Regarding 2011-2012 FOP contract

[Forged]

Relocated My updates here:
http://forums.leoaffairs.com/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=122639

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Dear FOP Members,

It is time to vote for the upcoming contract! Before we vote make sure you take the time to evaluate all the Pro's and Con's before coming to any conclusion. We’ve all had to sacrifice in the past few years, but remember once you give something to the city you’ll never get it back.



Most of the contract is unknown. At this time the FOP doesn’t think you are capable of comprehending a contract if it was handed to you. The fact is they are trying to sell us a bad deal and they know it. Keep flooding the Fop’s phones with questions. The more you know the better educated you will be when it comes time to vote. Educate those who have questions and concerns so they can also vote knowing they did the right thing.



Proposed Contracts:

Upon approval at the commission meeting these were some of the items listed:

· Overtime will be based off 40 hour work week. If you took time off but received overtime the overtime will take the place of the time off.

· 3% increase to Pension

· Two holidays lost

· Vehicle Surcharge but the final amount was not mentioned.

· Medicals gone

· Vehicles for the year are also gone

· There is more cuts and I’ll be updating the membership as soon as the information comes. I’ll try to get a copy of the contract by tomorrow).

Positive changes: None

· We can almost be certain that the contract only hurts the membership. Unfortunately we do not have the contract in hand to evaluate it.

· Promotional exams is not what the members need it will only benefit a select few. If anything we need to cut the fat to put more money in your pocket.






Pro's Voting "No"

· Allows an Opening to strengthen the lawsuit that the city is abusing "Financial Urgency"

· (*)Preserves our current lawsuit in court (see * below).

· We can Show the city hi-jacked 4 million from our funds, causing further cuts.



· (*) = If you vote yes "YOU" agree to the terms of the contract that reflects the previously imposed contract. By agreeing to the previously imposed contract with a “yes” vote any chances of a return of our lost benefits will be eliminated in the courts. There is no clause in the currently proposed contract that would return our lost benefits if the case was won in court. Since a "yes" vote is essentially an agreement of past imposed contract plus the added cuts added this year’s contract.







Pro's voting "Yes"

· There is no logical incentive to vote “yes” at this time.





2010 Cuts:

· 5% to 12% in wage reductions.

· All step and longevity steps frozen.

· Cuts in all supplemental pays.

· Dramatic cuts in vacation and sick time balances.

· Pensions changed from a rule of 64 to 70, with a minimum age of 50.

· No incentives for having an education above high school.





2009 Cuts:



• No paying unused vacation, saving $3.1 million.

• No new police vehicles, saving $1.7 million.

• Eliminating extra pay on three holidays, saving $1.2 million.

• Deferring 3 percent raise for six months, saving $1.29 million.

• No new uniforms, saving $500,000.

• No free physical exams, saving $539,000.





2008 Cuts:



· Failed stabilization -5% (instead of 6%,4%,4% we received 3%,3%,3%)













Guys don’t let anyone bully you into voting on the contract without getting all the facts. Sign your ballots and ask questions. You do not have to sign the ballets in front of the board and fold your ballet. Remember guys this is your future we are voting on and the outcome of this vote will impact all of us in the future. This is the time we all need to stand strong together and fight for the benefits we all worked so hard to earn. Don’t let those with other agendas misguide you, the facts are out there all you need to do is ask.





Stay strong

Concerned membership



Current Tactics the FOP is deploying:
-Scare you into voting yes. How are they doing it? Well, telling you if you don't vote yes we will lose more benefits from the city. This is just a scare tactic in court we will have a stronger case if they come back with more cuts.

-Corning the new guys and scaring them with layoffs. The fact of the matter is there will be no layoffs. To many people are retiring and the City wants to hire at this time.

-This is the big one! They claim there is a clause in the contract to prevent "Financial Urgency". Unfortunately this is not possible, State law supersedes the contract so even if you have the "clause" they can still declare financial urgency and disregard it. Also the clause is to open up your wages and cut there first. Isn't that the last place that needs to be cut?

also, if u vote yes, u agree to family promotions to EA, future vice pres to brass, more sgt at arms, more scams etc, all at ur exxpenses, so go on now and fight for off duties.

What if you dont want the city's car? I have a perfectly good car sitting in my garage that is fully paid for. Why would I pay to use the city's car and have restrictions on it? Could I give the car back to the city and avoid paying the surcharge?

Hey forged,
That's some bad info you're giving. There Are pros and it doesn't affect the lawsuits Dumas. Why don't you speak up at the roll call you faceless cowards.

Love
Trooth4troopers

Hey forged,
That's some bad info you're giving. There Are pros and it doesn't affect the lawsuits Dumas. Why don't you speak up at the roll call you faceless cowards.

Love
Trooth4troopers


NO, you azzwipe why don't you state on here the pros so we know. As far as I can tell there is NO pros to this BS. Give us the correct information then.

Love you too
Your brother

Hey forged,
That's some bad info you're giving. There Are pros and it doesn't affect the lawsuits Dumas. Why don't you speak up at the roll call you faceless cowards.

Love
Trooth4troopers
Ortiz wait till you come to roll call and you'll get a month full from your members. Don't be shy.

What's the pro's ?


Can you please elaborate

Yes it does effect the lawsuit since we can, at most, collect only for the year of 2011 since in 2012 we agreed to the cuts.

so give me an argument or stfu

[Forged]

Hey forged,
That's some bad info you're giving. There Are pros and it doesn't affect the lawsuits Dumas. Why don't you speak up at the roll call you faceless cowards.

Love
Trooth4troopers

Please explain your stance instead of insulting people. You are wrong it will affect our contract. You are agreeing to the previously imposed contract plus the added cuts of this year.

It doesn't help anyone when your only comment contains only insults and empty statements. I challenge you to expand on your answer!

Forged

I guess you need to read the FOP's e-mail I guess for yourself and make your own choice.

Here is another example of why imposing vs agreeing makes sense:

In Article 18 - Wages; if the city imposes this year again, after 1 year we go back to Status Quo which is the wages and plus items we had prior to October 1st, 2010. This was prior to the wage cuts, step freezes, and reduction of plus items from %s to 1500.

If we agree to the contract, however, the paycuts become our new base pay and the plus items will forever change to 1500 instead of 5%, unless the FOP can negotiate them back up to 5%.

Why are we agreeing to these wage decreases in a contract? Let them impose and continue our legal remedies!

Here is another example of why imposing vs agreeing makes sense:

In Article 18 - Wages; if the city imposes this year again, after 1 year we go back to Status Quo which is the wages and plus items we had prior to October 1st, 2010. This was prior to the wage cuts, step freezes, and reduction of plus items from %s to 1500.

If we agree to the contract, however, the paycuts become our new base pay and the plus items will forever change to 1500 instead of 5%, unless the FOP can negotiate them back up to 5%.

Why are we agreeing to these wage decreases in a contract? Let them impose and continue our legal remedies!


You are absolutely right my brother. I like when people do their homework and inform our fellow brothers and sisters instead of posting insignificant comments that are only intended to confuse and miss guide.I commend you for the information you have posted so we can make an informed decision.

LET THEM IMPOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

its real simple folks......just .....vote no!

[Phaedrus11]

its real simple folks......just .....vote no!


It's not that simple. Read the entire contract, not just the highlights. Vote what is best for the department as a whole.

If you come across anything you don’t understand, ask. These things can get complex with a lot of legal jargon and doublespeak.

Another thread posted a direct link to the PDF. Someone also hosted it on mediafire if you want to download the actual file.
http://www.mediafire.com/?l5i3l2ua0ioevj2

Lt.Dan,what is your position? I am willing to vote yes because I know they can impose and have imposed what they want but what is your position?

What is better for the Department,not just me or a few?
I will follow your lead for I know you have 10 more yrs to go so what will you vote?

[Forged]

I'm going through the file and will post the changes and comparisons to the current contract.

give me a few hours guys! I'm working to get the information out there so you can make an educated decision before voting

I'm going through the file and will post the changes and comparisons to the current contract.

give me a few hours guys! I'm working to get the information out there so you can make an educated decision before voting

YOU ALREADY SENT AN EMAIL THAT YOU STOLE FROM THE FOP SITE. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE. YOU DIDN'T POST FACTS IN YOUR EMAIL JUST A BUNCH OF CRAP. IM VOTING BASED ON WHAT I READ IN THE CONTRACT. STOP SENDING EMAILS THAT WERENT ASKED FOR A$$WIPE

Well played FOP. You have divided the rank and file. Everyone in the drop or about to enter it will vote yes because the 3% more towards pensions does not effect them. If you would have made it a 3% decrease across the board you would have saved the city more and impacted everyone the same. Not that it will be a legit election anyway but now it is almost a sure thing this will be passed screwing the rooks for the rest of their career. Once the City takes something they never give it back. We will be paying 10% int our pensions and the take homes forever. Thank you Major

Well played FOP. You have divided the rank and file. Everyone in the drop or about to enter it will vote yes because the 3% more towards pensions does not effect them. If you would have made it a 3% decrease across the board you would have saved the city more and impacted everyone the same. Not that it will be a legit election anyway but now it is almost a sure thing this will be passed screwing the rooks for the rest of their career. Once the City takes something they never give it back. We will be paying 10% int our pensions and the take homes forever. Thank you Major

Don't be too sure that the guys in the DROP are going to be voting yes for this piece of crap contract. As a matter of fact I'm in the DROP and I'm voting HELL NO. My thinking is if it affects 1 it affects us all. I can tell you a lot of my DROP colleagues feel the same way. This thing that the FOP calls a contract is really an insult to every hard working officer. If they really wanted to rescue themselves from been disgraced they should have told the City of Miami Administration to put that contract were the sun don't shine.

The entire contract has been sent to the membership. In addition, there is a breakdown of the pros and the cons and a summary of the substantive changes. Let me explain something to all but before you vote, get educated, don't go by outside influences but here is the reality...anyone who knows about politics and the current Anti public employees know that if the City Commission is forced to impose you will only wish that you had voted for this one year contract. Look around you!! Look how many firefighters are being laid off in Hialeah 40% of the force!!! a 3% percent contribution into pension is definitely better than loosing your 1%....You may not be thinking retirement right now, but it will be here before the blink of an eye, then what....You have spent all your career putting your life on the line only to loose your retirement benefit...Is that smart? I don't think so. It's better to give just a little more now and trust me the recession has hit rock bottom. Read the article about the recession in Florida!!!Don't be fooled by non educated postings here....Kerr will probably agree with this posting. He sees to be leading the pack and has worked hard to divide the membership. Knowledge is Power!!! Ask at the upcoming roll calls..Speak Up don't be afraid!!!

[Phaedrus11]

Lt.Dan,what is your position? I am willing to vote yes because I know they can impose and have imposed what they want but what is your position?

What is better for the Department,not just me or a few?
I will follow your lead for I know you have 10 more yrs to go so what will you vote?

I think there are good arguments for voting yes or no. The one argument that I will not accept is; vote for this or all hell will break loose. This was a tactic used in the past (before we ever had an imposed contract) and it is even more of a threat this year. If that is their only argument then why even vote? The bottom line is, the city wants a contract and it is incumbent on the union to work to get the contract approved by the members.

There are many articles in this contract that affect some members and don’t affect others. I prefer pension contribution increases over pay cuts because it doesn’t affect my pension. Is it fair that 2/3rds of the department will get what is in effect a pay cut and the other third doesn’t? Absolutely not. I am thrilled about the promotional language but again that doesn’t affect me, I don’t think we’ll see a Captains test any time soon.

To me the most important language is the article stating that the city will not replace classified positions with unclassified. This is huge. It is a major step in preserving the civil service middle management. For the last few years the department has eroded the civil service ranks and replaced those positions with managerial exempt positions. (CID Capt, SOS Capt, IA Capt, Complaint Capt, PIO Lt) Nothing against the staff members filling these roles, some of them are good friends of mine, but I never want to see a civil service position replaced with an appointed one. I won’t even get into the loss of the patrol Captains. This article alone could get a yes vote from me.

The articles discussing the promotional registers are major. Promoting all vacancies before killing the list and back pay/seniority to the date of the opening -180 day are game changers. To lend an example when I was promoted to Sergeant in ’04 my position was technically open for over three years before I filled it. If you are sitting on a promotional register, that article is a tremendous comfort that you will in fact be made.

The underlying problem here is that we have not resolved the financial urgency issue. We could sign off on this contract, have the cuts imposed, and the city could then impose further cuts under the urgency statue. No language in the contract can supersede state law. It is for this reason that I could argue for a “No” vote.

If the vote was today I’d probably vote a reluctant yes. I don’t trust any of the players involved (too many lies, too many times) so I won’t really know how I’ll feel until the 11th. I have a feeling the vote will pass with about 70/30 margin. The union is still running the vote, after all.

[Forged]

Lt.Dan,what is your position? I am willing to vote yes because I know they can impose and have imposed what they want but what is your position?

What is better for the Department,not just me or a few?
I will follow your lead for I know you have 10 more yrs to go so what will you vote?

I think there are good arguments for voting yes or no. The one argument that I will not accept is; vote for this or all hell will break loose. This was a tactic used in the past (before we ever had an imposed contract) and it is even more of a threat this year. If that is their only argument then why even vote? The bottom line is, the city wants a contract and it is incumbent on the union to work to get the contract approved by the members.

There are many articles in this contract that affect some members and don’t affect others. I prefer pension contribution increases over pay cuts because it doesn’t affect my pension. Is it fair that 2/3rds of the department will get what is in effect a pay cut and the other third doesn’t? Absolutely not. I am thrilled about the promotional language but again that doesn’t affect me, I don’t think we’ll see a Captains test any time soon.

To me the most important language is the article stating that the city will not replace classified positions with unclassified. This is huge. It is a major step in preserving the civil service middle management. For the last few years the department has eroded the civil service ranks and replaced those positions with managerial exempt positions. (CID Capt, SOS Capt, IA Capt, Complaint Capt, PIO Lt) Nothing against the staff members filling these roles, some of them are good friends of mine, but I never want to see a civil service position replaced with an appointed one. I won’t even get into the loss of the patrol Captains. This article alone could get a yes vote from me.

The articles discussing the promotional registers are major. Promoting all vacancies before killing the list and back pay/seniority to the date of the opening -180 day are game changers. To lend an example when I was promoted to Sergeant in ’04 my position was technically open for over three years before I filled it. If you are sitting on a promotional register, that article is a tremendous comfort that you will in fact be made.

The underlying problem here is that we have not resolved the financial urgency issue. We could sign off on this contract, have the cuts imposed, and the city could then impose further cuts under the urgency statue. No language in the contract can supersede state law. It is for this reason that I could argue for a “No” vote.

If the vote was today I’d probably vote a reluctant yes. I don’t trust any of the players involved (too many lies, too many times) so I won’t really know how I’ll feel until the 11th. I have a feeling the vote will pass with about 70/30 margin. The union is still running the vote, after all.

My problem here is this contract will divide us. I don't care just about myself I care for the guy who is getting hit the hardest. I cannot effectively vote yes while seeing another suffer. This contract will ruin many and benefit a few and that is the underlying problem. I'd rather do what's right here then screw over the majority of my fellow brothers and sisters.

I say let the city impose this contract and let's fight for what's right. I'd rather us stand strong together then see this contract divide us even further. It's up to the members to decide, but the reality is it won't happen as long as we have a weak union board.

Forged

Thanks Lt.Dan,that helped me make up my mind. I too agree that it could go both ways but the young one's are only thinking about today,etc.
The people running the show both at City Hall and FOP should be ashamed of themselves.
What has been done to MPD is criminal in every way but we have been dealt a bad hand before and we have been able to come back.

I WILL VOTE YES!!

If I'm going to get raped I'm not just going to bend over and grabb my ankles...I'm going out fighting

why should the membership just bend over for the mayor? this country was built on fighting for what's right... and we can all agree on one thing, this contract and what the city is doing to it's employees just isn't right

the officers before us fought hard to get what we have/had I'll be dammed if I just bend over and let them ram it up my azz without a fight

VOTE HELL NO

If I'm going to get raped I'm not just going to bend over and grabb my ankles...I'm going out fighting

why should the membership just bend over for the mayor? this country was built on fighting for what's right... and we can all agree on one thing, this contract and what the city is doing to it's employees just isn't right

the officers before us fought hard to get what we have/had I'll be dammed if I just bend over and let them ram it up my azz without a fight

VOTE HELL NO

I agree **** those selfish *******s. It only helps those looking to get promoted.


WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE FROZEN AT THERE WAGES WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM?


**** greedy mother ****ers

vote No

If I'm going to get raped I'm not just going to bend over and grabb my ankles...I'm going out fighting

why should the membership just bend over for the mayor? this country was built on fighting for what's right... and we can all agree on one thing, this contract and what the city is doing to it's employees just isn't right

the officers before us fought hard to get what we have/had I'll be dammed if I just bend over and let them ram it up my azz without a fight

VOTE HELL NO

I agree **** those selfish *******s. It only helps those looking to get promoted.


WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE FROZEN AT THERE WAGES WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM?


**** greedy mother ****ers

vote No

Guess you are to f----n stupid to get promoted

VOTE YES BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE OR GET READY FOR A REAL ENCOUNTER OF THE CLOSE KIND!!!!!!!!!

[Forged]

VOTE YES BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE OR GET READY FOR A REAL ENCOUNTER OF THE CLOSE KIND!!!!!!!!!

besides saying vote Yes or No.

Answer this:

What are the benefits of voting yes?

what are the benefits of voting No?


If you vote yes can they still impose afterwords? Yes

The want to be lawyer speaks again where's the absente's so I can vote a great big YES

The want to be lawyer speaks again where's the absente's so I can vote a great big YES


http://bios.weddingbee.com/pics/68853/dont_feed_the_trolls.jpg


dang trolls or ortiz! Mr. troll go away no one wants to hear your empty vote yes comments. How about answering the why?

hey kerr, i for one will vote no. but that is my choice as i have sat down and worked out my numbers already. the numbers are horrible and know that what people will vote yes will never get those things back ever. besides i will not vote to have jr. and jarvi promoted while the guys that work hard everyday will get the big ole thumb in the yoohoo. one more thing did you notice that when jr was screaming at kerr the veins in his receading hairline came out and started buldging. wonder if you put your finger on that pulsing veing will he have passed out? just a thought.

What was the argument about (between kerr & aguilar? Please post

Kerr was rude as always and tried to talk over Armando Jr after everyone else had allowed Kerr to speak his mind. Armando Jr was tring to talk with an opposite point of view and Kerr interupted him several times. So Armando Jr turned around pissed and gave Kerr an ear full about how everyone let Kerr ramble on without interupting him so how about letting someone else talk and not be rude by interupting them. I think I would have taken Jr in that fight had Kerr not shut up then.

VOTE YES AND LET'S MOVE ON.

I'M NOT AN FOP MEMBER, SO YOU WON'T EVER SEE ME AT A MEETING (SINCE 2000). HERE IS MY QUESTION -- WHY ARE WE VOTING "AFTER" THE SEPTEMBER 30 DEADLINE? Is the FOP so certain that everyone is going to vote yes that's why we are voting on October 11?

And if it is true that FC was collecting absentee ballots before October 3, does that invalidate those votes that he as already strong-armed, I mean collected?