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!
Monday, September 27, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Is this fair?
The new licensed class COUNTS as of November 12th. Yet they have them on 5/2 through the beginning of December. Yes, the lowest in seniority will have every weekend off and the Thanksgiving and Day After Thanksgiving Holiday. Despite the fact some of you haven't been able to get a weekend or Holiday off for more than a year!
I emailed the middle shift scheduling sergeant and asked him to "correct this." His answer was no.
I just sent the following email to jail Captain W.:
Captain W.,
The new class counts on the schedule as of Nov. 12th. They are on a 5/2 schedule through the beginning of December even though it is not necessary. As you know one of the biggest complaints with the 28 schedule is the inability to get weekends and Holidays off. This is an opportunity to boost morale amongst the more senior staff who put in for weekends off and the November Holidays and were denied. Simply place the new class on the remaining weekends and Thanksgiving Holidays and allow people off with more seniority who asked for it.
Wade Laszlo
Chief Steward Teamsters Local 320
The ball is in their court. They have an opportunity to make life a little easier for some of you. They have certainly have had no trouble moving your choices to force you to work a weekend.
I emailed the middle shift scheduling sergeant and asked him to "correct this." His answer was no.
I just sent the following email to jail Captain W.:
Captain W.,
The new class counts on the schedule as of Nov. 12th. They are on a 5/2 schedule through the beginning of December even though it is not necessary. As you know one of the biggest complaints with the 28 schedule is the inability to get weekends and Holidays off. This is an opportunity to boost morale amongst the more senior staff who put in for weekends off and the November Holidays and were denied. Simply place the new class on the remaining weekends and Thanksgiving Holidays and allow people off with more seniority who asked for it.
Wade Laszlo
Chief Steward Teamsters Local 320
The ball is in their court. They have an opportunity to make life a little easier for some of you. They have certainly have had no trouble moving your choices to force you to work a weekend.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Survey, Double your pension!!
Today you should have received a Minnesota Teamsters Correctional Officer Legislative Priorities Survey.
Please send in the survey!!
I recommend marking #4 Licensure as lowest priority. This will only guarantee more training at this time and no more money. Licensure is better saved for a stronger economy.
IMPORTANT: Under #5 any other issues write:
Merge the Corrections pension with the Police and Fire pension. The merger would bolster the flailing Police & Fire pension, giving their current members more security. This would not likely be opposed by the Counties as they would save approximately 5% of their wage/benefit budget by not having to pay in Social Security Taxes on our wages. Staff would see an increase in net pay based on this same reduction in taxes. Staff would also have a better retirement benefit.
This is a rare opportunity to make your voice heard loud and clear. You are MNTLEL!
Please send in the survey!!
I recommend marking #4 Licensure as lowest priority. This will only guarantee more training at this time and no more money. Licensure is better saved for a stronger economy.
IMPORTANT: Under #5 any other issues write:
Merge the Corrections pension with the Police and Fire pension. The merger would bolster the flailing Police & Fire pension, giving their current members more security. This would not likely be opposed by the Counties as they would save approximately 5% of their wage/benefit budget by not having to pay in Social Security Taxes on our wages. Staff would see an increase in net pay based on this same reduction in taxes. Staff would also have a better retirement benefit.
This is a rare opportunity to make your voice heard loud and clear. You are MNTLEL!
Friday, September 10, 2010
Harsh Realities
Dear members,
As you know we had contract arbitration on September 9th.
Several of you are under the impression we did not fight for step raises. We did in fact and our initial proposal was for a 2% and 2% cost of living raise, not a freeze.
By the time we hit mediation and certified our items for arbitration AFSCME and the University of Minnesota had already accepted no Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increase and a step freeze for 2011 setting the pattern. In addition everyone else who did take it to arbitration lost.
Arbitration awards become case law and precedent setting. It would have been impossible to win. As seen by the HCSDA’s arbitration loss just last week.
If Teamsters Local 320 would have fought the step freeze in arbitration and lost, as the licensed deputies did, (and we would have lost) it would have set the pattern for ALL future negotiations and the County would have had an award against us. This would have affected all future negotiations with “case law” on their side every single time they wanted to freeze steps in future contracts. The contract only guarantees starting and top pay.
I’ll give an example. A few years ago both us and the HCSDA tried to get paid parking in the contract. The HCSDA against our request, took it to arbitration and lost. As a result no one in Hennepin County will ever get it and Ramsey County was able to use that arbitrators decision to take away paid parking from their employees within 6 months of that decision.
We only certified what we thought we had a chance of winning. Sometimes you have to fight another day.
There is the sentiment among some that the people at the top were not caring about the less senior members. This is simply not true. The fact is an arbitrator cannot award money if the County can show they don’t have it. The state of Minnesota has not only shorted Hennepin County of $32 million for 2011 but the County board is not raising taxes on Hennepin County’s citizens. To arbitrate a COLA or steps for 2011 would have been a precedent setting guaranteed loss affecting us for years to come. The fact is that senior members at top pay have endured a hard freeze for 4 of the last six years while less senior members got step raises. We even gave up a 1.5% raise two contracts ago to avoid step freezes for those at the bottom. This was not an option this time. Bottom line is Hennepin County has no money.
What are we doing?
Teamsters Local 320 will be at the budget hearing for the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office on October 28th, 2010. The action we can take now is at the County Board level and in future negotiations.
These tough times have been hard on all of us and we are in the same boat. We are doing what we can for you with an eye to the future.
In solidarity,
Wade Laszlo
Chief Steward
As you know we had contract arbitration on September 9th.
Several of you are under the impression we did not fight for step raises. We did in fact and our initial proposal was for a 2% and 2% cost of living raise, not a freeze.
By the time we hit mediation and certified our items for arbitration AFSCME and the University of Minnesota had already accepted no Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increase and a step freeze for 2011 setting the pattern. In addition everyone else who did take it to arbitration lost.
Arbitration awards become case law and precedent setting. It would have been impossible to win. As seen by the HCSDA’s arbitration loss just last week.
If Teamsters Local 320 would have fought the step freeze in arbitration and lost, as the licensed deputies did, (and we would have lost) it would have set the pattern for ALL future negotiations and the County would have had an award against us. This would have affected all future negotiations with “case law” on their side every single time they wanted to freeze steps in future contracts. The contract only guarantees starting and top pay.
I’ll give an example. A few years ago both us and the HCSDA tried to get paid parking in the contract. The HCSDA against our request, took it to arbitration and lost. As a result no one in Hennepin County will ever get it and Ramsey County was able to use that arbitrators decision to take away paid parking from their employees within 6 months of that decision.
We only certified what we thought we had a chance of winning. Sometimes you have to fight another day.
There is the sentiment among some that the people at the top were not caring about the less senior members. This is simply not true. The fact is an arbitrator cannot award money if the County can show they don’t have it. The state of Minnesota has not only shorted Hennepin County of $32 million for 2011 but the County board is not raising taxes on Hennepin County’s citizens. To arbitrate a COLA or steps for 2011 would have been a precedent setting guaranteed loss affecting us for years to come. The fact is that senior members at top pay have endured a hard freeze for 4 of the last six years while less senior members got step raises. We even gave up a 1.5% raise two contracts ago to avoid step freezes for those at the bottom. This was not an option this time. Bottom line is Hennepin County has no money.
What are we doing?
Teamsters Local 320 will be at the budget hearing for the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office on October 28th, 2010. The action we can take now is at the County Board level and in future negotiations.
These tough times have been hard on all of us and we are in the same boat. We are doing what we can for you with an eye to the future.
In solidarity,
Wade Laszlo
Chief Steward
Aribitration Update
Yesterday, September 9th, we held contract arbitration. I think the hearing went well. The lawyers for both sides have two weeks to submit their briefs. We should have a decision no later then October 24th.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Your Rights
MSS 241.026 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES.
Subdivision 1.Definitions.(a) For purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subdivision have the meanings given them.
(b) "Correctional officer" and "officer" mean a person employed by the state, a state correctional facility, or a local correctional or detention facility in a security capacity.
(c) "Formal statement" means the questioning of an officer in the course of obtaining a recorded, stenographic, or signed statement to be used as evidence in a disciplinary proceeding against the officer.
Subd. 2.Applicability.The procedures and provisions of this section apply to state and local correctional authorities.
Subd. 3.Governing formal statement procedures.The formal statement of an officer must be taken according to subdivision 4.
Subd. 4.Place of formal statement.The formal statement must be taken at a facility of the employing or investigating agency or at a place agreed to by the investigating individual and the investigated officer.
Subd. 5.Admissions.Before an officer's formal statement is taken, the officer shall be advised in writing or on the record that admissions made in the course of the formal statement may be used as evidence of misconduct or as a basis for discipline.
Subd. 6.Disclosure of financial records.No employer may require an officer to produce or disclose the officer's personal financial records except pursuant to a valid search warrant or subpoena.
Subd. 7.Release of photographs.No state or local correctional facility or governmental unit may publicly release photographs of an officer without the written permission of the officer, except that the facility or unit may display a photograph of an officer to a prospective witness as part of an agency or unit investigation.
Subd. 8.Disciplinary letter.No disciplinary letter or reprimand may be included in an officer's personnel record unless the officer has been given a copy of the letter or reprimand.
Subd. 9.Retaliatory action prohibited.No officer may be discharged, disciplined, or threatened with discharge or discipline as retaliation for or solely by reason of the officer's exercise of the rights provided by this section.
Subd. 10.Rights not reduced.The rights of officers provided by this section are in addition to and do not diminish the rights and privileges of officers that are provided under an applicable collective bargaining agreement or any other applicable law.
History: 2005 c 136 art 13 s 3
Subdivision 1.Definitions.(a) For purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subdivision have the meanings given them.
(b) "Correctional officer" and "officer" mean a person employed by the state, a state correctional facility, or a local correctional or detention facility in a security capacity.
(c) "Formal statement" means the questioning of an officer in the course of obtaining a recorded, stenographic, or signed statement to be used as evidence in a disciplinary proceeding against the officer.
Subd. 2.Applicability.The procedures and provisions of this section apply to state and local correctional authorities.
Subd. 3.Governing formal statement procedures.The formal statement of an officer must be taken according to subdivision 4.
Subd. 4.Place of formal statement.The formal statement must be taken at a facility of the employing or investigating agency or at a place agreed to by the investigating individual and the investigated officer.
Subd. 5.Admissions.Before an officer's formal statement is taken, the officer shall be advised in writing or on the record that admissions made in the course of the formal statement may be used as evidence of misconduct or as a basis for discipline.
Subd. 6.Disclosure of financial records.No employer may require an officer to produce or disclose the officer's personal financial records except pursuant to a valid search warrant or subpoena.
Subd. 7.Release of photographs.No state or local correctional facility or governmental unit may publicly release photographs of an officer without the written permission of the officer, except that the facility or unit may display a photograph of an officer to a prospective witness as part of an agency or unit investigation.
Subd. 8.Disciplinary letter.No disciplinary letter or reprimand may be included in an officer's personnel record unless the officer has been given a copy of the letter or reprimand.
Subd. 9.Retaliatory action prohibited.No officer may be discharged, disciplined, or threatened with discharge or discipline as retaliation for or solely by reason of the officer's exercise of the rights provided by this section.
Subd. 10.Rights not reduced.The rights of officers provided by this section are in addition to and do not diminish the rights and privileges of officers that are provided under an applicable collective bargaining agreement or any other applicable law.
History: 2005 c 136 art 13 s 3