Opposing Correction Workers Union Takes Step to Decertify AFSCME
by Hugh McQuaid | Aug 15, 2011 3:15pm
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor
As state correctional workers went to the polls Monday to vote on a negotiated concession agreement, a Massachusetts union was preparing to submit paperwork which it hopes will result in a different vote, one to decertify AFSCME.
To start the process of decertifying a union representing state employees, an opposing union must acquire signed cards of interest from enough members to represent 30 percent of its total membership. In the case of correctional workers that number was 1,500.
Christopher Murphy, executive director of the National Correctional Employees Union, said his union has already obtained well over 2,000 signed “blue cards” from Connecticut prison workers who want to leave AFSCME for his union.
“We had a phenomenal week last week. Correctional officers and support staff really showed us how unhappy they are with their current representation,” he said.
He said someone from his group plans to drive down to Wethersfield today to submit the cards to the state Board of Labor Relations.
The board will have to verify that all the names are valid. It then will investigate the petition, meeting with the current union, the prospective union and the employer, in this case the state. With that information the board will make a decision whether or not to hold an election.
It’s unclear what effect the move to decertify AFSCME will have on the ongoing ratification process for a $1.6 billion labor concession agreement. Correctional employees are scheduled to cast their vote on the revised agreement Monday and Tuesday.
Correction officers and the state are currently in contract negotiations since its current contract expired on June 30.
Murphy believes when the paperwork is filed later today, it will effectively stop the process of contractual negotiations between the state and prison workers. AFSCME has the right to appeal some aspects of the procedures, but he said if the labor board allows a vote it would take place by the end of October.
But according to the Department of Labor, the Board of Labor Relations would not be the party to stop any contractual negotiations. That decision would have to be made by the state and AFSCME, DOL spokeswoman Nancy Steffens said.
AFSCME Local 319 President Jon T. Pepe called NCEU’s move ridiculous.
“It means absolutely nothing,” he said. “The SEBAC agreement is going to pass and we’ll be in contract negotiations by sometime in September.”
Pepe criticized NCEU’s recent actions as his union has struggled to sell a revised concession package to correction workers who have been historically reluctant to sign on to any concession agreements.
For one thing, the group has been waited longer than necessary to make its move, he said.
“They only needed 1,500 cards but for some reason they hung around, getting 500 more,” he said.
And their hanging around has caused disruptions, Pepe said. NCEU has had men posted in the driveways of both Enfield and Carl Robinson Correctional Institution, blocking traffic to hand out the cards, he said. Pepe said he’s surprised none of them have been hit by a car yet.
He said that on more than one occasion the police have been called to both prisons to deal with NCEU representatives trespassing on Department of Corrections property.
Robinson’s Deputy Warden William Faneuff asked the men to leave the premises and they gave him a hard time so the police were called, Pepe said. Faneuff declined to comment.
But Enfield Police Department Deputy Chief Gary Collins said that at around 7:30 a.m. on July 29 an officer was dispatched to the prison after a trespasser was reported. The incident resolved itself after the deputy warden had a discussion with a union organizer about where he was allowed to stand.
“You can’t just wander on to Department of Corrections property,” Collins said.
Pepe called their behavior outrageous and said it has left his members with a sour taste in their mouths.
“I love the way they’ve acted because they’ve ensured our members will stay with AFSCME. Their actions have been so asinine,” he said.
Pepe also said the group is acting to decertify AFSCME at the wrong time. He points to a requirement for state unions that the petition be submitted during the month of August on the year before the expiration of the workers’ current contract. For correction workers that would have been last August.
But according to the Labor Department the requirement is not a hard and fast rule; there are circumstances where the board can allow a vote anyway. And last month Murphy said prospective unions are also allowed to go after a unit when it is operating without a contract. Correctional officer contracts expired on June 30.
Either way, Pepe contends the decertification window is closed. Contractual negotiations are imminent and the union and the state have already decided on an arbitrator, he said.
Besides, the submission of the cards is only the beginning of long process, he said.
“The 30 percent only gets them a seat at the table to make their case,” he said.
He questioned why the Labor Relations Board, if it could, would choose to stall negotiations and why his members would decide to jump ship for another union, which he said is trying to kill a deal that would offer them layoff protection.
“Even if for some reason [the board allows a vote] are members going to pick a union that screwed them out of layoff protection?” he asked.
He and AFSCME spokesman Larry Dorman questioned where the group was last August at the appropriate time to launch such a campaign. The decertification attempt amounts to poaching, and capitalizing on the confusion of their members.
Murphy denied the claim, saying the group was contacted by a large number of Connecticut workers, who asked them if there was any way NCEU could represent them.
“We responded to what I would call an emergency call from members who said, ‘We don’t like what’s going on, we don’t feel we’re being represented and we want a change,’” he said.
Tags: labor unions, department of corrections, afscme, Hugh McQuaid
(11) Comments
posted by: state_employee | August 15, 2011 4:18pm
I can’t wait to do the same in SEIU 1199.
THEY NEED TO GO
posted by: illogicallylogical | August 15, 2011 6:23pm
Well, I’ll start off by addressing the article, not kicking a dead horse. First, I am unsettled that Jon T. Pepe states “...The SEBAC agreement is going to pass…” What? How would he know the answer to that when all the votes haven’t been tallied. Second, I agree that anyone that isn’t a State Correction Worker shouldn’t be on State property. Absolutely correct on that one. However, how dare Pepe call the NCEU’s actions “asinine” when it was the actions of AFSCME and SEBAC that revealed a “chink” in this Unions “armor” in the first place. Pepe needs to assume responsibility, as well as SEBAC, for the FAILED attempt to shove this concessions package down State workers throats in the first place. Third, members WILL pick a Union that “screwed them out of a voice” rather than “screwed them out of a layoff protection”. State workers jobs are supposed to be protected by Union representatives. It’s their job to discuss the TA in a manner that everyone can understand it…regardless of level of education. That’s why we pay Union dues. Yet the Union and SEBAC have allowed Malloy to railroad everyone with this package…the system of checks-and-balances is gone. Finally, rather than sling mud and wonder “why” the NCEU didn’t do this last year, maybe Pepe should address the failings of AFSCME and SEBAC and start placing the blame on these two entities rather than an outside Union ceasing an opportunity to increase it’s ranks do to the failings of the present Union.
posted by: sharewhut | August 15, 2011 7:13pm
re: waiting for 500 extra names, last time they got blocked when they didn’t have enough of what they turned in certified.
Corrections, despite whatever company line Mr. Pepe parrots, has long been an inconvenience for Council4. NP4 makes up a good sized block in the state scheme but overall makes up less than 6% of the overall council membership. And even within the state sector (of both C4 and most SEBAC components) there is much resentment over hazardous duty retirement, and by allowing (despite a meaningless no after allowing to get to a predetermined vote) showed their willingness to jeopardize it with new 50+1 rules.
If Sal had fought as hard for a legitimate deal as he will to block NCEU, there would have been no problem getting passed on 1st try.
posted by: sharewhut | August 15, 2011 7:18pm
Most Council 4 units don’t think Correctios belong, C/O ‘s tried to pull out before, but AFSCME doesn’t want to give up number power or dues.
posted by: Michaelreed | August 15, 2011 7:24pm
Thumbs up to the Correction Workers who took a stand against AFSCME. I’ve worked for the state for 26 yrs. and all they ever cared about was our dues not protecting and fighting for their members.
All AFSCME feeds us is scare tactics, bullying, lies, and ridicule to persuade us to vote yes. We can’t forget the guilt trip they try to put on us for layoffs even though they are aware we didn’t cause the layoffs nor can we prevent them. We are ALL upset about layoffs and the strong will stand up for our rights. Enough is Enough.
AFSCME is even spending OUR DUES MONEY TO PRINT FLYERS telling us to vote yes. We have them hung in our office PORTRAYING ONE VIEW TO VOTE YES. This is my dues money and I want to hear both sides.
Ask the people who work for AFSCME or better yet look up online what their benefits are - shocking what they receive that we pay for with our dues. This is the only reason why AFSCME doesn’t want to see layoffs - they will loose our dues money which gives them fantastic benefits and wages we pay for.
Send those cards in and let’s get a Union in that will fight for us and not feeds us lies.
posted by: sharewhut | August 15, 2011 7:25pm
Note that Larry Dorman has moved on to being point man in Red Cross dispute, must be a pain for him to have to come back and deal with state employee issues before the upcoming victory speech (that he planned on giving months ago).
posted by: Upset.Citizen | August 15, 2011 8:05pm
They are not the only ones who were not represented!
The P4 cards are green… Be sure to fill yours out today!
posted by: illogicallylogical | August 15, 2011 11:05pm
Apparently I was tired when I first posted, as there are errors (i.e. ceasing instead of seizing). Sorry!
posted by: sharewhut | August 16, 2011 2:11am
One thing though, there needs to be a significant withdrawal from current representation. Losing NP-4 would weaken, but in no way cripple Council 4 (they’d go from current +/- 1/3 of SEBAC membership to about 1/5.
Any other unions changing would need to come in as separate UNION entities. All would become, by law, part of $EBAC. One breakaway, even if heavily weighted number wise, would be punished by the scorned- you can bet Sal & co. will make sure to keep the simple majority in place and try to use it to the fullest extent in the most vindictive ways they can legally get away with. Get 3,4,or 5 new unions stand a better chance. Get 4 or 5 Public safety, unions (CO’s Correctional Supervisors, State Police and Supervisors, Judicial Marshals, Court Support Services/probation to break off in a block, add in a union of Correctional nurses, Correctioal teachers & social Workers, CVH & Juvie training center. Even with ‘weighted’ voting can come up with enough votes to keep them honest. Add in the P-4 and clerical units looking to change AFSCME goes from domination in a group 15 to a strong presence in a group of 20 or more.
There are the ‘windows of opportunity’ for change to deal with- and $EBAC has tried slamming them by first extending all contracts to ‘12 (meaning NOW IS THE WINDOW, August of year prior to expiration)and now trying to get them all (through the wage portion) extended until ‘15. They ain’t stoopid, they knew the discontent these concessions would foment and,by what they pulled and are pulling, have shown no shyness about hedging their bet (units not re-voting to give ‘yes’ a 20% head start!).
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | August 16, 2011 9:20am
Then there’s the proposal to eliminate OT, differential and vacation credits from pension calculations AKA the base pay proposal.
So where does the rumor mill stand on that? The House won’t act on the legislation unless the aggreement is rejected or the union decertified in which case Malloy will make it law. It already passed the Senate and ahs Malloy’s support..
That’s the backdoor deal that Malloy made with the public safety/haz duty worker unions isn’t it?
The 20-year retirement, the all-you-can-eat pension accelerators in your last 3 years will not be touched?
Contractual budget busting Over Time schemes will be….ahem….overlooked in public safety and in haz duty as long as the agreement is approved.
Otherwise out comes the scalpel and new legislation?
Wnat something scary? Look at the UK. A change to 15% pensions contributions and 35 years for retirement and a 3% deduction off the pensions for each year of early retirement due to health.
Fiscal sobriety. Even the socialist states get it.
http://tinyurl.com/3mazgnp
posted by: NOW What? | August 16, 2011 4:37pm
GoatBoyPHD - Regarding our Hazardous Duty pensions, yes one can retire after serving 20 years (at any age) in Hazardous Duty… but that’s the only “accelerator” that other state employees don’t have. And it’s APPRIOPRIATE, because after 20 years in Hazardous Duty one’s ability to perform the job effectively and safely starts becoming seriously compromised due to the physical demands of the job and the fight/flight and the “hyper-vigilant” stress involved (triggered by adrenaline and other cortico-steroid hormone levels involved).
As far as the pension situation in the UK goes, it’s very different than it is for the State of Connecticut. In the UK - as in most of Europe - their defined-benefit pensions are much more akin to the US’s Social Security system than to Connecticut state employees’ pensions. Entirely different structures and funding mechanisms; not really comparable. Defined benefit pensions can work VERY well provided that ta group’s e number of participants is large enough, the funding comes from investment portfolios that are properly managed, and that the contributions funding those investments are made on a consistent basis and based on actuarily sound figures. None of this has been the case in the UK, while Connecticut’s pension funds’ stability has been getting better over the past few years and will get even better once this SEBAC deal is ratified.