A sergeant member will be selected this Thursday, October 23 for the Police Retirement Board. Ballots should have already been returned. Any ballot received after 9:00 am on the 23rd will not be accepted.
Good Luck to candidates Lazzaro and Voight.
We also received ballots for the 2008 elections for the 2009-2011 term CPSA, PB&PA.
The candidates for president are the incumbent, John Pallohusky and challenger Gerry Majerczyk.
Five candidates are vying for the four positions for Director-At-Large.
Debra DeYoung
Nancy Higgins
Michael Lazzaro
Michael Burke
Thomas Motzny
Ballots must be received by 8 November.
Great Days Launches Gun Deal Finder
11 months ago
17 comments:
Gerry Majerczyk will screw us out of our contract...
HE wants to go FOP.
Majerczyk is a Donahue goof. Lazzaro is the lesser of two evils. I wish DeYoung had run for the Pension Board. She is a dynamic woman, who is very bright. Her mentor (T.N.) would be very proud! Smile Debbie,(T.N.) is with you.
Hope you FOP bitches learned a lesson today!
Gerry is a joke. So is the fop for that matter.
nancy is a back stabbing liar, don't vote for her
Anonymous said...
Majerczyk is a Donahue goof. Lazzaro is the lesser of two evils. I wish DeYoung had run for the Pension Board. She is a dynamic woman, who is very bright. Her mentor (T.N.) would be very proud! Smile Debbie,(T.N.) is with you.
Thu Oct 23, 02:03:00 AM
---------
Thanks for posting Deb!
Majerczyk and Motzny were put up by FOP, don't trust their motives. If you want to know what they are up to, read John Pallohusky's letter about decertification. John has done a great job and so have the other board members. Motzny and Majerczyk come to the meetings to argue. Just like the FOP board.
Go Pooky!
Gerry is narrow minded in his thinking. I would be embarrassed to be connected at all with the FOP contract negotiations. And his attack of the 10 hour days shows how narrow minded he is. He focuses on a loss of 35 hours on the books as a result of working less days. What he doesn't tell you is that the holidays in which there are 13, are worth more. Instead of 8 hours on the books, you get 10 hours on the books. That works out to 26 hours on the books. Also if you work them, instead of 4 hours pay, you get 5 hours pay. If you only work half the holidays, that makes the 35 hour "loss" a non-issue. You can also use the comp time option and get 5 hours on the books. I would gladly take the ten hour days and enjoy all the time off just like I did as a Housing Sgt. What really surprises me was that the 12 hour day wasn't proposed as a pilot. I would work that in a heartbeat. To have 4 days off every week!....I guess I can dream
Gerry's point is, the P.O.s are getting all that stuff for free, and you are giving up a weeks pay to get it. The P.O.s are giving up nothing. It's not narrowminded to ask why we have to pay for what the P.O.s get for free.
Once again, when you look at the whole picture, you end up the same or better. I miss my 4 day weekends which came 3 in a row instead of two 3 day weekends. Andd the fact that I had to only wait 3 weeks to get them instead of 5. I miss my 3 days off during every other week. Also in Housing, the BF days and the P days were worth 10 hours for Sgts if used to take a day off. How can it be justified giving you .75 hours on the books for days you didn't work? The .75 hours was compensation for paperwork at the end of the tour. From what I saw, we gave up nothing but actually came out ahead. All the extra time off more than justifies this silly argument about 35 hours "lost" (Which is not true if you look at the above explaination). I say let Gerry stay "negotiating" the FOP contracts that he did such an "outstanding" job at and keep him away from PBPA contracts
To: Wed Oct 29, 11:22:00 AM
From: GerryMajerczyk@aol.com
Subject: Responses
Your Q: "How can it be justified giving you .75 hours on the books for days you didn't work?"
A: When you redefine my work day to be 10 hours instead of 8, it is quite fair to redefine my .75 hours to be more as well. If you get the same number of work hours from me, I should get the same number of Rank Credit hours in return, not less.
When you consider that the P.O.s are getting all the benefits you cite (except as I point out the BFD used as 10 hours) wihout giving up ANYTHING, then we also should get it on the same terms, giving up NOTHING. We shouldn't have to walk away, doing the same amount of work, but giving up 35.25 hours.
The City's concern, all the way back to Bill Nolan 10 years ago screwing it up, was that they have the same number of officers on the street at each hour of the day as they do under an 8 hour day. For us, they want to make sure we're out there to supervise those officers. The number of DAYS you work wasn't relevant to them. That's why they were willing to go with the program. They don't really care either way if it succeeds or not. Change of any kind only makes them have to work harder.
One problem here was that the City said ".75" (even though you are working a longer day) and the CPSA said, "1.0" (even though this results in an overpayment of .25 hours/week/Sgt, and the City doesn't like spending extra money like that). Neither side could imagine the simple solution of giving you that lost .75 hours every fourth day you work (after you worked the 40 hour week that previously got you that 3.75 hours rank credit per week). This solution would be revenue neutral and fair to the affected Sergeants.
You: "The .75 hours was compensation for paperwork at the end of the tour."
Me: So you say I'll do less paperwork under the 10 hour day because officers will be doing ONLY the same work as an 8 hour day stretched into 10 hours? COOOL!! Does the City know about this neat little trick?! I ask because I find it hard to believe they'd go along with this. I'm rather sure that they actually expect 10 hours of work from the POs, and they expect us to do paperwork for a 10 hours day, not an 8 hour day. But if you know something secret, please share it with the rest of the class.
You: "What he doesn't tell you is that the...."
Me: That's right. I didn't. It's not my job...yet. But it was John's job to tell us all this BEFORE he agreed to something on our behalf. His (and yours, obviously) approach to running the union is that of "Principal/Agent" where the principal (the members) send the agent out to represent them and can bind them to Contracts that the principal (us) never even have input or final say on, yet we are required to follow. The FOP tried this under Nolan and it didn't work. PBPA even looked at that as an opportunity to try to decertify the FOP. With this approach, we would never get to vote or voice our opinion on our contract, we just do what our elected king tells us to. I believe the President is an employee hired by people who really own our union--the members, and like the Attorney/Client relationship, the President should work on behalf of the members in the way they have indicated, fully inform them of their options, and let the client (us) make the final decision based on the best work and information the President can give.
It's the difference between having a President your WORK FOR, and a President who WORKS FOR YOU. He is not my supervisor, he is my employee. And that's what I will be as President.
You: "I miss my...(fill in the blank)...in housing..."
Me: I know. Everyone misses their perks when they get dumped back to patrol. The patrolmen who were in housing miss the 10 hour days that weren't really 10 hours also. They miss taking turns being the guys who only worked 8 hours and either ducked early or came in late. They also miss bragging to their poor relations in the patrol division about this sweet deal. And if you want to take this argument to the rest of the Sergeants who will lose the 35.25 hours, and take it to them BEFORE the decision is already made, then that would be great. But you (and John) DIDN'T. And now you're trying to retroactively justify something that was done entirely wrong and put forth the idea that the Sergeants would have approved this if they knew all the benefits, so why even bother asking them or discussing it with them?
I apologize, but I still can't get past the basic premise of who is working for who here? The concept should be FRAternalism, not PAternalism. It's really a conflict of core beliefs and which set of beliefs will better serve the membership. We disagree. Make a decision, and vote based on what you think is best for you in the long run. That's all I can ask.
Fraternally yours,
Sgt. Gerard E. M. Majerczyk, #2201
e-mail: GerryMajerczyk@aol.com
P.S. My apologies also to you, SCS, for being so wordy with your space.
Sorry, accidently his enter before I was done typing my name. (so I'm not an accomplished typist). My post name should have been "GerryMajerczyk@aol.com".
Never met Majerczyk but have had personal dealings with Motzny - a bigger stroke you'll never meet.
Ok, I'll give you the fact that we may be loosing almost 38 hours on the books but that is also considering that you work every scheduled day without taking a day off including your furlos. Instead of working 255 days a year (no time off) you would work 204 days a year (no time off). I would enjoy having and extra 51 days off a year and saving 408 hours of comp time on the books. I will also enjoy getting a legitimate baby furlo of 12 days off only burning 4 BFD's as opposed to getting 11 days off burning 5 BFD's. That would allow me to take a second legitimate baby furlo of 12 days off using the remaining 2 BFD's and add 2 P-days and I will still have 2 P-days left. As far as less paperwork, you are right, it will still be extra paperwork but a smart Sgt will collect reports throughout the tour so he doesn't get stuck with a pile of reports at the end and go home with the troops at the same time.
With all that extra time off, I can either enjoy the extra time with the family or get a side job making extra money working those extra 51 days and still get the same amount of time with the family as you would get.
I am still getting the .75 hours on the books for every day I work which patrolmen don't get and my BFD's count for an entire tour unlike patrolmen that have to add 2 hours comp time.
The only argument that I want to see is putting a bigger salary cushion between D2A and D3. Don't argue about missing 38 hours on the books because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean much.
The only argument that I want to see is putting a bigger salary cushion between D2A and D3.
Mon Nov 03, 07:42:00 AM
That is a huge gripe for us. I can understand that if we get an increase in D3 salary, that would create a snowball effect, and the Lts and Capts would want an increase. Which is fine and thats their problem.
Can anyone provide any details to this subject? I apologize I don't recall the reasoning behind why we can't or weren't awarded that salary increase? Thanks.
Congratulations to President Pallohusky on a resounding victory for election to another term as President. 677 ballots were sent in, 7 were spoiled as either not signed or from retirees, etc. Leaving 670 (out of 1306 members)valid ballots cast. 17 Sgts did not vote in the Presidential election, leaving a total of 653 valid votes for President (exactly 50% turnout).
Results:
John Pallohusky: 473
Gerry Majerczyk: 180
Good luck to John and the old/new board in contract negotiations. I really have to start studying for that 2010/2011 Lts. test now (and take a handful of ibuprofen for that ass-kicking I just received).
Congratulations again to John.
--Gerry Majerczyk
Post a Comment