Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Let Ny Work Agenda

Let Ny Work Agenda

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,902|Likes:
Published by Nick Reisman

More info:

Published by: Nick Reisman on Aug 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/02/2012

pdf

text

original

 
A Common Agendafor theCommon Good
 
• MAKE THE PENSION SYSTEM PREDICTABLE AND AFFORDABLE
 Tier VI Defned Contribution – the State o New York, or both state and local employees,should oer two retirement options to new employees. A reduced defned beneft plan or anew defned contribution plan that is controlled by the employees, is portable, and does notweigh down taxpayers.Defned Beneft Components:Higher employee contributions (6 percent, up rom 3 percent) or ull period o employment;Higher minimum retirement ages (65, up rom 62);Overtime would be excluded rom pension calculations;Employees would have to work longer beore their pension vests (12 years, up rom 10)Lengthen the period over which the fnal average salary is calculated (currently “high3” years) to 8 years; andCap o $179,000 or FAS calculation purposes.Defned Contribution Components:Use a national provider o Defned Contribution plans or Public Employees to avoidanother layer o government; The plan should be portable and encourage employee participation; andAnnual contribution rate would be 12 percent o annual salary with the employercovering 9 percent and the employee 3 percent (consistent with Defned Beneft plan).
• REDEFINE COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
Defne Ability to Pay – the statute has no defnition o the ability to pay. It should beamended to require that an arbitration panel accord substantial weight to ability topay when making an award. The term should be defned as the ability o a publicemployer to pay all economic costs to be imposed on it by an arbitration awardwithout requiring a reduction o municipal services or an increase in the level o realproperty taxes in existence or each year or years addressed by the award.Prohibit Consideration o Non-Compensation Issues – other unions (e.g. countysheris, State Police), which are permitted to seek arbitration o a bargaining impasse,are denied the right to pursue non-compensation matters beore an arbitration panel.Municipalities and school districts should be entitled to the same restrictions.Limit Access to Binding Arbitration – currently, there is no limit on the number o timespolice and frefghter unions can seek binding arbitration. This should be changed sothat once any union decides to go to binding arbitration, they will lose that ability orthe next two successive collective bargaining cycles. This limitation will help to ensurethat the option o going to binding arbitration is not routinely used as away to avoidgood aith negotiations.Add Transparency to the Arbitration Process – currently, an arbitration paneldeliberates and renders its decision behind closed doors. Making their proceedingssubject to the Open Meetings Law by requiring the arbitration panel to deliberate in apublic orum within the municipality or school district under arbitration and to presentits decision at a meeting o the legislative body or school board, will add a level o accountability to a process that currently lacks any degree o transparency. Thismuch-needed transparency should ultimately be applied to all aspects o collectivebargaining.
»
1.2.3.4.5.6.
»
1.2.3.1.2.3.4.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->