http://www.stopthetaxshift.org/employee-relations/25-triborough-amendment
THE TRIBOROUGH AMENDMENT
The Mandate: The 1982 Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law prohibits a public employer from altering any provision of an expired labor agreement until a new agreement is reached. This amendment, which was originally approved with the strong support of unions, has the effect of requiring automatic pay increases where a salary step schedule or longevity schedule exists, even though the labor agreement has expired. Consequently, a public employer's salary costs continue to rise even when labor negotiations have reached an impasse.
The Triborough Amendment also undermines the collective bargaining process by discouraging unions from offering concessions or givebacks since, as long as no agreement is reached, the terms of the current contract remain in effect. Not only is New York the only state in the nation known to have such a requirement, but in the private sector, where collective bargaining has existed for more than 60 years under the National Labor Relations Act, no similar obligation is imposed upon employers who are parties to a labor contract.
The Cost: The dramatic impact that the Triborough Amendment has on collective bargaining translates into a negotiations process that discourages compromise, putting New York's taxpayers at an extreme disadvantage.
The Solution: The Triborough Amendment should be repealed so that public employers and employees can be encouraged to work together to achieve labor contracts that are both fair and affordable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
We should all contact our local legislators to work on repealing this.
ReplyDeleteBefore the Triborough doctrine, there were three strikes in Plainview-Old Bethpage and many more throughout the state. Should the law be repealed, i suggest that we will return to the kind of bitter labor management relations that we have not seen for years. Contrary to the view of the writer of this post, the citizens of the state have been much better off since the passage of this law.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some bitter labor mangement in plainview now that the school tax bill is so out of control due to a board of ed that lacks the fiscal responsibility and nerve to say no to the leadership of the PCT who has the nerve to have protestors marching in front of the school in time economic depression to which alot of employees should feel some sense of appreciation that they are still employed and have not taken any wage reductions . Maybe we should trade the lack of appreciation that we have now for the labor/management bitterness in plainview. I have yet to see true leadership on both sides
ReplyDeleteNew Post please:
ReplyDeleteDid you know that POB teachers get paid NOT to take the health insurance from the district?
How much are they paid?
How many are paid this wasted money?
Yes, POB teachers are paid NOT to take health insurance.
ReplyDeleteIT SAVES YOU MONEY! They are paid a portion of what the district WOULD HAVE PAID had they taken health insurance. Therefore, if you DO NOT need health insurance they SAVE MONEY by paying you to NOT TAKE the insurance and not cost them the full cost of insurance.
It doesn't save money if they have to pay for from a spouse and the district. Its a waste of money. Raise thier contributions. Make them pay half.
ReplyDeleteif the district pays $10,000 for the health plan of one employee and their family and the employee opts out then the the school district pays $10,000 less and in return gives the employee $5,000 for doing so . The bottom line is that the school saves $5,000 . So the argument that the idea of incentivizing employees not to have dual health coverage is saving us(the residents and school district) money.
ReplyDelete