaining is negotiation between an employer and a group of employees that
determines the conditions of employment. ‘‘We
are very happy that the citizens of Greenbelt were able to voice their
opinion and tell the council that we deserve the same rights as every worker
in America,” said John Rogers, the city’s FOP collective bargaining chairman.
Rogers
said the next step is to make changes to the city’s labor code and the FOP’s by-laws to allow for the change in policy. The
city’s practice has been to establish pay and benefits in a meet and confer
method. ‘‘I
want to congratulate the FOP on their victory,” said Mayor Pro Tem Rodney
Roberts Tuesday. Greenbelt
FOP President Craig Rich said he was proud to see 65 percent of his off-duty
officers out on Election Day at the polls showing their support for the
issue. ‘‘I
want to thank all that voted for this effort and thank the council for
putting it on the ballot,” Rich said. The
FOP has been in negotiations with the City Council since May regarding
collective bargaining and binding arbitration. In binding arbitration, a
party presents a dispute to a neutral arbitrator for issuance of a decision. In
May, Rogers said officers do not want to imply that the city has not treated
its police officer fairly in the past. He said the FOP would like a contract
each year guaranteeing officers’ pay and benefits. ‘‘This
is our attempt to move ahead as far as the lodge goes,” Rogers said at that
time. In
September, the FOP dropped the binding arbitration portion of its request,
and the two groups agreed to put the question to voters. Mayor
Judith Davis, Councilwoman Leta Mach and Councilman
Edward Putens voiced their opposition to giving the
city’s officers collective bargaining. The three said they were concerned
that the cost to residents would increase if lawyers would be needed to
settle disputes. In
August, Davis said the current meet and confer
method the council uses with all its employees has worked and should not be
changed. Councilman
Konrad Herling said he
supported collective bargaining for all city employees and not just the
police. Roberts said he was in favor of collective bargaining for the police
but strongly opposed binding arbitration. At
the polls Tuesday some residents, like Edward Estes, said they voted to
support the FOP’s request. ‘‘I
think it’s a good idea,” Estes, 82, said. ‘‘We have a good police force
here.” Candidate
Kelly Ivy has been in support of collective bargaining and said that was part
of the reason he decided to run for council. Ivy has said that collective
bargaining is the same as the meet and confer
method, but the officers also get a contract. ‘‘Because
there is no binding arbitration, it shouldn’t have gone to referendum,” said
resident Marc Siegel. ‘‘Collective bargaining, to me, isn’t much different
than meet and confer.” Both
city officials and FOP representatives said they will get to work on the new
system in the near future. ‘‘I’m
surprised that it carried so easily,” Herling said
of the ballot question. ‘‘It is an opportunity to learn more about the
process, and have an open mind.” *** EDITORIAL *** FLSA AND FMLA
ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS Ronald J. York, President, POLICEPAY.NET,
Inc. The Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) is an antiquated law from the 1930’s
that primarily regulates minimum wages and overtime premium wages. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a well intentioned, but poorly conceived, law
that protects workers from discrimination because of family illnesses that
require the employee to be absent from work. Currently, there is a
cottage industry of labor lawyers making good incomes by invoking these two
laws. They love these laws in the same
way that criminal lawyers love crime.
Without it, they have no reason to exist. Both laws are bureaucratic quagmires that
breed endless legal hostilities.
Seldom are the legal battles over the meaning of these laws of any
substance. Most of the fights are
about someone trying to work the “seams” of the law to support some
convoluted argument. First, let us examine FLSA. I doubt if
there are very many law enforcement officers that are affected by the minimum
wage portion. Overtime is a different
story. On the surface, the overtime
provisions seem to be straightforward, but that is far from the truth. Essentially, the overtime provisions say
that if an employee works more than forty hours during a week, all hours over
forty are to be paid at time and one-half.
If it stopped right there, there would be no problem. During the past seventy years, the
amendments, regulations, and court rulings have turned this simple concept into
a Rubik’s Cube. There have been fights
over the measurement period, who is covered, and how
the employee is to be compensated.
There are pages and pages of rules, regulations and court decisions
that control this narrow law. With each new regulation and court decision,
the opportunity for disagreements becomes greater. In addition, the “legal eagles” are
constantly searching for ways to milk this law. They are doing a good job. It seems strange that
something that was not obvious for sixty years suddenly becomes obvious
now. It is like “Miranda”. Nobody could see it in the Constitution for
the first one hundred seventy years and then “bingo” brilliant legal minds
found it in 1966. Recent proposals by President
George W. Bush to rein in on FLSA caused a fire
storm among police officers and firefighters.
While we agree that the President is no friend of labor, some of what
he says about this topic makes sense.
The most disputed provision was the definition of who is management,
thus except from overtime payments. FMLA at first appears to be a
kind and reasonable law. Few people
would think that a woman who missed some time at work to have a child should
be punished. Nor, would most people want
to see a person fired because of a serious injury or illness. Why would an employer fire a good employee
because she missed work to have a child?
They wouldn’t, unless they are complete idiots. Good employees are hard to find. Several years ago, we had a situation where
an employee had to be off for six weeks due to surgery. Not only did we give the time off without
conditions, we paid the employee’s full salary for the entire six weeks. We are exempt from FMLA,
because we have less than 50 employees.
Even FMLA does not require payment of wages
during the absence. Why did we do
it? Because we are chumps? Because we were afraid of a lawsuit? No, we did it because good employees are
hard to find. Look around your
department and see who is using FMLA. There will be some that are using it
legitimately, but most of the people using it are actually abusing it. Did you know that you can take FMLA for a period of time as short as twelve
minutes? Did you know that people that
were denied vacation leave have scheduled FMLA
leave six months in advance to cover the same period that they requested their
vacation? How would you react to
someone who bumped your vacation by claiming FMLA? FMLA is a nightmare
for those who have to schedule the work details. Think about this. You are smart enough to negotiate your
wages, pension, uniform, health insurance, vacation and sick leave, but you
are too stupid to negotiate your overtime compensation and unpaid medical
leave. You need an agency of the
federal government and the federal courts to negotiate and enforce these
matters for you. In addition, you need
an attorney with the FLSA/FMLA secret de-coder ring
to interpret the provisions. Some of you are probably
asking, “OK, but what’s the down side to this little arrangement?” The problem is that all of the fights you
have with your employer to milk and enforce these two laws waste the capital
you need to negotiate for important issues.
Do you think that your employer will forget about the legal battles
over these issues when it comes time to negotiate the contract? I wouldn’t.
Examine the cases that you have fought over these two laws and ask how
you would have handled it if you had been the employer? I do not think you will be comfortable with
your answer. How should you deal with FLSA and FMLA? Quarantine them. Negotiate provisions that limit how often
these two laws come into play. Make
the requirements for qualifying difficult.
Negotiate a set of reasonable rules.
I know, you’re thinking that your employer would never go along with
more generous provisions to simply isolate these two laws. That might be true. You may have to give some other place to do
this, but do not be surprised if the employer is receptive. FLSA and FMLA are not friends of the police union. FLSA and FMLA are not the employer’s friends either. Every dispute that you
eliminate is one more bullet left in your gun for the real battle – contract
negotiations.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright ã POLICEPAY.NET,
Inc. 2005 All Rights Reserved |
||||||||||||||||||
The POLICEPAY Journal
Published
by:
POLICEPAY.NET,
Inc.
(405)
234-2235