|
February 8, 2008
Letter to the Editor
PBA's Pay Case
To the Editor:
In its zeal to interfere with the PBA panel's deliberations, The
Chief-Leader (Feb. 8 editorial) has once again disregarded realities
and facts to reach myopically pro-management conclusions.
Its assumption that reopener clauses with other uniformed unions
would be triggered in the event of a more-generous award to the
PBA and all would receive more is just plain wrong. A re-opener
clause simply grants the right to re-open negotiations. It is not,
as the Chief seems to suggest, a "me-too" clause, which
is illegal in this state because it puts an unfair burden on the
negotiating union. And as to those groups with re-openers, a city
witness has stated under oath that the city's position would be
they already have contracts and the city will not voluntarily give
higher amounts to these groups.
Assuming other groups have the right to go to arbitration as a
result of the re-openers — and that issue is by no means
clear — they would then have to convince an arbitrator that they
deserve more, given the criteria the panel would apply to their
case. And then you really get to the crux of the matter: no group
suffers from the same gross pay disparity as New York City police
officers.
In fact, when you look at the data for these groups, they are
all better-compensated than police officers vis-à-vis their
comparators, with some being paid at market and some being paid
well above market. And that makes all the difference under the
statutory criteria that will be applied.
While we believe that all worker groups deserve to be paid a fair
market salary, the decision to go to arbitration with all its variables
is one that history shows us will be sparingly exercised, if at
all.
As far as the city's ability to pay, the Mayor's recent budget
pronouncements demonstrate that the city is now on track to finish
with another $4-billion surplus. And that surplus is likely to
grow by the end of the fiscal year.
And remember, the PBA arbitration covers the period 2004-06, a
period of unprecedented prosperity in the city. The city has pled
poverty for the last two decades in PBA arbitrations during both
booms and bust periods in our business cycle. Yet, virtually without
exception, the city has consistently produced substantial surpluses.
While we believe there is never an excuse to pay one employee group
30 percent less than the market, the city's budget situation certainly
does not provide one.
The bottom line is that Police Officers are underpaid like no
other city employee group, and the City of New York can afford
to pay an appropriate salary for its police officers, but refuses
to do so. The uncompetitive pay scale at every level for police
officers has resulted in the NYPD's staffing crisis and the scarcity
of police officers in our outer boroughs (to perform a worthwhile
service, the Chief might consider looking into the police staffing
issues in the city).
It is time to disregard the Office of Labor Relations's "that's
how we did it last time" attitude and to fix the problem of
police pay inequity once and for all for the sake of our city's
future.
PATRICK J. LYNCH, President, Patrolmen's Benevolent Association
|
