News From OSA - May, 2021

There are an unusual number of important topics this month. We will start with the most upsetting one.

NEGOTIATIONS. We had planned on an easy negotiation for the 2017 to 2021 contract. Our demands were modest and non-controversial. We would accept, without fighting, the pattern set by DC 37. The 2010 to 2017 contract had been contentious and had taken an extra six months of negotiations before we won about half of all the extras we were seeking. We planned to use the 2017 to 2021 contract period to consolidate gains from the prior contract.

The 2017 to 2021 negotiation seemed to start easily enough. There were no disputes at the table between management and labor.

Negotiations did seem to be going slowly, with long stretches between meetings, but at first we were patient with the City. By 2019, our patience was exhausted as all the other unions larger than OSA were offered contracts and we were still being delayed.

We demanded to settle in May of 2019, pointing out that we had nothing left to discuss. We were told the City wanted to discuss minimum salaries for Administrative employees. We offered to put such a discussion on hold until the next contract, but the City said they were very interested in this topic.

Even if they were interested, they did not get around to talking to us about the topic until November of 2019.

Then, finally, the City asked us what we thought was wrong with the entry level salaries for Administrative employees. Pretty much every- thing, was our response. We then gave the City a history lesson to explain what had gone wrong.

HISTORY. Mayor Ed Koch hated Civil Service and unions. He sought to create a huge non-Civil Service, non-union managerial force of employees under his control, and with no protection. As a part of that plan, for a total of four contract periods, he refused to raise the minimum salary for managers, although he did give those managers already in service raises equal to the union raises.

Since these four contracts were negotiated during a time of high inflation, the managerial salaries fell a long way below that of their unionized subordinates' minimum salaries.

After Ed Koch left office, no subsequent Mayor has revisited the issue and the result is, to this day, that there is a higher minimum salary for Associate Staff Analyst than for Administrative Staff Analyst. In fact, a brand new Associate starts at $75,000 and change where his or her boss, as an Administrative Level I, starts at $60,000 and change, a full 25% lower.

Now, in practice, since most OSA members start as Staff Analysts and promote to Associate and then to Administrative Analysts, most Admin Analysts earn at least $1,300 more than the Associate minimum, but some, at least, do not and do earn less than the workers they supervise.

What is true for Analysts is also true for all other titles in civilian City employ.

So, thanks to Ed Koch, the Managerial Pay Plan is about 35% off from where it should be. Instead of paying the boss more than the workers, the plan pays less and is thus absurd and unrealistic.

To correct this may take more than one contract period, but a sensible final goal would be to follow the old Career and Salary Plan that was in effect prior to the 1960's.

OSA suggested that the minimum for Administrative Staff Analyst Level MI be 10% above the minimum for Associate Staff Analyst. Admin MII should be a further 10% higher and Admin MIII, 10% higher again.

We were open to discussions as to how to get there from here, without disrupting the existing pay structure too much, but there was one point that needed to be clear from the start.

OSA had not created this mess and OSA was not paying to straighten it out. Not one penny.

The City representatives seemed to listen carefully as the story was told and their response was that they would get back to us. They did, nineteen months later.

Meanwhile, the City did not offer any proposals on this issue during the next meetings and, by Mid-March 2020, all meetings were cancelled due to COVID.

In 2021, the City was slow to resume bargaining, so OSA sued for failure to bargain and, at the end of March, we had our first meeting in over a year.

There were four meetings in rapid succession.

At the first meeting, we were told we could only have a 43 month contract even though the pattern was set by a 44 month contract given to DC 37. We rejected the City's opening and warned that the Board of Collective Bargaining would overrule them.

By the second meeting, the City now agreed we were correct and we could go beyond a 43 month contract. However, a) all the numbers we had been given prior to that meeting were in error and b) the City now had a demand not mentioned before.

The City's demand was stunning. We were told that the Office of Management and Budget had spent many hours considering the problem of the Managerial Pay Plan. They now agreed with us that the Plan, as it stood, needed a great deal of correction.

They presented us with a chart listing many titles and proposing new and higher minimum salaries for those titles. They had allegedly spent 19 months studying the matter and now had the perfect solution. The City would raise salaries to precisely where they thought they should be, and OSA members would pay, out of the contract settlement, for any and all increases received.

Now, we had already stated openly and often that OSA members would never pay one penny to correct Mayor Koch's deliberate assault on Civil Service and a career workforce. For the City to suggest that we would pay not one but every penny needed out of our own pockets, to undo what he had done, was absurd.

However, the boys and girls of the Mayor's Offices of Labor Relations and Management and Budget did not stop there, but added insult to injury with their details.

We had suggested that a final goal of a 10% difference between each level's minimum would make sense. So, for example, 10% above Associate for Admin I, 10% more for Admin II and 10% for Admin III.

They had heard the part about a total of a 30% increase going from Associate all the way up to Admin Analyst Level MIII. Their proposal sort of showed respect for our numbers, but came out slightly different. They figured there should be a 2.5% increase between Associate and Admin Level I, but over 14% for Level MII and 8% for Level MIII. That did add up to nearly 25% but the first, tiny, increase was the only one our members could achieve by being tested for merit and fitness by exam. The two other increases were for discretionary positions appointed by management.

When the union went into caucus to discuss our response to the City's new demand, we wondered among ourselves if it had really taken them a full eighteen months of calculating to arrive at such an insulting demand. In fact, at the third meeting, the City later shared that they had prepared this demand a year earlier, but had been "unable" to share it until now. On our return from caucus, we calmly asked if the new proposed M1 minimum would also cancel the need for the City to pay the $1,300 promotional guarantee that was in place at present.

The City negotiator did not know the answer to that question.

By the third meeting, the OSA bargaining team had concluded that the City was not bargaining in good faith, but we asked a few questions for clarification anyway. The City had already heard that we were not at all interested in their first demand, but now they had another one.

We had, in the 2010 to 2017 contract, demanded the Admin Analysts Levels II and III get the same longevity payments as Level I. We also had refused to pay for it out of the "pattern." Eventually, we went to impasse. The City "blinked" once at impasse and, fearing we might win before an arbitrator, offered to pay half the cost of giving the II's and III's longevity payments equal to that going to the I's. In return, they insisted the union pay for the other half out of the "pattern."

Since we were now "breaking the pattern" in our own favor if we got half the longevity for the II's and III's, and since arbitrations are never certain, we graciously thanked the City for their kind offer, took their money and added none of our own.

Thus hundreds of our members who were Admin Analysts Levels II and III began to be paid longevity at no cost to the pattern, and none of our other members lost out on raises because of it.

Now, in this third useless meeting scheduled for bargaining, the City suggested we take money out of the "pattern" to equalize the longevity payments between Admin Analysts Levels I, II, and III.

Our response, after a brief caucus, was unusual. We made it clear that we believed the City had gone from delaying bargaining, to no bargaining due to COVID, to further delaying bargaining, and now having been forced to resume bargaining, had chosen to deliberately bargain in bad faith. The unusual point was that, for once, we saw no point in holding back our anger.

We even had a fourth meeting a week later, but there was no bargaining there. Instead, we were talking directly to the head of the Office of Labor Relations and preparing our legal papers.

This is not our first time.

In 2007, there was a 1% productivity payment due to us, under the pattern, from an earlier contract. DC37 had gotten the 1%, but dozens of smaller civilian unions had been forced to either take partial payment or to give the City more than 1% back in extra hours or worsened work conditions in order to get anything. Only OSA had held out.

In February of 2007, we were told that we could have that year's contract (7% over two years plus 1% for added longevity) only if we gave up our demand for the prior 1% for productivity.

We immediately broke off negotiations and brought the matter to the Board of Collective Bargaining. The process was delayed at every turn by the City but, by October, we received an odd phone call from Labor Relations.

They had recalculated the amount that our 1% due for longevity would cause to be added in extra dollars per member at the 10, 15 and 20 year anniversaries. Their new numbers were exactly twice as much as had been told to us until that moment. In other words, never stated aloud, we would now get 2% worth of longevity increases for our members, so long as we were willing not to brag too much about our total victory over Mayor Bloomberg.

We took the victory and, while we have never bragged too much about it, we have kept that victory in mind when dealing with the City.

Why is this happening? Why us?

OSA was the first union to organize Administrative level employees and both CWA and DC 37 (and a few others) have slowly followed our lead. The City received a demand from DC37 to rationalize the Admin minimum salaries but, for the 2017-2021 contract period, the City proposed that the demand be put off until the next contract, and DC 37 agreed.

And then, it is now clear to us, the City chose to play a game that they were sure would end up with OSA setting a precedent that would tend to lock in DC 37 and all other locals. If we would agree to any responsibility for paying for cleaning up the mess Ed Koch made of the Managerial Pay Plan, why then the City would save a lot of money and be way ahead.

It was a good plan. Sneaky, dishonest, immoral and grossly unfair, but a good plan. Hold up OSA's contract for a year, then another, then another, and at all times keep telling the union there was no problem and we would settle soon.

Then, in the fourth year, when the union would be desperate to settle, demand that the union give up real dollars to pay for the choices the City had made to enrich some employees over others.

The only flaw in the plan was the union they chose to deceive. We have never been easy to steal money from. In 2001, we got the pattern against the City's will and got it again in 2007. In 2017, we got above the pattern because we put forward a strong case.

In 2021, we will get every penny due to our members and the City will set no precedent of diverting across-the-board raises to favor employees they choose to favor.

POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS. The races this year are unusual in that some of them allow you to vote for more than one candidate.

Actually, that can be good since we often find ourselves split between a number of good candidates. This year, for Mayor, we can choose more than one. We had already endorsed an old friend and now we will endorse a second friend.

For Mayor, our union Executive Board endorses, in alphabetical order, Eric Adams and Scott Stringer. Voting for either one for number one or number two would, in our eyes, not be an error. Each has a long history of public service. One spent all of his days in ever higher party and political office. The other went from Police Officer to Sergeant to Lieutenant to Captain and then State Senator and Borough President.

We absolutely need a Mayor who can and does understand the Civil Service and our value to the City. Both of these candidates have records that we can respect.

In addition to our endorsement for Mayor, we will mention again four candidates we endorsed in the March Newsletter. All are friends and all are pro-labor, but if you need more details, simply check out the March Newsletter on this website. And, please read this recent op-ed about Scott Stringer by OSA Chair Bob Croghan which was published in the May 14th issue of the Chief-Leader, the Civil Service newspaper.

Recommended

  • Steve Behar - City Council, 23rd District, Queens

  • Christoper Chin - Civil Court Judge, 2nd District, New York County

  • Ben Kallos - Borough President, Manhattan

  • Dan Quart - District Attorney, New York County

    Also, we need to add one more. Our former OSA member, Brandon Stradford is running for Borough President of Staten Island. We do wish him good luck and hope that his former brothers and sisters of OSA will toss him a fraternal vote.

    We always urge our members to vote, but this year is special. Ranked choice voting is brand new and voting for those you actually like is fairly satisfying. So vote as you like but, for sure, do vote. It is very important.

    MEDICARE. The proposed Medicare Advantage program for City retirees was discussed at great length at the recent meetings of the Municipal Labor Committee.

    Due to changes initiated by the federal government, there will be a switch from the current GHI Senior Care program into a new plan. Since we have been generally very satisfied with the old plan, we have been worried about the changes that might occur.

    These early May meetings have answered many of our questions - and the answers were generally reassuring. While nothing is final, the new plan will look a lot like the old plan. We will be keeping our doctors and, quite likely, all of our hospitals - and there will even be some improvements.

    One clear disimprovement is an expected requirement for $15 copays for specialist visits, tests, therapy visits and visits to urgent care offices. That, however, was being proposed under the old plan as well. There is a saving grace in that the new plan has a total yearly out-of-pocket cap of $1500.

    The other current out-of-pocket costs are as we are currently paying - a $253 for the Medicare and health insurance total deductible and $300 if you stay overnight in the hospital.

    The new $15 copay will be annoying, but so long as we can keep the rest of our benefits unchanged, it is bearable. There is also an expected decrease in the cost of Medicare Part D drug coverage. We may be saving $25 a month in drug rider premiums, so that is on the plus side.

    All in all, while nothing is yet final, our retirees and retirees in training (the rest of us) can relax a bit about proposed changes.

    AFFILIATION. OSA has been investigating, and not for the first time, the possibility of affiliating with a larger AFL-CIO union. We can expect a report by our next mailing.

    PHONE HOTLINE CHANGE. Our newsline phone number has been changed to 646-233-5100 due to technical difficulties with the service provider. We will be attempting to restore the old number if possible but, for now, please use the new number.

  • top
    top
    top
    top