Jail Admin has put out a memo raising vacation levels to 5 off for days and mids and 4 off for dogwatch. Definitely a step in the right direction. Since the Vote of No Confidence we have seen the posted schedule remain unchanged and a marked improvement in vacation time use. Solidarity!
Many are reporting getting documented counselling sessions for Pantel Zoom Camera use when they were not the ones setting the cameras. See a steward or email me at steward320@msn.com if this applies to you.
W2's are out. I got a call last night from another steward telling me the income reported on his W2 is about $2,000 more then on his last pay stub! Check yours. APEX? Let's see them explain this 'formula.'
2/3/10 we return to the table for another round of contract mediation.
Continue to watch this blog for updates. Don't hesitate to post here, you can do so anonymously. Feel free to email me at steward320@msn.com
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NEWS SITE FOR CURRENT AND RETIRED CORRECTIONS OFFICERS! This blog will keep up on current events affecting Detention Deputies and Corrections Officers. SINCE 2006!
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Grievance filed over additional money owed detention deputies
On January 18th, 2010, I filed a class action (covering all detention deputies and techs) grievance for money due over hours worked over and above 2080 hours in 2009.
Article 3, Section 3 of our AGREEMENT reads:
Beginning January 2, 2000, employees assigned to a work schedule which requires them to work 2080 or more hours per year (e.g. 6-3 schedule with 8.5 hours of work per day) will not be required to work such makeup hours. Such employees shall be paid for 80 hours per payroll period, exclusive of overtime. Any additional amounts owed to such employees shall be paid at the end of each contract year. Employees on the 6-3 holiday schedule who are credited with working an 8.5 hour workday shall also attend 12 hours mandatory training as part of their normal schedule. In addition, all employees on this schedule shall receive holiday premium compensation for the hours actually worked on a designated holiday, as described in Article 11, Holidays. Employees working this schedule shall not be entitled to the 1.5% salary premium outlined in Article 3, Section 2 above.
By changing the schedule from 6/3 to 28/8 mid year caused most of you to work more hours while only being paid for 2080.
This is yet another "cost savings" of the 28 day schedule of which the Administration was warned. Almost every detention deputy should be owed money.
P.S. This clause is exclusive to the Detention Deputy Agreement. We put it in, in 2000 when we first got holiday pay in our first contract as Teamsters.
Article 3, Section 3 of our AGREEMENT reads:
Beginning January 2, 2000, employees assigned to a work schedule which requires them to work 2080 or more hours per year (e.g. 6-3 schedule with 8.5 hours of work per day) will not be required to work such makeup hours. Such employees shall be paid for 80 hours per payroll period, exclusive of overtime. Any additional amounts owed to such employees shall be paid at the end of each contract year. Employees on the 6-3 holiday schedule who are credited with working an 8.5 hour workday shall also attend 12 hours mandatory training as part of their normal schedule. In addition, all employees on this schedule shall receive holiday premium compensation for the hours actually worked on a designated holiday, as described in Article 11, Holidays. Employees working this schedule shall not be entitled to the 1.5% salary premium outlined in Article 3, Section 2 above.
By changing the schedule from 6/3 to 28/8 mid year caused most of you to work more hours while only being paid for 2080.
This is yet another "cost savings" of the 28 day schedule of which the Administration was warned. Almost every detention deputy should be owed money.
P.S. This clause is exclusive to the Detention Deputy Agreement. We put it in, in 2000 when we first got holiday pay in our first contract as Teamsters.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Media Bias
On December 15th 2009 a press release was issued announcing a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN SHERIFF STANEK. Among others, two of the local paper's reporters interviewed me, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. A total of 5 interviews between them.
Interestingly, the St. Paul Pioneer Press after much promise eventually said, "We don't cover stories on the other side of the river." The Star Tribune eventually told me, "I don't think our editor is interested in running it." OK, but wait.
One must ask why the Star Tribune has story after pro-Sheriff Stanek story, and story after negative story about Ramsey County Sheriff Fletcher "on the other side of the river." Could it be that Sheriff Stanek is a "source" of theirs? They accept story after story from him, many of which are good, but in return will not cover any negative stories about him even though he is a major politician.
No Confidence Votes are generally news. When the small police department in Oakdale voted NO CONFIDENCE in their chief the Star Tribune ran the story, Oakdale's police chief: Bully or 'by the book'?
When the Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies Association took a vote of no confidence against candidate Stanek's rival Juan Lopez, it made the news. That's right, a politically motivated vote of no confidence against a candidate made the news!
All was relatively quiet between the two, even up to the primary, where Stanek captured 43 percent of the vote to Lopez's 24 percent. But afterward, the attacks began in the form of a press release from a group called the Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies Association. The missive, which lists HCSDA president Pat Denman as a contact, notes that the association issued a "no confidence" vote in candidate Lopez. City Pages
In light of that one would think a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE by Teamsters Union members against the Sheriff of the largest County in Minnesota would be news, but alas, the media is biased. Whether it gets newspaper coverage or not doesn't change the facts of the VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN SHERIFF STANEK. It also can't stop the Internet from spreading the word in blogs and on YouTube videos.
Interestingly, the St. Paul Pioneer Press after much promise eventually said, "We don't cover stories on the other side of the river." The Star Tribune eventually told me, "I don't think our editor is interested in running it." OK, but wait.
One must ask why the Star Tribune has story after pro-Sheriff Stanek story, and story after negative story about Ramsey County Sheriff Fletcher "on the other side of the river." Could it be that Sheriff Stanek is a "source" of theirs? They accept story after story from him, many of which are good, but in return will not cover any negative stories about him even though he is a major politician.
No Confidence Votes are generally news. When the small police department in Oakdale voted NO CONFIDENCE in their chief the Star Tribune ran the story, Oakdale's police chief: Bully or 'by the book'?
When the Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies Association took a vote of no confidence against candidate Stanek's rival Juan Lopez, it made the news. That's right, a politically motivated vote of no confidence against a candidate made the news!
All was relatively quiet between the two, even up to the primary, where Stanek captured 43 percent of the vote to Lopez's 24 percent. But afterward, the attacks began in the form of a press release from a group called the Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies Association. The missive, which lists HCSDA president Pat Denman as a contact, notes that the association issued a "no confidence" vote in candidate Lopez. City Pages
In light of that one would think a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE by Teamsters Union members against the Sheriff of the largest County in Minnesota would be news, but alas, the media is biased. Whether it gets newspaper coverage or not doesn't change the facts of the VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN SHERIFF STANEK. It also can't stop the Internet from spreading the word in blogs and on YouTube videos.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)