News
From OSA -- February, 1999
Some good news, some
bad news, one giggle and one treat:
Transit.
OSA won the right to represent Transit Authority Staff and Associate Staff
Analysts by a vote of 97 to 57. At the same time, we lost our fight to
represent MaBSTOA Analysts by a vote of 77 to 95.
The major difference
between "TA" and "OA" is civil service status. Most, but not all "TA"
Analysts are permanent civil servants, but no "OA" Analyst is a permanent
civil service employee. When "OA" Analysts do pass the Staff Analyst exam,
they are picked up by the TA and appointed, although in most cases the
work remains the same.
With the advantage
of hindsight, it is clear that our campaign did not pay sufficient attention
to the differences between TA and OA. We will correct that error eleven
months from now when we are allowed to begin again. In the meantime, as
always, our best campaign approach is to maintain a responsive and energetic
union acting effectively on your behalf.
The nice part is that
we have 244 new brothers and sisters, and that our union is one large
step closer to bringing collective bargaining rights to all publicly employed
Analysts.
Our first task is
to help the new group choose local leaders, then form a bargaining team
and set forth contract demands. At some point this Spring we will also
throw a small party in celebration of our partial win.
We all owe a vote
of thanks to OSA's small army of volunteer organizers and courageous on-location
activists. Over the past ten years, more civil servants have been organized
in New York City by OSA than by any other public union. (Note: there are
over one hundred municipal unions in our city.)
When OSA loses an
election, we immediately begin to plan to do it again, only better.
It is expected that
the TA will bargain fiercely against us this year, but our goals are simple.
We would like our members at TA to do as well as our members everywhere
else. Surely that is not asking too much.
Monies.
One minor point, but a pleasing one -- final calculations on our longevity
increase due on 6/1/99 gave a total of $6 more (annually) for the ten
and fifteen year longevities. The new total for NYC, OTB, NYCHA, Hospitals
and Board of Ed Analysts will be $1013 after ten years, a total of $2026
after fifteen and another $998 at the twentieth year.
More
about Money. Jay Warshofsky's page of calculations in the December
mailing was fine except for one omission. Jay failed to mention the fact
that the ten and fifteen year longevities do not count for pension or
compounding of raises until fifteen months after one starts to be paid
the differential. As a result, some members claimed the added money through
payroll complaint forms, but were not actually entitled (at that point)
to the compounding.
The matter then became
more complicated, since our local unit contract was not then signed --
it is now -- and no copies of it were in the hands of various payroll
offices. Therefore, some folks due the compounding were told by their
agencies that they were not due the extra pennies involved.
Finally, although
we got more phone calls and mail on this topic than any other in the past
six months, at least one member called to protest the union wasting time
on pennies. Well, we are Analysts and do like everything to be correctly
done, but actually there is an even better reason to spend time on this
topic.
In June of this year,
our 10 and 15 year longevities increase and a 20 year longevity is added.
The 10 and 15 are pensionable and subject to compounding fifteen months
after receipt, but the 20 is only pensionable after two years and is never
used for compounding contract raises.
Below, at the end
of this month's News From OSA, we have provided the actual words of our
contract as it pertains to longevity at the 10 and 15 year points.
One last point, note
that the number shown on your pay stub for longevity differential does
not change. If you get an extra 44 cents (as per Jay's example) it turns
up in the base pay part of your pay stub; it does not change the $14.54
(or $379 per year) listed as a differential.
The
Giggle comes from HRA's code of conduct issued on December 17,
1998. Such codes are preachy and they are often demeaning in their implication
that civil servants have so little common sense that we must be told the
most obvious rules of politeness.
HRA's latest production
descends below the norm of such pontification by including new occasions
for sin, some entirely unexpected and even unimaginable by staff heretofore.
Did you know that
if you were hired by HRA after March 16, 1990 you were required to read
and conform to the provisions of Chapters 49 and 68 of the New York City
Charter? If you have not done so, it is too late. The code is clear that
you had only ten days to find those documents and read them. Too bad.
Another section of
this code includes the standard self serving warnings for staff not to
testify before any other branch of government without giving prior written
notice to the Commissioner. If Ken Starr should subpoena you to tell all
you know about Monica and the HRA hierarchy, your first step is to send
a memo to that same hierarchy. The code of conduct does not state why
this is necessary but we figure it gives everyone time to return any innocent
gifts.
Page four delivers
pious folderol about our not soliciting or accepting benefits in return
for our vote. This rule clearly presumes employees for the exempt class
are being found in the cabbage patch rather than being appointed by elected
officials.
One daring aspect
of this particular code is contained in a lovely bit that appears to challenge
the findings of the Allied court at Nuremberg. Page 5, subsection 20 of
section III informs us that we must, immediately, obey all orders of our
superiors, oral or written, "despite advice offered by labor representatives."
We love the part about labor representatives.
Now, most religions,
and all international courts (never mind the unions) would have a problem
with any agency code which insists that even illegal, morally repugnant
and positively dangerous or suicidal orders must be obeyed.
Our always faithful
U.S. Marine Corps does allow a subordinate to demand an order in writing,
but not the HRA Code of Conduct. Boys and girls, HRA is being really tough
these days.
But wait...there is
still more. Our favorite part of EO 451, the HRA code of conduct, is found
at the end, on page nine, in section VI; the Oath of Office.
We are reminded that
we all (except for labor class employees) took an oath of office to support
the Constitution of the State and the Nation.
We did? No we didn't.
No one currently working at the union office remembers ever being asked
to sign up to support the state constitution nor had we even suspected
that it was in any danger at all. We checked with the retirees and learned
that some such oath was exacted to try to deny jobs to Communists in the
1950's during the height of the McCarthy era. Still further research led
us to uncover the source of the oath, a local State law (574) passed in
May of 1917. It was probably to deny jobs to pacifists or perhaps immigrants
of German, Turkish or Astro-Hungarian background. Why did they exempt
the labor class? Class politics?
All this, of course,
reduces our anger about the code of conduct, greatly. It is hard to stay
angry while we are giggling. Next time HRA might consider sharing its
promulgations with the union before issuance, but then again maybe it's
more fun this way.
Our
treat is a free movie, one that you probably have never seen before.
OSA provides desk space, periodically, to Elsa Rassbach, head of Made
in U.S.A. Productions, a labor-oriented film company. Ms. Rassbach's first
film The Killing Floor will be shown on Thursday evening (3/11/99)
at the OSA office and coffee and cake will be provided. Elsa herself will
be present.
If we have a good
attendance, OSA is seriously considering a labor film series. Ticket prices
in Manhattan have now reached $9.50, so perhaps a union sponsored series
might be popular. Bring a friend. It would be helpful to call Rose 212-686-1229
to let her know you're coming, so we can have enough cake to go around.
The general membership
meeting will be held Thursday, March 25th at 125 Worth Street, Manhattan
in the 2nd Floor Conference Room at 6:00 pm.
---------------
If you are eligible
for the 10-year longevity, don't get shortchanged!
The City of New York
seems to have shortchanged all Analysts who were eligible to collect only
the 10-year ($379) annual longevity. Analysts who receive both the 10-year
and 15-year longevity seem to have gotten the right amount.
This longevity is
shown on your paycheck as:
Description |
units/hours |
amount
earned this penod |
SVC/LONG/ED |
0:00 |
14.54 |
This
amount is subject to the 3% contractual increase that was payable
July 1, 1998. However, the City does not increase the bi-weekly $14.54
line item on the check stub. The increase of $.44 should be added to the
new base pay. The result is an increase in your annual base salary of
approximately $11.
The simplest way to
confirm the correct amount is to compare your weekly check before and
after the raise. Use a stub that includes an entire pay period. See the
example we've provided below for an Associate Staff Analyst at minimum
scale.
The quickest way to
correct your pay is to file your agency's payroll complaint or
payroll inquiry form. This procedure should be faster than filing
a grievance and may ruffle fewer feathers at your agency.
The Office of Labor
Relations strongly urges that members entitled to the compounding hold
off on submitting payroll complaint forms until after April 15, 1999.
Management will itself seek to correct any errors before that date. If
you see corrections on your pay stub before April 15, do not be surprised.
Finally, while it
may seem picayune to many to file for 22.5 cents a week, please remember,
every penny we win is a hard-fought struggle. The principle really is
important.
NOTE: Compounding
of 10 and 15 year longevities only occurs 15 months after receipt.
Jay Warshofsky, December,
1998
---------------
Example for an Associate
Staff Analyst
The following example
is shown at minimum pay scale, so follow the example but insert the actual
numbers from your own paycheck.
Sample attachment
to your Payroll Inquiry or Complaint.
Don't forget to include
your name and the date.
|
bi-weekly
check
|
Actual pay Calendar
Year 1997 (through 6/30/97):
|
|
Regular
pay at 70 hours |
$1,791.34
|
10
year longevity pay |
14.54
|
|
$1,805.88
|
|
|
Correct
rate after 3% general increase: |
|
Old
base pay |
$1,791.34
|
Plus
base pay increase (3%) |
53.74
|
New
base pay |
$1,845.08
|
Plus
3% increase on 10 year longevity |
0.44
|
New
net base pay for 70 hours |
$1,845.52
|
Existing
10 year longevity |
14.54
|
New
Gross Pay |
$1,860.06
|
|
|
As
actually paid on 9/4/98 payday and thereafter to date: |
|
Regular
pay 70 hours |
$1,845.08
|
10
year longevity pay |
14.54
|
|
$1,859.62
|
|
|
Net
underpayment in each bi-weekly check: |
($0.44)
|
Net
underpayments since 7/1/98: |
|
|
|
Pay
period from: |
through:
|
check
dated
|
prorata
underpayment
|
07/01/98
(partial) |
07/04/98
|
07/10/98
|
($0.13)
|
07/05/98 |
07/18/98
|
07/24/98
|
(0.44)
|
07/19/98 |
08/01/98
|
08/07/98
|
(0.44)
|
08/02/98 |
08/15/98
|
08/21/98
|
(0.44)
|
08/16/98 |
08/29/98
|
09/04/98
|
(0.44)
|
08/30/98 |
09/12/98
|
09/18/98
|
(0.44)
|
09/13/98 |
09/26/98
|
10/02/98
|
(0.44)
|
09/27/98 |
10/10/98
|
10/16/98
|
(0.44)
|
10/11/98 |
10/24/98
|
10/30/98
|
(0.44)
|
10/25/98 |
11/07/98
|
11/13/98
|
(0.44)
|
|
|
Total
net underpayment as of pay period ending 11/13/98: |
($4.06)
|
----------------
Appendix A: Longevity
Increment Eligibility Rules
The following rules
shall govern the eligibility of employees for the longevity increments
provided for in Article III, Section 8, of the 1995-2000 Staff Analysts,
et al. agreement:
1. Only service
in pay status shall be used to calculate the 10 and 15 years of service,
except that for other than full time per annum employees only a continuous
year of service in pay status shall be used to calculate the 10 and
15 years of service. A continuous year of service shall be a full year
of service without a break of more than 31 days. Where the regular and
customary work year for a title is less than a twelve month year such
as a school year, such regular and customary year shall be credited
as a continuous year of service counting towards the 10 and 15 years
of service. If the normal work year for an employee is less than the
regular and customary work year for the employee's title, it shall be
counted as a continuous year of service if the employee has customarily
worked that length of work year and the applicable agency verifies that
information.
2. Service
in pay status prior to any breaks in service of more than one year shall
not be used to calculate the 10 and 15 years of service. Where an employee
has less than seven years of continuous service in pay status, breaks
in service of less than one year shall be aggregated. Where breaks in
service aggregate to more than one year they shall be treated as a break
in service of more than one year and the service prior to such breaks
and the aggregated breaks shall not be used to calculate the 10 and
15 years of service. No break used to disqualify service shall be used
more than once.
3. The
following time in which an employee is not in pay status shall not constitute
a break in service as specified in the paragraph 2 above.
a. time
on a leave approved by the proper authority which is consistent with
the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City of New York or the
appropriate personnel authority of a covered organization.
b. time
prior to reinstatement.
c. time
on a preferred list pursuant to Civil Service Law Sections 80 and
81 or any similar contractual provision.
d. time
not in pay status of 31 days or less.
Notwithstanding
the above, such time as specified in subsections a, b, and c above shall
not be used to calculate the 10 and 15 years of service.
4. Once
an employee has completed the 10 and/or 15 years of "City" service in
pay status and is eligible to receive the respective longevity increment,
the increment shall become part of the employee's base rate for all
purposes except as provided in paragraph 5 below.
5. The
respective longevity increment shall not become pensionable until 15
months after the employee becomes eligible to receive such increment.
Fifteen months after the employee becomes eligible to receive the longevity
increment, such longevity increment shall become pensionable, and as
part of the employee's base rate, shall be subject to the general increase
provided in Article III, Section 3, of this agreement.
|