Comments on: New Contract Ratified

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:07:07 +0000

Again Jim ASPTEA has no contract AFSCME’s contract gives use rights not afforded to ASPTEA. Once you get and read facts then comment. Arizona is a right to work state therefore we have to represent all if they pay dues or not, extort? Those who don’t pay dues extort the rights we fight for, they ride on our coat tails. Again check the facts there is no contract for ASPTEA. AFSCME represents 26 departments so you are saying the fire members don’t count, the cook members don’t count only you, I think each of them would say that they do count, their families count and their jobs count. But for you unless we only concern ourselves about you and what you want then we are wasting our time or not doing a good job.
You can write as much as you want and until you read the facts you are spouting off plain ignorance. And if you don’t think the City can do away with our benefits you most certainly do not know any facts, what we have now was not given to us 100 years ago. What we have now has taken 25 years of hard negotiations with the City, long hours, time away from family, legal fees, emotional pain, some wins and some loses. But most of all we have worked hard for all our departments not just one and never would you hear the union say Fire, Cooks, or any other department didn’t matter.
Educate yourself on what the City has done and what they can do when there is no contract. Fact we did not always have unions with the City and until we did the City did what ever they wanted with employees and the employee had no alternative no one to represent them. Check the facts.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:14:59 +0000

What do you think an MOU is? A written agreement between a group of employees and the City? Gee, sounds like a contract to me! Last I heard, written contracts were enforceable through the legal system. I still don’t believe you that an MOU is any less than a contract. Why would the City honor an MOU and its provisions if it didn’t have to? I say again, contract and MOU are one in the same for all intents and purposes.

As for not paying dues, maybe I pay dues, maybe I don’t, either way it would get spun in the union’s favor. Let’s pretend that I have 100 people in my unit, and only 10 pay dues. As suggested by your earlier comments Kim, why would the union pay attention to or fight for a group where only 10% of the employees are dues paying members? Now let’s pretend that 70 more employees decide to pay dues because they’re fed up and want a voice, bringing the total to 80% of the group. The union would simply say that well we obviously have that group’s support because 80% of them pay dues! If AFSCME was really interested in or cared about the things that those they “represent” think, you wouldn’t extort dues from us for the privilege of voting or deciding what benefits are important to us.

Out of curiousity, how many employees fall under AFSCME “representation” and what percentage pay dues? I don’t care about the 100% of the cooks or the 80% at fire, I want to know percentage across the board.

The reality is that unions were a necessity during the Industrial Revolution and in the early 20th Century. Yes, those of us working now enjoy a lot of benefits that were fought for by union members 100 years ago. But guess what, now that we have the benefits, they’re not going to get taken away so easily because the benefits that we enjoy have become ingrained in our society.

By: Kim

Kim — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:32:10 +0000

There is no fear mongering, there is fact ASPTEA has no contract, meet and confer does not equal meet and discuss with the City of Phoenix. Where AFSCME has it in writing and can it enforced by rules and regulations plus an international union ASPTEA gets the opportunity to talk with the City and let them know we agree with this or we agree with that but it is the City that decides what ASPTEA gets. ASPTEA has for years tried to get a contract but so far has not been able to and for good reason the City the looses hold. The City would like for us not to be members of AFSCME because we have a contract, they know that those who pay dues are afforded more protection, when it is not a contract vilation from the union then those that are not dues paying. So what you are saying is if you get a supervisor who is using unfair tactics on you writing memos, unfair NOIs, harassment if you are in ASPTEA everything will go away and you both will play nice? So how long have you worked for the city? So is that why those in Crime Scene are treating due paying members so mean, glad to get rid of one and hateful plus writing not so nice things in Facebook because if you were ASPTEA everyone would kiss and make up? Get real, by the way if you’d like to look up and state facts and where you found them that the City pays the Unions, not only the Unions would care to know but the taxpayers also. Which supervisor is filling you with stories and hearsay, we don’t go by hearsay we go by facts. We have a contract, ASPTEA doesn’t, you don’t pay dues now why would you pay ASPTEA? ASPTEA does a good job with what they are allowed to do, but I’d rather have a contract and people with experience behind me.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:03:59 +0000

Kim, your defense of AFSCME vs ASPTEA is nothing but fear mongering in my opinion. You’re suggesting that ASPTEA lacks any form of “contract” with the City? So theoretically the City could arbitrarily or unilaterally cut whatever benefits are guaranteed to ASPTEA members through their MOU and ASPTEA would be powerless to stop that? Hmmm…I don’t think so. Contract/MOU = same thing. Meet and confer/meet and discuss= same thing.

Ever stop and think that “representation” might not be needed if a supervisor and a supervisee were in the same bargaining unit? Maybe working under the same rules and enjoying the same benefits would create one less conflict in the workplace?

Maybe one of you AFSCME higher ups can honestly answer a question. I’ve heard that the City pays AFSCME a dollar amount for every employee that is consigned to their representation. True or false? If it is true, if the City is already paying AFSCME based upon my classification why should I be forced to pay additional dues for the benefit of voting on contracts and other union business? Seems like if the City is paying you for every member that you “represent” then AFSCME represented employees shouldn’t have to pay additional union dues and should be allowed to vote regardless of whether or not they’re a dues paying member.

By: Unit 3

Unit 3 — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:06:16 +0000

We were not allowed to cash out more than 40 in May (and 40 in November). Has that changed?

By: Kim

Kim — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:34:45 +0000

Oh Jim, I once was in ASPTEA did you know that when you need representation that they will tell you that yes they will be there with you but because supervisors are in the same union they can only mediate and can’t really represent you, but they will be with you. And because they don’t have a contract they can only do so much. Their representatives would like to have a contract so they would have at least that to back them up. But ASPTEA has no contract they are told what they are getting and have no say no vote as to what they get. You do have to pay dues in order to vote for our contract. Yes they did get a larger percent to deferred comp, which has been lost this year, but our members wanted higher wages, they have families to support, we don’t want something for retirement we needed it now.
No one is attacking Denise/Gywn but if you are going to throw out statements not fact you need to expect someone to give the facts and sometimes the facts hurt. It is evident you are concerned with only yourself, my union is concerned with 26 departments and the needs we asked for. It is easy to condemn when you don’t bother to get involved. I am sure if you went to ASPTEA you wouldn’t pay dues either and if it didn’t go your way you’d complain about them. You want someone else to do the work and you just reap the benefits.

By: Kim

Kim — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:17:43 +0000

I love how non paying members know so much about the what is going on. I guess it is true ignorance is bliss, until you are a dues paying member and active as to what is going on you have no room to comment. In fact you have no idea what goes on at our union because you are not involved, amazing you don’t pay dues, you don’t participate, you can’t vote seems all you have time for is to complain. I am a dues paying member and I don’t like the fact we have to represent you, I think non paying dues member should have to take whatever the City wants to take away from you. But darn it we have to let you ride on our coat tails, to those of us who pay dues it seems a tat bit unfair.
You have a great day and enjoy what my union did for you free!

By: Kim

Kim — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:05:02 +0000

Denise, we are not the only ones who had to make concessions quite frankly I would rather have a say to what the City takes then have the City take my longevity, reduce my salary to what they want plus up our health insurance. As far as your remarks about Nancy it is clear you don’t take any active participation in the Union, if you did then you’d know that there are 26 departments we represent not one like Police and Fire. Each elected officers works more hours without pay then you and I would ever think to, they work at home, late nights and take it to heart each member they represent dues paying or not. Nancy retired and didn’t have to continue her term but has done it because she takes each matter to heart and didn’t want to leave us at such a vulnerable time. If, and that is a big IF you are a dues paying member get involved and then write with intelligence and true knowledge of what our officers do for us, if you are not paying dues you have no room to comment. But one of the wonderful things about this country is we have free speak and my union even allows such negative whiny comments on this blog which says more for our union than it does of your comments about Nancy. Personally let the whiny Crime Scene people go to ASPTEA, they will have to give up more because ASPTEA has no contract and FYI just cause they go to ASPTEA will not give them a pay raise or a reclass. Do you know how many supervisors are having their positions eliminated? I’d rather have a contract then none.

By: Kim

Kim — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:46:06 +0000

Jim did you know that your administrator could have done the reclassification at any time, did you know that Steve was was even offered help to complete the PDQ required for the reclassification? The union does not have to ask for the reclassification your bureau could have done it three years ago. Why should those of us who pay dues and are active in the Union want out officers to spend their time with a reclass that only 5 now 4 employees are dues paying members.The one now out of the Crime Lab you all hail as wonderful and want to get rid of the other 4 because they are dues paying members. How do I know about the reclass? Simple I offered to help Steve, he didn’t want to spend the time filling out the forms. Moreover all the reclassifications done in the Records & Identification Bureau was started and done by administration the Union simply was informed of them. So why don’t you go to your admin and ask them to spend the time answering the questions, filling out the forms, going to the meetings instead of asking a union that you don’t pay dues to and are not active to do their work. We have 26 departments people are loosing jobs and you have the audacity to complain and blame the union, put it were it belongs your administration. By the way there have been no reclassification for at least 2 years because the City has no money in case you didn’t know because it is perfectly clear how selfish and self center those of you in the Crime Lab are.

By: E Board member

E Board member — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:36:35 +0000

Yoli,

I am afraid not…the contract does not begin until July of 2010