Wednesday, February 28, 2018

suffolk county legislator kevin mccaffrey does not inform

nassau otb employees about nothing


bet janus to flush teamsters lical 707 not because unions are bad but becsuse this union is bad




kg-headshotKen Girardin is the Empire Center’s Policy Analyst, performing detailed analysis of data and public policy in support of the Center’s research work. He previously worked in the New York State Legislature. He has a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in Materials Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechn



 

S05778 Summary:

BILL NOS05778A
SAME ASSAME AS A07601-A
SPONSORALCANTARA
COSPNSRSAVINO, KLEIN, PERALTA, HAMILTON, VALESKY, CARLUCCI, AVELLA, ADDABBO, BAILEY, COMRIE, GALLIVAN, RITCHIE, STAVISKY
MLTSPNSR
Add §159-d, Civ Serv L
Relates to membership dues in an employee organization and signed authorizations for deduction.
Go to top   

S05778 Actions:

BILL NOS05778A
04/28/2017REFERRED TO CIVIL SERVICE AND PENSIONS
05/23/20171ST REPORT CAL.1344
05/24/20172ND REPORT CAL.
06/05/2017ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 
06/12/2017AMENDED ON THIRD READING 5778A
06/21/2017COMMITTED TO RULES
01/03/2018REFERRED TO CIVIL SERVICE AND PENSIONS
01/16/20181ST REPORT CAL.163
01/17/20182ND REPORT CAL.
01/22/2018ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 
Go to top

S05778 Committee Votes:


Go to top

S05778 Floor Votes:

There are no votes for this bill in this legislative session.
Go to top

S05778 Memo:

Memo not available
Go to top

S05778 Text:


 
                STATE OF NEW YORK
        ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                         5778--A
            Cal. No. 1344
 
                               2017-2018 Regular Sessions
 
                    IN SENATE
 
                                     April 28, 2017
                                       ___________
 
        Introduced  by  Sens. ALCANTARA, SAVINO, KLEIN, PERALTA, HAMILTON, VALE-
          SKY, CARLUCCI, AVELLA, ADDABBO, BAILEY, COMRIE, GALLIVAN,  LATIMER  --
          read  twice  and  ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to
          the Committee on Civil Service and Pensions -- reported favorably from
          said committee, ordered to first and second report, ordered to a third
          reading, amended and ordered reprinted, retaining  its  place  in  the
          order of third reading
 
        AN ACT to amend the civil service law, in relation to membership dues in
          an employee organization and signed authorizations for deduction
 
          The  People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
        bly, do enact as follows:
 
     1    Section 1. The civil service law is amended by adding  a  new  section
     2  159-d to read as follows:
     3    §  159-d.  Membership  dues;  signed  authorization.   1. (a) A public
     4  employer shall commence making  deductions  of  membership  dues  in  an
     5  employee  organization  pursuant  to a public employee's signed authori-
     6  zation as soon as practicable but in no  case  later  than  thirty  days
     7  after receiving proof of a signed authorization.
     8    (b)  Any membership dues in an employee organization deducted from the
     9  salary of a public employee shall be transmitted to the employee  organ-
    10  ization  as  soon  as  practicable but in no case later than thirty days
    11  after the salary from which it is deducted is paid to the employee.
    12    2. Within thirty days of a public  employee  first  being  paid  after
    13  being employed or reemployed by a public employer, or within thirty days
    14  of  being  promoted  or transferred to a new bargaining unit, the public
    15  employer shall:
    16    (a) notify the employee organization, if  any,  that  represents  that
    17  bargaining  unit  of the employee's name, job title, work location, work
    18  telephone number and hours of work; and
    19    (b) allow a duly appointed representative of the employee organization
    20  that represents that bargaining unit to meet with that  employee  during
 
         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                   LBD11206-06-7
        S. 5778--A                          2
 
     1  work  time,  unless  otherwise  specified  within an agreement bargained
     2  collectively under article fourteen of the civil service law.
     3    3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the
     4  period  of  time  that  an  authorization to deduct from the salary of a
     5  public employee an amount for the  payment  of  membership  dues  in  an
     6  employee organization shall remain in effect shall be the shorter of (i)
     7  that  set  forth  in  the  signed authorization, or (ii) as may be later
     8  determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to  be  constitutionally
     9  required or required by law.
    10    (b)  Notwithstanding  any  other provision of law to the contrary, the
    11  period of time that a public employee shall have to  withdraw  a  signed
    12  authorization to deduct from his or her salary an amount for the payment
    13  of membership dues in an employee organization prior to it being renewed
    14  shall  be  the longer of (i) that set forth in the signed authorization,
    15  or (ii) as may be later finally  determined  by  a  court  of  competent
    16  jurisdiction to be constitutionally required or required by law.
    17    4.  A  public  employer  shall accept a signed authorization to deduct
    18  from the salary of a public employee an amount for the payment of his or
    19  her membership dues in an employee organization in any format  permitted
    20  by article three of the state technology law.
    21    5.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, except
    22  as provided in subdivision three of this section,  any  signed  authori-
    23  zation  to deduct from the salary of a public employee an amount for the
    24  payment of membership dues in an employee organization may be  withdrawn
    25  by such employee only in accordance with the terms of the signed author-
    26  ization.
    27    6.   Notwithstanding any provision of article fourteen of this chapter
    28  to the contrary,  except  as  provided  in  subdivision  three  of  this
    29  section,  as  used  in  this  section,  the  terms "public employee" and
    30  "public employer" shall have the same meaning as set  forth  in  section
    31  two  hundred  one  of this chapter, and the term "employee organization"
    32  shall mean any employee organization, as that term is defined in section
    33  two hundred one of this chapter, that has been certified  or  recognized
    34  pursuant  to article fourteen of this chapter or other applicable law as
    35  the exclusive bargaining representative of public employees. Nothing  in
    36  this  section shall be construed to make the comptroller of the state of
    37  New York the public employer of any public employees except as set forth
    38  in section two hundred one of this chapter.
    39    7. (a) If any clause, sentence,  paragraph,  or  subdivision  of  this
    40  section  shall  be  adjudged  by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
    41  unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such judgment shall  not  affect,
    42  impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its
    43  operation  to  the  clause,  sentence, paragraph, or subdivision of this
    44  section directly involved in the  controversy  in  which  such  judgment
    45  shall have been rendered.
    46    (b)  If  any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of a signed authori-
    47  zation shall be adjudged by a court  of  competent  jurisdiction  to  be
    48  unconstitutional  or  otherwise  invalid,  such  determination shall not
    49  affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of such signed  authorization
    50  but  shall  be  confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, para-
    51  graph, or part of the signed  authorization  directly  involved  in  the
    52  controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
    53    § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Go to top





Senate set to OK union trap law

by Kenneth Girardin |    | NY Torch
A bill designed to make it harder for New York government workers to extricate themselves from labor union membership rolls is poised to move out of a key Senate committee next week.
S5778 was first introduced last April by Senator Marisol Alcantara, (D-Manhattan) and is co-sponsored by the other seven members of the Senate’s Independent Democratic Conference as well as by Republican Senator Patrick Gallivan (R-Erie). It’s on Tuesday’s agenda for action by the Senate Civil Service and Pensions Committee—which initially reported out the measure last May, only to see it stall. The bill already passed in the Assembly last year by an overwhelming margin, though that house is expected to vote on it again this year.
This is effectively a re-start for a measure that in some ways may be the highest public-sector union priority of this legislative session.
To be sure, the bill might not look significant based on Alcantara’s memorandum in support, which says it will simply “streamline” the process of joining a union. 
But, a half-century after the Taylor Law first cleared the way for public unionization in New York, what’s behind the sudden union push for legislation purporting to merely clarify the membership process?
The obvious answer is the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, which could effectively strike down, on First Amendment grounds, all state laws compelling government workers to pay a dues-like fee as a condition of employment. The case, in which the lead plaintiff is Illinois state government employee Mark Janus, will be argued in February and decided by the end of the current court term in June. 
Odds seem to be in favor of Janus based on a case raising the same issues, Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, which was argued in early 2016 but resulted in a 4-4 deadlock after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who was expected to vote in favor of the plaintiff.
Required to pay the same sum either way, most government workers now choose to sign up as union members, which allows them to vote in union elections and run for union office, as well as qualify for group discounts on consumer items such as movie tickets. But the value proposition of government union membership will change radically if workers are suddenly able to choose between paying dues and paying nothing at all.
Under current New York law (Section 93B of General Municipal Law), government workers who voluntarily join a union have been able to withdraw from union dues deduction “at any time” simply by notifying their employer. Section 5 of the Alcantara bill would supersede that, letting workers withdraw “only in accordance with the terms of the signed authorization.”
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has held since 1977 (see page 3 of this ruling) that Section 93B prevents government unions from creating obstacles for workers who change their mind about joining. In that ruling, PERB struck down the Rochester Teachers Association practice of only allowing withdrawals during a 15-day period each year, requiring the union to refund dues plus interest. That case law has endured for 40 years, blocking subsequent union efforts to create obstacles for people who change their minds.
Alcantara’s proposal wouldn’t just tie an employee’s hands with respect to choosing to unionize: it would likely commit them to a particular union, and force them to support that union financially for up to 11 months, which can add up to several hundred dollars in dues the worker no longer wants to pay. As we put it in this space last year:
Eliminating workers’ Section 93B protections would put workers in a “Hotel California” box (“You can check out any time you like/But you can never leave!”). Unions could set far-reaching or impractical conditions for withdrawal, something they haven’t been bashful about in the past.
As noted in an Empire Center report released this week, when Michigan ended agency fees in 2012, membership in the statewide teachers union dropped 20 percent. Closer to home, to cite one recent example, Transit Workers Union Local 100 in New York City suffered a sharp drop in revenues after temporarily losing its automatic payroll deduction privileges as punishment for its illegal 2005 strike.
The bill also gives unions an opportunity to exert more peer pressure on new hires—ultimately at taxpayer expense. Specifically, within 30 days of hiring, a new employee’s name, work location and phone number and hours of work must be provided by employers to the the union representing the job title. A representative of the union must be allowed to meet with the new employee “during work time,” unless such meetings are (atypically) otherwise addressed under the collective bargaining agreement. 
If the court rules for Janus and effectively ends compulsory collection of union dues from government workers, employees who have already opted out of membership could immediately save more than $110 million in annual fees, our report estimated.  
If, like in Michigan, 20 percent of New York teachers want to stop paying union dues, and the law is changed to make them keep paying for even three months after the expected June ruling, until a September opt-out window, it means the New York State United Teachers and its local and national affiliates alone would collect a minimum of $16 million in extra dues. That windfall would mean a lot to NYSUT and its largest local, the United Federation of Teachers—both of which are under considerable fiscal stress.
The Civil Service and Pensions Committee vote will be the first step in a long process that has huge implications for taxpayers across the state.
Update, Jan. 17: the Civil Service and Pensions Committee voted on Jan. 16 to send the bill to the full Senate. Eight members—5 Democrats and 3 Republicans—voted “aye,” while three Republicans voted “aye without recommendation.” The tally is below.

Comments

1 comments

No comments:

Post a Comment