Wednesday, November 11, 2009

I think NAGE is lying about what's in the Tentative Agreement

Here's a comparison of the WHAT NAGE CLAIMS is in the tentative agrement versus WHAT IS in the Tentative Agreement.... hey I'm getting this right from NAGE's own publications

What NAGE Claims:
1) Any agreement had to guarantee that we would receive the full 7% in raises during the original term of the contract (ending 6/30/2012), even though they might have to be somewhat delayed.....

What it really is:
What, guaranteed like we we were "guaranteed" 1% as of July 1st 2009?
Since there is NO SUCH THING as guarantee, and the admin and legislature have shown themselves only too willing to Welsh
on a signed deal (to swindle by failing to fulfill an obligation) .....THERE IS NO Guarantee in the TENTATIVE agreement, get it?

    What NAGE Claims:
    2) No mandatory furloughs would take place unless a new contract were negotiated and funded by the legislature.

    What it really is:
    How stupid are you?.... Funding the full 7% means the legislature would have to appropriate funds to pay for all three raises...... IN ADVANCE!..... that means some kind of special appropriation that would span three Fiscal Years.... this is a virtual impossibility.... there is absolutely no guarantee of what will happen in future fiscal years...

    But here is what NAGE will likely do: if the Legislature (which has already made your current contract worthless) does appropriate funds for the 1%, then NAGE will declare the contract "funded", you'll take your involuntary furlough....
    and you will never see the other 6%.

    What NAGE Claims:
    3) No concessions
    would be made unless we had solid assurances that the premium split on our health insurance and the co-pays and deductibles we are responsible for would not increase for FY 10 and FY 11.
    What it really is:
    Solid assurances?.... are you kidding me?
    The health care premiums, co-pays, premium splits, etc. are set by The Group Insurance Commission and the Legislature..... are they going to sign the contract? Of course not, they are NOT BOUND BY ANY PHONY "ASSURANCES"...... past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior by these Independent bodies.

    The Supreme Judicial Court has already determined that these matters are not subject to collective bargaining for state employees
    (not so for municipals which is why so many of them have refused to join the GIC which has continually jacked up co-pays and premiums while cutting coverage.)
    So this "assurance is nothing but a worthless sham, it is completely unenforceable, and designed only to gull you into voting to cut your own pay.....how stupid are you people?


    What NAGE Claims:
    4) The savings from any furlough program would have to be used to reduce layoffs in NAGE units
    What it really is:
    THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE WORD in the "tentative Agreement" which quantifies, identifies, or states in any manner whatsoever, whose jobs, in which bargaining units, in which agencies, will be spared, not to mention for how long (till 6/30/2010?) by your furloughs. NAGE's claim appears to be a flat out lie.

    What NAGE Claims:
    After intense negotiations, we believe we have reached an agreement with the Commonwealth that passes these four tests.
    What it really is:
    Read the "tentative agreement" yourself...... These folks at NAGE will say any damned thing they please.....



    3 comments:

    1. Wow, so the union spent down all the money it had to barely nothing, gets us nothing and tells us how lucky we are!! Great!! and I should feel lucky to have a job that I haven't gotten a raise for in three years! Way to go NAGE!! And what ever happened to the NAGE employee who was stealing money a few years ago? Probably nothing.

      ReplyDelete
    2. The Professor18 November, 2009

      Right on the mark Winston!!I have for several years been a consistent critic of our union and it’s efforts to protect out interests versus furthering their own interests and agenda. Our currently unfunded contract is a prime example of how little the union regards its members. The current attempt to rewrite an already lousy bargaining agreement into one that is even worse for the rank and file is just one more slap in the face to us members! There is nothing of value in the current proposal upon which we have been asked to soon ratify. It is filled with innuendo, deception, and misinformation. While it may hint at positive outcomes for the membership, it falls short of making specific claims because they cannot deliver on those promises.

      ReplyDelete
    3. Years ago, the Unions(s)went to bed with State management. The deal....The state will give you the right to have a "closed shop" (ALL employees will pay dues or an inflated agency fee as a CONDITION of Employement) and the unions will stop breaking managements balls.
      The deal was done and the the members were sold into servitude.
      I am retiring now and the one thing about leaving that makes me smile.... I don't have to pay Nage another red cent.

      ReplyDelete