Correctional Pension in Danger!

Fellow Detention Deputies and C.O.'s. As I reported in a previous post Teamsters Local 320 is making it a priority to add NON-ESSENTIALS to our pension.

Here's the link to their bill: http://www.scribd.com/doc/181422645/Report-to-Pension-Commission

If HF No. 884 and Senate No. 998 are passed it will add 1,973 non-essentials to our pension.

Consider: The correctional pension was passed because we have the highest injury rate of ANY public safety job class. Higher injury rates then police and fire. Our pension required 95% inmate contact for a job class to be eligible. If weakened to allow non-essentials with virtually non-existent inmate contact and non-existent assaults from inmates we will be in danger of being dumped back into the coordinated plan.

Consider: Probation officers make up to $90,000 a year. This means their payout from OUR pension will be greater than the C.O.'s it was created for.

Consider: With the higher required payouts to non-essential probation officers OUR pension contribution could increase about 2%. This would mean a 2% pay-cut in take home pay, with NO increase in our benefit.

Consider: If passed we may never get an increase in our pension benefit because higher payouts will be going to higher paid non-essentials.

It is important to stop this in it's tracks.

CONTACT YOUR STATE REPS NOW. FIND THEM HERE AND CONTACT THEM:

 Who Represents me?

Don't let corrections traitor Brian Aldes and Teamsters Local 320 ruin our pension.

Corrections traitor Brian Aldes, lower right

Watch your addresses, again.

Remember when AFSCME "organizers" got our addresses and showed up at our doorsteps? Well my Teamster insiders tell me 320 just hired a new organizer. 

Don't be surprised if they use the same list AFSCME scumbags and pedophiles used to show up at our houses. 

If they show up, ask their names and ask how they got your address. Don't sign anything. It isn't to get more information (as they'll say), it's to authorize a decertification vote. 

If you want to know what Teamster organizers are like contact our new MNPEA members, the Sherburne County C.O.'s.

Of course there's always what happened to the Memphis Tennessee P.D. at the hands of Teamsters:

According to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's office, Everson accepted $5,000 in the form of a check drawn on the account of a Teamsters local to provide and help install hidden surveillance cameras at a youth camp run by the rival Fraternal Order of Police.  FULL STORY AP

If they show up, let me know. They play a lot dirtier than the AFSCME amateurs, but something tells me they are working together for now.

What they don't get is that the best "organizers" are happy members. Take care of them, and the rest falls into place.

Remember, these are the guys trying to weaken our pension!

Sick Time Arbitration

No Slayer Shirt Today!

Today, December 17, 2013 MNPEA held an arbitration with Hennepin County regarding Article 13 of our Contract: Sick time. The arbitrator was retired Hennepin County Judge Crump.


The issues:

On June 1, 2011 the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office issued a new "Special Order" based on their newly minted Lexipol Policy stating that anyone using more than 96 hours (12 days) of sick time a year is abusing their sick time. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Office then went back one year and retroactively placed employees on monitored sick time for a policy that didn't exist at that time, and should have been negotiated.

The Union's position is that article 13 clearly states what sick time can be used for, not how much can be used. Article 13 does allow for the employer to make an employee get a doctors note if they miss three consecutive days. If the employer wanted different language it would have to be negotiated and they certainly had no right to enforce a policy retroactively.

The Employers position is that they have inherent managerial right to make policy and if the Union disagreed with their policy WE should have tried to negotiate that.. The employer believes they can do whatever they want without consulting the Union unless it is specifically mentioned in the contract.

The Union believes that contract trumps "policy." There have been many contentions with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office over their dictating by Special Order and email without consulting the Union.

The grievance is now in the hands of the arbitrator. It could be a couple of months before we have a decision.

I will keep you posted.

This arbitration is BMS # 12PA0846

Sick time arbitration, Contract/ Stanek gets a raise, Pension Attack

Sick Time Arbitration

Tomorrow, Dec. 17th at 9AM we will be holding an arbitration over the 96 hour sick time rule. Former Hennepin County Judge Crump will be presiding.

Contract

We are going to Mediation over Hennepin County's offer. While we are the lowest paid public safety employees in the metro-area and Sheriff Stanek is the HIGHEST paid public safety officer in the state , the County Board has approved yet another raise for our boss!

Hennepin County Board Action Request

13-0450

Item Description:

Changes to the Compensation Plan for Non-organized Employees

Resolution:...

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that effective December 29, 2013 the salary for Sheriff and County

Attorney of $153,221 be adjusted by 2.5% to $157,052; and that the Sheriff and County Attorney are

required to file a request for the new salary with County Administration no later than 5:00 PM on Friday,

December 27, 2013. If the request is not filed, the salary remains at $153,221.

Seriously, the Sheriff's salary was $145,000 in 2007! That's a $12,000 increase in 6 years!!

We have Detention Deputies who after seven years are only making what Ramsey County Detention Deputies start at, $22 an hour! 

This is why we are bargaining for a $3 an hour market adjustment. 

Hennepin County Detention Deputies are the lowest paid in the metro-area....but our Sheriff is the highest paid public employee in the state.

CORRECTIONAL PENSION UNDER ATTACK

There is a Bill going through the Minnesota House and Senate that will weaken the Correctional Pension. HF 884 and SF 998. If passed this would add non-essential Probation Officers and Non-essential County Security Guards to our pension. 

The end result could be us having to pay an additional 2% into our pensions (read pay cut) for the same payout.

Write your State legislators. Find them here. Who Represents me?

Here's a sample letter I wrote to mine:

Rep. Abler,

I have been a detention deputy at the Hennepin County jail since 1990. We
are essential employees. We worked very hard to get the correctional
pension. We have the highest rate of assault and injury of any public
safety job class.  Ours is the healthiest PERA pension.

Bill HF 884 would add non-essential security guards and probation officers
to our pension. This is a slap in the face to our profession, would cheapen
the reason it was established and could lead to higher employee
contributions for no increase in our benefit.

Please vote against this bill.

Thank you,

See more here at 

Teamsters and Senator Hayden working to weaken correctional pension

In solidarity,

Wade Laszlo

Teamsters to MNPEA, Lest Ye Forget

page 17, 2011 IBT Delegates

There's a lot of hand wringing going on about the MNPEA "raiding" Teamsters and AFSCME groups. How did this come about?

To the left you see WHO the Teamsters Local 320 Delegates were to the 2011 Teamsters International Convention. The names you see BEAT the Sue Mauren Slate, Secretary Treasurer of Local 320. They ran as the Anyone But Hoffa Slate, and won.

Yes, members, it can be done.

You will notice that some of the delegates are now officers of the MNPEA, Dave Deal and Mike Golen,  Some of the other delegates like Wade Laszlo and Carol Orcutt are now members of bargaining units that have left Teamsters for the MNPEA. 






How did this begin? What was the catalyst?

At the 2009 Steward training there was a MNTLEL meeting. The topic of discussion was the Correctional Pension. We voted and decided that the priority should be a raise in the benefit, which hadn't been raised since its' inception, and to get a corrections officer on the PERA board.

Instead, Mike Carey and Erik Skoog decided that correctional officers being  licensed was to be the priority. Union Steward Dave Deal was part of MNTLEL and was never consulted. Angered by the repeated ignoring of member votes by Local 320's leadership, Dave Deal ran a slate, the Members for a Better Union Slate, against Sue Mauren's Unity Slate, in the local board election. Sue Mauren's slate won, but then quickly turned on the members who dared to run against Sue and those who supported them. 

You can read some of their bullshit here, Teamsters Local 320 Election Result, it documents some of their personal attacks on members like me, who voiced support for Deal in the election.

This catalyst of ignoring members, then turning on them for exercising their rights as dues paying members resulted in several of us running against the Hoffa supporting Sue Mauren slate in the 2011 Delegate Election. We sought to represent the members of Local 320 as Delegates to the 2011 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Convention. We ran as the Anyone But Hoffa Slate, and as you see on the attachment, we won. Unlike other years, Local 320 did not picture us on their magazine or publish widespread who won. To this day many don't know Sue Mauren even lost to us.

The election was ugly and Sue Mauren's slate cheated. The Federal Elections Supervisor found their slate in violation of elections rules. They used Brian Aldes', non-union, brother in law's business, Razworks, to to make a free website for their slate. Sue Mauren was found guilty by Election Supervisor, Richard Mark. 

You can read it here: http://www.ibtvote.org/protests/2010/2011esd087.htm  She was forced to pay for the website and post this message for 30 days on their slate's website:

Richard W. MarkElection Supervisor
The Election Supervisor has found that Sue Mauren and the Mauren slate violated the Election Rules by accepting web design and hosting services for the Mauren website from Razworks LLC, a commercial web design and hosting service. Campaign contributions from non-members are strictly prohibited by the Rules. The Election Supervisor has directed Mauren to pay Razworks its usual and customary charges for the services provided and to cease using non-member contributions to campaign.

The Election Supervisor has issued this decision in Laszlo, 2010 ESD 87 (January 27, 2011). You may read this decision at http://www.ibtvote.org/protests/2010/2011esd087.htm.

You can read more about Mauren's and Hoffa's corrupt campaigns here.

A Federal Elections Supervisor ended up having to supervise Local 320's delegate election to ensure fairness. With Federal oversight at the ballot count, the Anyone But Hoffa Slate won. Interesting is the fact that many of the same people on the winning slate had lost in the local election just weeks earlier. It made many of us question the legitimacy of 320's local board election.

The convention was outrageous. Watch videos of Hoffa supporters here, including delegates walking out as Fred Gegare was nominated:
http://detentionhome.blogspot.com/2011/07/teamsters-local-320-delegates-at-ibt.html

At the convention we succeeded in our goals of getting Fred Gegare and Sandy Pope on the national ballot to challenge Hoffa.. Hoffa won the national election.

Having lost faith in the Teamsters to represent their members, some of the Anyone but Hoffa slate and their supporters formed the MNPEA. A labor organization dedicated to representing the members, not over paid so called "labor leaders." Many of  Teamsters large corrections  bargaining units decertified Teamsters to join the MNPEA.  Groups like Hennepin County Detention Deputies and Washington County Corrections.  You can see  MNPEA's groups here at http://mnpea.com/

In a strange turn of events, Teamsters Local 320 is once again working against corrections officers! You will remember that the initial catalyst of the strife was their unwillingness to support the corrections officers with their pension. Now they are working against corrections officers by proposing letting non-essential probation officers and security guards into it!

I'd like to make one final point. The Anyone But Hoffa Slate people who left for the MNPEA are not anti-labor or even anti-Teamsters. We were the reformers who won in the delegate election, we believe in labor and are proud of the labor movement's and Teamsters' history. We simply believe that the current Teamsters structure and  leadership has lost the way paved by great men like Jim Hoffa Sr. They no longer represent members, just themselves. 

The Thunder and Lightning has left for the MNPEA.

P.S. If any reader has any doubts as to my former loyalty to the Teamsters over the years scroll back through the history of this blog. Local 320 leadership caused the rift. At the end of the day the members are most important, and if one labor organization has forgotten who represents who, then it's time to move on to one that will.

Does the Prison Rape Elimination Act Apply to Local Jails?

Please read this article entitled, Does the Prison Rape Elimination Act Apply to Local Jails?,  by Jamie Markham from the North Carolina Criminal Law. It sheds great light on our situation. I've lifted some excerpts and highlighted, but the entire article is a short informative read.

"Does PREA apply to local jails? Yes....

But applicability is not the same as enforceability. As discussed above PREA is enforced on the states through the threat of grant reductions, and those grant reductions are triggered by the governor’s certification. The standards explicitly say that the governor’s certification applies only to “facilities under the operational control of the State’s executive branch.” 28 C.F.R. § 115.501(b). The certification must include “facilities operated byprivate entities on behalf of the State’s executive branch,” id., but it does not include local government entities that house state inmates. 

Does that mean jails are off the hook when it comes to PREA? No.

Accreditation. Some North Carolina jails are accredited by national organizations like the American Correctional Association. PREA says that no accrediting agency may receive federal grant funds unless it adopts accreditation standards consistent with the PREA standards. 42 U.S.C. § 15608. As a result, any jail that has or is seeking accreditation may wind up effectively having to comply with PREA as a part of the accreditation process.

Civil liability. Even if there is no direct financial penalty for a local jail that fails to comply with PREA, there is some concern that the federal standards may evolve into a standard of care in civil actions related to inmate sexual abuse. That is a legitimate concern, but jails should also bear in mind that compliance with the standards does not establish a safe harbor from any civil claim related to sexual abuse.

To conclude, even if there is no direct financial penalty to anyone for a jail’s failure to adopt the PREA standards, compliance may eventually be required (a) under potential state law, (b) as a matter of contract, (c) as part of the accreditation process, or (d) to minimize the risk of civil liability. Another possibility—not to be lost in all this technical discussion of federal regulations—is that a sheriff might decide to adopt the standards because he or she believes it is the right thing to do to protect the inmates and staff for whom he or she is responsible."

So there you have it kids....

PREA update

As you all know we have received a Special Order regarding the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).  The employer is asking us to submit to many things in the name of PREA.

Our lawyers are asking the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office to hold off on their implementation until we can find out exactly what this entails. There are concerns about the HCSO overreaching in the information they can gather and concerns about who will get this and their ability to keep it secure.

As Corrections Officers we have no problem conforming to Law. We just want to make sure that's all we are conforming to.

Discipline: The Contract and the Law

Every so often I like to post to remind our members of their rights, today is that day.

THE CONTRACT

ARTICLE 34 - DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE
Section 1. The EMPLOYER will discipline or discharge a permanent employee only for just cause. Grievances under this Article may
be processed in accordance with the grievance procedure of this AGREEMENT.

Section 2. Discipline, when administered, will be in one or more of the following forms and normally in the following order:
 A. Oral Reprimand
 B. Written Reprimand
 C. Suspension
 D. Discharge or Disciplinary Demotion
 Circumstances may warrant waiving one or more steps in the progression.

Section 3. Employees will not be questioned concerning an administrative investigation of disciplinary action unless the employee 
has been given an opportunity to have a union representative present at such questioning. An employee desiring such
opportunity shall promptly notify the EMPLOYER and arrange for such representation in a timely manner. The employee
shall cooperate fully in such questioning providing full disclosure of all pertinent facts.

Section 4. Upon written request of the employee, a written reprimand shall be removed from the employee's personnel record if no
further disciplinary action has been taken against the employee within two (2) years following the date of the reprimand, or
if no disciplinary action has been taken against the employee for the same or related offenses within three (3) years
following the date of the reprimand.

Section 5. When an employee's conduct as determined by the EMPLOYER through investigation, interviews or other pertinent facts
is cause for disciplinary action(s), such disciplinary action(s) shall be taken in a timely manner.

THE LAW

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

Weingarten Rights 

(If called to a meeting with management, read the following 
or present this card to management when the meeting begins.) 

If this discussion could in any way lead to my being 
disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working 
conditions, I respectfully request that my union 
representative, officer, or steward be present at this meeting. Until my representative arrives, I choose not to participate in 
this discussion. 

MNPEA LEGAL DEFENSE

Remember, as members of MNPEA you have the best Legal Defense Plan out there.

If you are involved in a Critical Incident at work or are arrested outside of work call:

651-287-8883

Don't  talk to any one or make any statements before calling our attorney.