Saturday, December 02, 2017
Short term vs. the long term, or...
We won! Wait, so did the other side.
A little over two years ago I wrote about the college's contract negotiations between it and the two separate union locals. I framed it in terms of black swan events, since the contract of our CSEA brethren was unceremoniously vetoed by the County Executive. All the employees were horrified, as this had never happened before, and we didn't think such a thing was possible. CSEA sued, and for two years the issue languished in the courts, with no end in sight.
Although I am staunchly Republican (yes, who works in government giving out federal and state funds. Thehypocrisy irony is not lost on me.), my inner HR Director (as I have a Master's in the field) cried foul. It always seemed to me to be an unfair labor practice: negotiating in bad faith. Astorino had a representative on the administration's negotiating team, so his dictates and terms were accounted for in the contract. The union members have to vote on the contract, which amounts to a potential veto and for CSEA, I suppose it was possible. Their contract sucked. The County Legislators have similar power, and they did veto a contract once, in 1974.
Also in the aforementioned post, I predicted we would have to wait three or more years for our next contract, but I was too pessimistic. The contract was settled around 6 months ago, approved by the union members in October, then approved by the Board of Trustees last week. The County is next, and because of the prior veto, the great unknown. As for the terms, they were decent, though there was one major give-back: paying for health care. We've avoided paying into our insurance for the entirety of the school's history, and I believe we were the last college domino to fall throughout New York State. Even our union stated it was inevitable, but we could lessen the pain via negotiation. The other niceties that I enjoy: pay, overtime, an unholy number of vacation days, tenure, etc., weren't touched, and I'm not sure they were even discussed. Here we had a stronger hand than the CSEA local, as we were fine dragging out our negotiations, and the college really wanted to say that they won a huge concession concerning health benefits.The previously veto didn't exactly encourage expediency either. It was often mentioned that we would be better off not settling period anyway, as we'd continue to get out insurance at not cost. With all that in play, we got much better raises than did CSEA; in fact, I believe some of the clerks would lose money as a result of the terms of the contract, due their lower salaries compared to the cost of the insurance. Everyone receives the same healthcare plans and therefore the same potential costs, but not the same pay scale. We would have had a similar problem for our newest employees, but we staggered the percentages of what one would pay: Instructors would pay 5%; Assistant Professors would pay 10%, and so on. Those who were here longer and could afford to pay more would have to do so. Our newest faculty, making significantly less than I, would pay the least. It's worth noting that single people, like me (but not for long, he shouted happily! Love you sweetie.), would pay very little regardless, while those on a family plan or who live outside New York will pay much more regardless of academic rank. Also, the changes wouldn't take place until September of 2019, giving our older colleagues the chance to retire with free health care for life. That may have been the biggest concession from the school, as most of our most active members (i.e., the ones who run the union and were on the negotiating team) are aging Baby Boomers hurtling towards retirement. It still works out in the college's favor. The small number of faculty that would retire with free health care would be replaced with new hires earning significantly less, but still paying into the system, or hired as adjuncts and getting no benefits, or in the case of counselors, not replaced at all. As it is, I still think they've struck fools' gold. The State, County, or even the Federal Courts could force the retirees to pay for health insurance, or eliminate the insurance all together, and the union cannot do anything about it. Unions negotiate only on the behalf of current, not past, employees. I haven't even explored the the possibility we're all suddenly forced into a single-payer program. Pardon me while I shudder.
With all this in mind, the November election loomed large. If Astorino won, and there was no resolution with CSEA, our contract could have been similarity rejected or stalled with no recourse. If George Latimer won, then the contract would pass through to the County Board of Legislators for an easy approval. For us, there was plenty at risk. For everyone else, this should barely register on Westchester's radar, as it was a mid-term election with little importance save the County Executive, but as we're all at the mercy of larger forces, the ballot had a special wrinkle: we needed to vote on whether or not New York would have a Constitutional Convention. This wasn't unexpected, as New York votes on this every 20 years, but the stakes were seen as unusually high this election cycle.
The Con Con (and the term was used as derisively as it sounds) was a source of great anxiety for everyone of all political stripes. The Conservative Party hated the idea because the members were afraid gun rights would be further eviscerated. We do have a gun culture in New York, but it ends in Northern Westchester. It dovetails with our hunting and fishing tradition, and is vitally important to the economy of Upstate. It wasn't the party's only concern, but it was the one hammered home the most. This meant that the Right was against it. Municipal unions were terrified that the guarantee that protects our pensions would disappear, and I did feel that was part of the agenda. The Left stood to gain more, but as out Governor isn't all that sympathetic to Labor, we didn't want to risk giving Albany the power to eliminate the protection. I'm oversimplifying to an absurd degree, but the general consensus was to not have the Convention. I, reflexively distrusting of government, voted no, and I would have done so irrespective of what any side wanted. New York State government is a dysfunctional mess, and I need only sift through Excelsior as my proof.
So this election was more important than it would normally be, and our union was especially active in campaigning for George Latimer. I still believed Astorino could pull out a victory, though a very narrow one. He ran and governed on a strong anti-tax platform, and our taxes are the highest in America. This gives Astorino a huge advantage. Talk of raising taxes is an anathema to our residents, though it's worth noting that County taxes aren't a high percentage of what one pays. Village, town, and school taxes make up the bulk of our over-sized levy. Nevertheless, Astorino said he wouldn't raise the County's portion of the taxes, and he kept that promise. How he accomplished that was the subject of increasing scrutiny, but he could point to his record, and at the same time, state that his opponent would raise taxes. Despite this, he did have some weaknesses: the unions were fighting mad; people that normally wouldn't bother vote came out to vote against the Con Con, and the initiative went down in flames, with 83% of the state voting no. I can scarcely believe we'd get that high a percentage of New Yorkers to agree that water is wet. There was also the late push to conjoin Astorino with Trump, though I'm not sure how effective that was. With all this in mind, I wagered lunch with a coworker that Latimer would win by a slim margin. My colleague felt strongly that Astorino would win, so he decided to up the stakes. If Astorino won by more than 10%, I would throw in an Apple gift card, and if Latimer won by the same or greater margin, we'd have lunch at the Cheesecake Factory in White Plains, a more expensive place than the Indian buffet in town.
History will show that Astorino got walloped, losing 43% to 57%, and to demonstrate how much more seriously people took this election (though not necessarily this particular race), 23,363 more votes were cast this year versus 2013. I guess a sugar-free cheesecake is coming my way. A raise is in my future as well, and some back pay as a bonus. All of this is great for me and my coworkers, and as much as I liked Astorino and felt he did a good job, I could not get the bad taste out of my mouth concerning the CSEA contract. That was playing politics, and I knew it motivated a lot of people to vote for his opponent.
.A little over two years ago I wrote about the college's contract negotiations between it and the two separate union locals. I framed it in terms of black swan events, since the contract of our CSEA brethren was unceremoniously vetoed by the County Executive. All the employees were horrified, as this had never happened before, and we didn't think such a thing was possible. CSEA sued, and for two years the issue languished in the courts, with no end in sight.
Although I am staunchly Republican (yes, who works in government giving out federal and state funds. The
Also in the aforementioned post, I predicted we would have to wait three or more years for our next contract, but I was too pessimistic. The contract was settled around 6 months ago, approved by the union members in October, then approved by the Board of Trustees last week. The County is next, and because of the prior veto, the great unknown. As for the terms, they were decent, though there was one major give-back: paying for health care. We've avoided paying into our insurance for the entirety of the school's history, and I believe we were the last college domino to fall throughout New York State. Even our union stated it was inevitable, but we could lessen the pain via negotiation. The other niceties that I enjoy: pay, overtime, an unholy number of vacation days, tenure, etc., weren't touched, and I'm not sure they were even discussed. Here we had a stronger hand than the CSEA local, as we were fine dragging out our negotiations, and the college really wanted to say that they won a huge concession concerning health benefits.The previously veto didn't exactly encourage expediency either. It was often mentioned that we would be better off not settling period anyway, as we'd continue to get out insurance at not cost. With all that in play, we got much better raises than did CSEA; in fact, I believe some of the clerks would lose money as a result of the terms of the contract, due their lower salaries compared to the cost of the insurance. Everyone receives the same healthcare plans and therefore the same potential costs, but not the same pay scale. We would have had a similar problem for our newest employees, but we staggered the percentages of what one would pay: Instructors would pay 5%; Assistant Professors would pay 10%, and so on. Those who were here longer and could afford to pay more would have to do so. Our newest faculty, making significantly less than I, would pay the least. It's worth noting that single people, like me (but not for long, he shouted happily! Love you sweetie.), would pay very little regardless, while those on a family plan or who live outside New York will pay much more regardless of academic rank. Also, the changes wouldn't take place until September of 2019, giving our older colleagues the chance to retire with free health care for life. That may have been the biggest concession from the school, as most of our most active members (i.e., the ones who run the union and were on the negotiating team) are aging Baby Boomers hurtling towards retirement. It still works out in the college's favor. The small number of faculty that would retire with free health care would be replaced with new hires earning significantly less, but still paying into the system, or hired as adjuncts and getting no benefits, or in the case of counselors, not replaced at all. As it is, I still think they've struck fools' gold. The State, County, or even the Federal Courts could force the retirees to pay for health insurance, or eliminate the insurance all together, and the union cannot do anything about it. Unions negotiate only on the behalf of current, not past, employees. I haven't even explored the the possibility we're all suddenly forced into a single-payer program. Pardon me while I shudder.
With all this in mind, the November election loomed large. If Astorino won, and there was no resolution with CSEA, our contract could have been similarity rejected or stalled with no recourse. If George Latimer won, then the contract would pass through to the County Board of Legislators for an easy approval. For us, there was plenty at risk. For everyone else, this should barely register on Westchester's radar, as it was a mid-term election with little importance save the County Executive, but as we're all at the mercy of larger forces, the ballot had a special wrinkle: we needed to vote on whether or not New York would have a Constitutional Convention. This wasn't unexpected, as New York votes on this every 20 years, but the stakes were seen as unusually high this election cycle.
The Con Con (and the term was used as derisively as it sounds) was a source of great anxiety for everyone of all political stripes. The Conservative Party hated the idea because the members were afraid gun rights would be further eviscerated. We do have a gun culture in New York, but it ends in Northern Westchester. It dovetails with our hunting and fishing tradition, and is vitally important to the economy of Upstate. It wasn't the party's only concern, but it was the one hammered home the most. This meant that the Right was against it. Municipal unions were terrified that the guarantee that protects our pensions would disappear, and I did feel that was part of the agenda. The Left stood to gain more, but as out Governor isn't all that sympathetic to Labor, we didn't want to risk giving Albany the power to eliminate the protection. I'm oversimplifying to an absurd degree, but the general consensus was to not have the Convention. I, reflexively distrusting of government, voted no, and I would have done so irrespective of what any side wanted. New York State government is a dysfunctional mess, and I need only sift through Excelsior as my proof.
So this election was more important than it would normally be, and our union was especially active in campaigning for George Latimer. I still believed Astorino could pull out a victory, though a very narrow one. He ran and governed on a strong anti-tax platform, and our taxes are the highest in America. This gives Astorino a huge advantage. Talk of raising taxes is an anathema to our residents, though it's worth noting that County taxes aren't a high percentage of what one pays. Village, town, and school taxes make up the bulk of our over-sized levy. Nevertheless, Astorino said he wouldn't raise the County's portion of the taxes, and he kept that promise. How he accomplished that was the subject of increasing scrutiny, but he could point to his record, and at the same time, state that his opponent would raise taxes. Despite this, he did have some weaknesses: the unions were fighting mad; people that normally wouldn't bother vote came out to vote against the Con Con, and the initiative went down in flames, with 83% of the state voting no. I can scarcely believe we'd get that high a percentage of New Yorkers to agree that water is wet. There was also the late push to conjoin Astorino with Trump, though I'm not sure how effective that was. With all this in mind, I wagered lunch with a coworker that Latimer would win by a slim margin. My colleague felt strongly that Astorino would win, so he decided to up the stakes. If Astorino won by more than 10%, I would throw in an Apple gift card, and if Latimer won by the same or greater margin, we'd have lunch at the Cheesecake Factory in White Plains, a more expensive place than the Indian buffet in town.
History will show that Astorino got walloped, losing 43% to 57%, and to demonstrate how much more seriously people took this election (though not necessarily this particular race), 23,363 more votes were cast this year versus 2013. I guess a sugar-free cheesecake is coming my way. A raise is in my future as well, and some back pay as a bonus. All of this is great for me and my coworkers, and as much as I liked Astorino and felt he did a good job, I could not get the bad taste out of my mouth concerning the CSEA contract. That was playing politics, and I knew it motivated a lot of people to vote for his opponent.
So George Latimer and a super-majority of Democrats will be in charge come 2018. In the short-term, I and my associates will benefit. Our present contract is safe, and the next one was seen as a much easier, and more lucrative. I'm not sure the union still feels that way. As for the politicians, I'm sure they have other grand plans, or at least they did, until the details of the Trump tax plan came through. It's Thursday 11/30 at 11:02pm as I type this, and there will be some sort of tax reform, or reshuffling, or what ever term you wish to use. If the relevant framework already presented remains intact, then whatever plans any spendthrift politician in New York, California, Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, or a good number of other states that have high local tax rates had, are ruined. The links included admit as much, but the subtext should be read to say that consequences will be much graver.
The parts of that tax code changing the most is are the standard deduction and State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. If these taxes amount to more than the standard deduction (and here in Westchester, is very easy for that to happen), then I would get a larger federal tax return. This in turn enables Albany, the local school district, the town of Cortlandt, etc., to raise taxes higher than they could otherwise. As per the second link above, the math works out this way: if Westchester raises it's share of my property taxes by $100, and I can itemize deductions, then that $100 becomes a $65 increase and a $35 loan, with the Federal government pay me back, not the County. It's a huge subsidy for a handful of states, most of whom are listed in the above paragraph. Other states, like Florida, have no state income tax and a capped property tax levy, so whatever they're paying at the moment or when their taxes go up, the residents get no corresponding benefit, as they'll still only qualify for the standard deduction. In turn, the standard deduction will double, helping those Floridians and probably quite a few New Yorkers, and causing serious economic pain to a large swath of others.
The issue facing liberal, highly taxed states should be split in two: the first, and smaller, problem is the acknowledged effect that new programs, like New York's rumored Medicaid-for-all scheme (to channel the Brits), are dead on arrival. New taxes would be politically untenable, since there would be no federal subsidy any more, and all of the above states face serious deficits right now. Specifics have been hard to find otherwise, since it's hard to point to examples of programs that don't exist today that suddenly can't exist tomorrow - just know they won't. If something is broken, don't expect it to get fixed. This half of the dilemma is amorphous, but it's easy to understand at least. States can't take any more money out of the economy, so they can't give out any more money. The other part of the issue is more concrete, but less understandable: what effect will the Trump tax plan have on the existing programs, or the amount of tax collected? Why wpould this happen in the first place? Because a very tiny number of people pay a huge percentage of the total taxes received. In other words, will ultra-wealthy residents suddenly leave these states, such as Massachusetts losing population to New Hampshire, California to Nevada, or New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to Florida? It's in play, and the worry is that a small number of wealthy residents could leave, taking tens of millions of tax dollars with them. It's hard to answer these questions, as some articles say rich tax payers get a huge break under the new rules, and others say the same group will be forced to run for the hills to save tens of thousands of dollars a year. It's probably both: the federal tax levy will drop for wealthy people, but that savings would be offset by the huge increase in state and local taxes of all stripes: sales tax, income tax - especially the millionaire's tax, property tax, etc. To gain the benefit of the former and avoid the pain of latter, you'd need to move from one state to another.
If the rich do feel the pain, and enough leave to avoid it, and that lowers tax receipts to the point that spending becomes untenable, then things get interesting. As mentioned, new taxes are out of the question, and I could link an article for every word in this sentence stating that, and each one would describe a different tax now shelved. The better questions are as follows: first, would the politicians in charge of these states, counties, towns, villages, and school boards be forced to lower taxes as well as tempering their expectations about future tax increases? I ask this irrespective of the ultra-wealthy fleeing to tax havens. Once middle-class tax payers feel the full effect of their property taxes or their state income tax, what will they do?
Not all of these jurisdictions are run by liberals, but they are forced to abide by mandates that were, for the most part, initiated by those with progressive aims, and therefore cost money. What happens then? Second: would this cause a political sea-change in some of these liberal states? This should not be read to ask if I believe Blue states would suddenly go Red. It is possible, bit just the opposite could occur. Republicans in the farming sections of California or in Congressional seats north of Albany may find themselves out of office, blamed for higher tax bills and reduced government services. On the other hand, could this strengthen the GOP hold on states like Florida, Georgia, or Texas, where huge tax refunds become part of the economy? Would this cause an even further schism in America? Liberal states held political serve for decades in the country, but New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have been supplanted by Florida, Texas, and Georgia. Would California have no GOP congressional representatives, and have either great influence or none, depending on which party is in charge?
What I find most interesting has been the response of Democratic leaders, which seems to be one of bitter resignation. They have no say, and they know it. Their states will have to change they way they are governed, and they know that too.
There are so many other effects caused by this change in tax policy, I couldn't hope to cover them all in this post. I'll close with this: the tax plan probably hurts me, both as a tax payer and as a government employee. I have not explored whether or not I feel the plan is fair. Arguments can be made on both sides, but what I find fascinating is the precision in which it hurts certain states and helps others. That's a topic worth of exploration, but there's another facet I'd like to examine first: the effect of the Trump tax plan on home values.
