Day: July 1, 2015

Dear Members,

Changes in your paycheck:

First, the Deficit Reduction Program has ended and that has resulted in a bump upward in our members’ pay. Secondly, the 2011-2016 Agreement between UUP and the State of New York provides for the following salary increases and discretionary awards in 2015:

— UUP bargaining unit members who were on payroll June 30, 2015 will receive a 2% salary increase on July 1 (calendar year and college year employees) or September 1 (academic year employees).

— An additional $500 will be added to base salary of incumbents as of June 30, 2015 (pro-rated for part time employees) through the Chancellor’s Power of SUNY Award, to be paid no later than December 31, 2015. At this time we do not know the exact date this payment will be made. It will be retroactive to July 1, 2015 or September 1, 2015, depending on the employee’s professional obligation and whether they are active on the payroll at the time of payment. Employees who worked at least one semester during the 12-month period commencing July 1, 2014 and whose employment expires prior to July 1, 2015 shall be eligible for the payment if they are re-employed and active on the payroll on the effective date of payment.

PLEASE NOTE: The Part-Time Employees Contract Fast Facts document at the following link provides information about the pro-rata formula for distribution of the $500 base increase to part-time employees: http://uupinfo.org/negotiations/pdf/PartTimeFastFacts.pdf

— Lastly, 0.5% of payroll will be allocated to Discretionary Salary Awards (DSA), to be distributed at the discretion of campus presidents. DSA will not be added to base salary. It will be paid no later than December 31, 2015. On each campus a specific portion of the DSA pool will be earmarked for part-time employees.

In Solidarity,
Fred

UUP President Fred Kowal joined union leaders nationwide in decrying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that could weaken public sector unions by denying them the ability to collect fees from workers who reject union representation.

“I am disappointed by the court’s move to review a suit bankrolled and propelled by wealthy anti-union forces designed to weaken and eventually break public sector unions,” Kowal said in a June 30 press statement. “By taking up this case, the Supreme Court is facilitating yet another vicious assault on working families, which serves to push the American Dream further and further out of reach for millions of laborers nationwide.

“Unions provide the opportunity for success and prosperity for those who work hard and play fair. Organized labor makes America strong. Unions give workers a strong, necessary voice. But this is an outright attack on working families, the American economy and the American way.”

On June 30, the court agreed to take up Friedrichs, a case brought by 10 California teachers who argue that paying such fees—known in New York as agency fee—is unconstitutional. The court won’t rule on the case until it resumes session in October; a decision could come as soon as December.

For decades, public sector unions have been allowed to collect fees from nonmembers, who would otherwise unfairly benefit from higher salaries, better working conditions and other union-negotiated benefits. Nonmembers must pay their fair share for representation, as per the Supreme Court’s landmark 1977 ruling, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education; they are not obligated to join unions, pay union dues or for political advocacy against their beliefs.
Other voices

In a joint statement, the NEA, AFT, AFSCME, SEIU and the California Teachers Association said the Supreme Court “has chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental promise of America—that if you work hard and play by the rules you should be able to provide for your family and live a decent life.”

“America can’t build a strong future if people can’t come together to improve their work and their families’ futures,” the statement said. “Moms and dads across the country have been standing up in the thousands to call for higher wages and unions. We hope the Supreme Court heeds their voices.”

Said Kowal: “In the wake of recent major Supreme Court decisions that upheld same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act, I am confident that the justices will see this case for the sham that it is and rule accordingly.”

On its website, NYSUT has posted detailed information about Friedrichs, including a breakdown of the case, a frequently asked questions section and links to information on the case.
It’s all about Abood

Friedrichs poses a significant threat to organized labor and could weaken union solidarity and the ability of unions to effectively represent its members.

In its review of Friedrichs, the court may decide to reverse Abood, which asserted labor’s constitutional right to collect agency fees. If it does so, unions would still be left with the responsibility—required by law—of representing their entire bargaining units.

That includes “free riders” who would no longer have to pay agency fee and current union members who choose to leave the union to pocket their union dues, which amounts to about 1 percent of their salary. With Abood, the court asserted that it was not unconstitutional to collect fair share agency fees; it has subsequently upheld and reaffirmed the ruling.

Last year, anti-union groups challenged the legality of Abood through another case, Harris v. Quinn. The court chose not to overturn Abood, but conservative Justice Samuel Alito was highly critical of Abood in the majority opinion.

Anti-union groups seized the opportunity; in January, California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other teachers filed a legal challenge. She’s being represented by a Washington, D.C.-based anti-union group, the Center for Individual Rights.

The Supreme Court will consider the case in its next term in October. The court must rule on the suit by June 30, 2016.