BALCONY Advisory Board Meetings

Follow-Up to July 28, 2010 Meeting
The Labor Temple, Albany, NY

Despite Albany’s Dysfunction – BALCONY Continues to Achieve Results

Issues of Wellness, Manufacturing and Tax Revenue, IDA reform, Infrastructure Investment, and legislation regarding Medical Marijuana topped a broad agenda of the Business and Labor Coalition of New York members’ advisory meeting held Wednesday, July 28, 2010. Anthony Potenza of the New York Labor Health Care Alliance hosted the event at the Labor Temple in Albany. Close to 30 members and guests attended the regular informational and planning session to review recent success and focus on future initiatives.

Read the full report here:  Advisory Board Meetings

BALCONY Joins with New York State AFL-CIO as it Applauds Passage of James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act

Today the House of Representatives voted to pass the James Zadroga 9/11
Health and Compensation Act. Denis Hughes, President of the 2 ½ million member New York State AFL-CIO today issued the following statement:

“It has been more than nine years since our country endured the tragedy of
September 11th. With today’s vote, Congress has made the initial down
payment on our debt to this nation’s heroes. After a long and hard fought
battle, we can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

“The New York State AFL-CIO extends its heartfelt thanks and appreciation
to New York’s Congressional delegation for their unwavering efforts to
secure passage of this bill.

“In particular, the leadership and dedication of Congresswoman Maloney,
Congressman Nadler and Congressman King have been an inspiration to all who
have joined in this long and worthwhile endeavor. If not for their undying
commitment, this legislation never would have seen the light of day. Our
words of thanks cannot do justice to our appreciation for their efforts.

“We now look forward to passage in the United States Senate. With the
leadership and commitment of Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand, I am
confident this bill will finally become law.”

BALCONY, The Business and Labor Coalition of New York, joined with the NYS AFL CIO in hailing the House passage of the Zadroga 9/11 Bill which protects those exposed to toxins in the clean up after the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. BALCONY joins in urging swift passage of the 9/11 bill by the United States Senate.

#

Suzy Ballantyne
Assistant to the President for Governmental Affairs
New York State AFL-CIO
100 S. Swan Street
Albany, New York 12210

518-436-8516 x 240 office

Study of New York City Proposal to Mandate Sick Leave Sparks Debate

Paid Sick Leave Study Sparks Fevered Debate

By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL

A new business-backed study pegs the price tag of a proposed city law requiring paid sick leave for all workers at $789 million a year, kicking into high gear a debate over how much the legislation would cost employers and how many people it would help.

The Ernst & Young study—commissioned by the Partnership for New York City, the city’s leading business group and an opponent of the bill—estimates 375,000 workers in the city, or 12% of the work force, do not have paid sick leave. That contrasts with estimates from supporters, who say 1.3 million workers lack the benefit.

Competing studies show dramatically different findings, with advocates on each side of the issue questioning the credibility of the other’s statistics. At the debate’s core, advocates say paid sick leave should be a basic worker right, while opponents say employers can’t afford it.

The bill would require businesses to provide employees up to 72 hours, or nine days, a year of sick leave. For business with fewer than 20 workers, the maximum number of paid sick leave hours would be 40, or five days.

Under the bill, sick leave could be used for an employee’s own mental or physical illness or for attending to the illness of a spouse, child, parent, grandparent or domestic partner.

As of Monday, the bill has 35 sponsors on the City Council—a veto-proof majority—but lacks the backing of the two most powerful people at City Hall.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has major problems with the bill as currently drafted because he “has serious concerns about unfunded mandates on businesses at a time when we’re still feeling the effects of a national recession,” said Andrew Brent, a mayoral spokesman.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn—who asked the partnership to do the study—continued to refrain from taking a formal position, saying in an interview that she intends to make a decision in the near future. Ms. Quinn, who is considering a bid for mayor in 2013 and is facing enormous political pressure on both sides, said she could make a sound argument either for or against the bill.

“Clearly the idea of helping people get paid sick leave is something that sounds great and has merit,” Ms. Quinn said. “You have to balance that against the impact on small businesses.”

Some of the key findings of the partnership’s report include:

• Of the $789 million in increased annual payroll costs, 60% will fall on employers who already offer paid leave (but in terms that are different from the legislation).

• The largest burden would fall on employers with hourly workers or those who make tips, and on smaller businesses. For small businesses, payroll costs would rise 0.31%; for retail, 0.4%; for hospitality and restaurants, 0.71%; for construction, 1.28%.

• Large businesses would see an increase of 57 cents per employee per hour and small businesses 24 cents.

“The results of our survey show that this legislation triggers a boatload of unintended consequences that would be toughest on small businesses and nonprofits, the beleaguered construction industry, and could threaten the jobs of the most vulnerable employees who are its supposed beneficiaries,” said Kathryn Wylde, the partnership’s president.

Councilwoman Gale Brewer, a Manhattan Democrat who sponsored the bill, called the study a “good attempt” to quantify the impact of the bill. But she and other proponents questioned its methodology, saying it was skewed unfairly toward large businesses. Some said the study misinterprets parts of the bill.

“I believe it’s a lot less expensive than what they’re predicting, and there are a lot more workers involved,” Ms. Brewer said. “It’s a family-friendly legislation.”

Robert Bookman, legislative counsel to the New York State Restaurant Association, said the study substantiates small business owners’ fears about the financial impact of the bill.

He said the study’s finding that just 12% of the city’s work force doesn’t have paid sick leave “shows that there is no big crisis, no big problem.”

Nancy Rankin, a senior fellow at Better Balance, an organization devoted to workplace issues and a supporter of the bill, said evidence from San Francisco, which approved similar legislation, shows mandating paid sick leave won’t devastate the business community. “If you make it a law, then you have a level playing field, no one’s at a competitive disadvantage,” she said.

Advocates for the bill point to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that show providing paid sick leave in the New York metro region currently costs 39 cents per hour worked.

Dan Morris, a spokesman for the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, which supports the bill, said Ms. Wylde’s group is “putting small business owners on edge unnecessarily with cost-mongering based on politics and ideology.”

Ms. Wylde said the payroll increase is roughly equivalent to the 0.34% payroll tax imposed on all employers in 2009 to help fund the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. That tax has been panned by business.

“It’s a significant new burden on some of the most vulnerable businesses and sectors of the economy,” she said.

Fiscal Policy Institute Fundraiser, Oct. 7, Honoring Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz

The Fiscal Policy Institute will hold a fundraising breakfast on Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010, honoring Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz.  The event will be held at:

the offices of:

32BJ SEIU
101 Avenue of the Americas
(at Grand Street)
NEW YORK CITY

8:30 am – 10:00 a.m.

For details and the registration form, click here: FPI Breakfast

If you’re going to lean on city workers’ pensions, Mayor Bloomberg, you should lean on bankers, too

By Adam Lisberg

Mayor Bloomberg is on a quest to reduce pensions for retired city workers – because the city’s cost for them will rise 6% in the next four years.

Bloomberg is quiet, though, about the bonanza for the bankers who lend the city money – even though the city’s cost for them will rise 28% in the next four years.

Why the disparity?

Both of those costs are considered “uncontrollable,” because New York can’t legally cut a penny from what it owes its retirees or its bankers.

Still, Bloomberg wants to curb costs by persuading Albany to reduce pensions for future employees, despite resistance from state lawmakers who are in debt to public employee unions.

“This issue of pensions,” Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson told the Citizens Budget Commission last week, “it would be a very important legacy issue for this mayor. … We are going to take this issue on.”

There’s no similar push to rein in city borrowing, however, and certainly no public campaign against it.

In this year’s $63.2 billion budget, New York will spend $7.6 billion on pensions, and $5.4 billion to repay borrowed money.

You’ve surely seen stories of double-dipping cops or firefighters retiring with princely sums, because it’s easy to get struggling taxpayers to point to them in anger.

Quick, though – can you point to the banker who got a fat bonus for structuring a no-bid bond deal to lend the city money?

City borrowing has exploded under Bloomberg, who has sold billions of dollars in bonds and used the proceeds to repair roads and bridges, build schools and police stations, and reverse decades of neglect.

Those bonds work just like mortgages: It takes decades to pay them off.

Most of those bonds were sold without competitive bidding, though, says Controller John Liu – who has started using competition to bring down the city’s rates and payments on new debt.

In one bond refinancing last summer, his office opened the deal up outside the usual circle of top banks like Citi, Bank of America and JP Morgan.

That brought in a smaller minority-owned firm, Loop Capital Markets, which structured the complicated deal to save New York $20 million more than it expected.

“Lowering the cost of borrowing should be a priority,” Liu said. “The city taxpayers are a major, major customer of many of these large institutions, and we haven’t leveraged all of our purchasing power.”

Bloomberg hasn’t ignored New York’s growing interest payments. He has spread out long-term spending to reduce its borrowing needs, kept its credit rating high and quickly refinanced bonds when interest rates drop.

His finance commissioner, David Frankel, even negotiated a better deal last week with a bank that handles some nuts-and-bolts city business like processing checks – saving $600,000 a year.

“We are always working with lenders to try to reduce the cost of debt service, and we’ve had a lot of success,” said Bloomberg spokesman Marc La Vorgna. “And we do have a lot of leverage as a large customer.”

The mayor is close with Wall Street. He hobnobs with its titans, made his fortune selling it data, and respects its power as New York’s economic engine.

So it’s hard to imagine Bloomberg talking publicly about city banks the way he talks about city workers – saying they should accept sacrifices to help keep New York solvent.

He talks to those titans privately, though, at dinner parties and charity functions. Perhaps he should raise the idea.

alisberg@nydailynews.com

The Impact of Health Care Reform on New Yorkers

FROM THE DESK OF GOVERNOR DAVID A. PATERSON

My Fellow New Yorker,

Today, six months after health care reform was passed, the first round of major changes has started to take effect. As our State has been a leader in health care, some of the Federal improvements are provisions we already have in place here in New York. In those cases, there may be no significant changes for New Yorkers. However, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the many improvements that the Federal health care reform has begun to implement, and how they will impact you as a New Yorker.

I am extremely proud that our State already has in place many of the protections that will now be offered to health care consumers throughout the United States. During my term as Governor, New York State has become a national leader in expanding access to quality health care for children and adults through its public health insurance programs, including Child Health Plus, Family Health Plus, Healthy New York and Medicaid, while implementing efficiencies to ensure that funds are used in the most cost-effective manner. New York has also been a leader in efforts to guarantee access to private health insurance coverage.

If you are currently covered by health insurance and are satisfied, as long as your insurer continues to offer the plan, you can keep it. Health plans that were in place on March 23, 2010, the day health reform passed, are “grandfathered,” meaning they are allowed to essentially remain the same. Reform allows insurers and employers to innovate and contain costs by making routine changes without losing grandfather status. However, plans will lose their grandfather status if they choose to significantly cut benefits or increase out-of-pocket spending for consumers—and consumers in plans that make such changes will gain new protections.

The following improvements in coverage apply to all health plans, including those grandfathered plans:

• Some plans currently have annual and lifetime monetary limits on how much your insurer will pay for your medical care which cause major problems for people who have long term illnesses. Going forward, there can be no annual or lifetime limits.

• In New York, insurers cannot refuse to sell anyone health insurance just because they have a pre-existing condition. However, in all states, even New York, the insurer can refuse to pay for care for that pre-existing condition for the first year. Going forward, insurers must cover pre-existing conditions for children age 18 or younger immediately and adults will receive the same protections in 2014.

• If insurers offer family coverage, it must now cover your children until they turn age 26. Under my Administration, New York State has ensured that parents could buy insurance through their employer’s group policy for children up to age 29, which is generally less expensive than buying individual insurance.

• In the past, when individuals suffered from expensive illnesses, insurers could look for small errors in insurance applications and use them as an excuse to cancel policies. Going forward, policies can only be rescinded for fraud, not unintentional errors. This past August, I signed ‘Ian’s Law’ which will grant additional protections to New Yorkers who suffer from costly medical conditions.

The next following changes apply to group and individual policies that are not grandfathered:

• Insurers may not require you to receive prior authorization for emergency services, a provision we already have in New York. In addition, your co-payment or co-insurance amount cannot be higher if you utilize an out-of-network hospital or provider in an emergency.

• The most commonly used preventive services, such as immunizations and screenings, must be provided to children and adults at no cost to you, meaning there will be no co-payment or deductible. New York currently requires coverage of well-child visits and immunizations for children through age 19 without cost-sharing.

• If an insurer refuses to cover some medical treatment, it must provide a means for the consumer to appeal that decision both within the company and to an independent outside entity. New York already requires this kind of appeals process.

• If your plan allows you to pick a primary care provider, then it must allow you to choose any participating primary care provider who is available to accept patients and women do not need a referral from a primary care doctor to receive obstetric or gynecological care from a participating provider, which is already a provision in New York.

The next important question is when will these provisions apply to you? Improvements are required to start when your first new policy year starts after September 23, 2010. So if your policy year starts January 1, then you will have many of these new benefits starting January 1, 2011. If your policy year starts July 1, then for you it is July 1, 2011. If you don’t know when your policy year starts, ask your employer, benefits administrator or your insurer. However, if you buy a new individual or group policy the new benefits start immediately.

Health reform is complicated. To obtain more information, please visit: www.healthcarereform.ny.gov.

Governor’s Call for Layoffs is Unconscionable

PEF entered into an agreement with the governor that prohibits layoffs or the threat of layoffs through the end of his term. We will take whatever actions may be necessary to ensure that the governor abides by this agreement.

It is unconscionable for the governor and his administration to call for potential layoffs while there are hundreds if not thousands of state employees who have been denied or haven’t even been offered the retirement incentive.

What is worse is that agencies have indicated that they are at bare bones and cannot absorb any more cuts to the workforce without severely impairing their ability to provide services and fulfill the missions of their agencies.

We have over 600 of our members who have expressed an interest in the retirement incentive and believe that there are at least that many more in other bargaining units across the state who are willing to take the incentive.

The fact is that greater savings can be achieved this fiscal year through use of the retirement incentive than by laying off workers.

If the governor was truly interested in savings rather than punishing the unions he would work with his commissioners to expand the incentive rather than forcing workers out through layoffs.

CSEA files Improper Practice charge over Gov. Paterson’s layoff threats

ALBANY – CSEA – New York’s leading union has filed an Improper Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Board over Gov. David Paterson’s continued threat of state layoffs despite a binding no layoff agreement for the duration of his term.

The state entered into the agreement with CSEA in June 2009 promising in plain English, no layoffs or threat of layoffs in exchange for CSEA’s agreement not to oppose Tier V pension reform. The pension reform was signed into law in December 2009. The Paterson administration claims it will save taxpayers more than $35 billion over time.

Gov. Paterson has continued to regularly threaten layoffs. CSEA alleges that the Governor’s behavior is a blatant violation of the Taylor Law.

2,000 State Jobs at Risk

By CASEY SEILER Capitol Bureau

ALBANY — Citing the state’s ongoing budget woes, Gov. David Paterson’s office on Thursday informed state agency leaders to prepare for additional reductions of 2,000 employees by the end of December — and approved the use of layoffs as a tool to reach that goal.

The news was conveyed in a memo signed by Budget Director Robert Megna and Acting Director of State Operations Mark Leinung.

“Despite our best efforts the state is falling short of its financial plan targets,” it reads in part. “The alternatives available to ensure we remain on a stable fiscal course are limited. … You will be given the discretion to use layoffs as a part of this reduction in work force.”

The memo concludes by noting that individual agencies will hear about their specific targets from their budget examination unit — although a timeline for that communication isn’t given.

Barring court action, this means that agencies may now begin the complex layoff process in addition to employing less dire tactics such as attrition, in which positions vacated in the normal course of employee turnover are left unfilled. It is highly unlikely that even the most aggressive attrition program could achieve the necessary savings by the end of the year.

The new targeted reductions are in addition to the job eliminations already achieved through two types of early retirement initiatives the state has offered.

At a panel discussion last week, Paterson made his first unequivocal statement — following months of dire predictions — that the state would need to move to layoffs by the end of the year, partly because the incentive program had failed to achieve the $250 million in workforce savings called for in the 2010-2011 budget.

Reacting to that declaration, the Civil Service Employees Association on Monday filed an improper practice complaint with the Public Employees Relations Board, pointing to the assurances contained in a memo of understanding the Paterson administration signed with CSEA and another large union, the Public Employees Federation. The 2009 document traded a no-layoffs pledge for the unions’ support on the establishment of a less-generous Tier V pension package, which is now in effect.

In recent months, Paterson has said the provisions of the agreement have been changed by the state’s fiscal crisis. The unions still regard it as essentially an extension of their contracts.

Thursday’s action “changes nothing about our position,” said CSEA spokesman Stephen Madarasz. “We have a binding agreement prohibiting layoffs or the threat of layoffs for the duration of this administration.”

A sustained legal challenge by the unions could push any actual layoffs past Dec. 31, which is both the governor’s deadline and the expiration date of the memo of understanding. That would make any layoffs a problem for the next governor — although it would also reduce the time remaining in the fiscal year to achieve the savings.

Both major-party gubernatorial candidates, Republican Carl Paladino and Democrat Andrew Cuomo, have said they would use layoffs to streamline and consolidate state services, although they vary considerably when describing the scope of the reductions.

But their platforms are largely in sync with at least one aspect of Thursday’s memo: “We must acknowledge the continued weakness in the overall economy and in state revenue,” it reads. “It is our responsibility and imperative to achieve greater efficiencies in all aspects of our operations, including the work force.”

Rick Karlin contributed to this Casey Seiler can be reached at 454-5619 or cseiler@timesunion.com.

BALCONY Urges Passage of Zadroga 9/11 Health Compensation Act

NEW YORK, NY (09/23/2010)– BALCONY, the Business and Labor Coalition of New York, today, Thursday, announced its full support for the James Zadroga 9/11 Health Compensation Act (H.R. 847), introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) along with Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Peter King (R-NY), and Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY).

BALCONY has long been an advocate of 9/11 responders and others whose health was negatively affected by their proximity to Ground Zero. BALCONY urges members of congress to vote yes on this important bill (H.R. 847) and will continue to advocate on behalf of these individuals and support legislation that seeks to provide them with the medical and financial assistance they need and deserve.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health Compensation Act would provide medical monitoring and treatment to World Trade Center responders and survivors (area workers, residents, volunteers, and students) who were exposed to the toxins at Ground Zero on 9/11 and in the aftermath. Additionally it would reopen the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) to provide compensation for economic losses and harm as an alternative to the current litigation system. Finally it would provide liability protections for the WTC contractors and the City of New York from the more than 11,000 lawsuits filed by individuals exposed to toxins.

The serious impact of 9/11 on the health of New Yorkers was both immediate and long-term. Those affected include not only first responders and emergency personnel, but also schoolchildren and residents of the entire lower Manhattan region. Over 13,000 WTC responders are sick and receiving treatment. Nearly 53,000 responders are enrolled in medical monitoring, and approximately 71,000 individuals are enrolled in the WTC Health Registry, indicating that they were exposed to the toxins and that their health could be negatively impacted.

The toxins these individuals were exposed to have resulted in serious health complications including respiratory, gastrointestinal, and mental health conditions.

BALCONY urges its members to call or write their members of Congress and voice their support for H.R. 847.