Massachusetts Cop Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,713 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Who needs a good laugh (or cry)?

the following is from Local 1067 AFSCME president Chris Olsen;

Good Morning All,
Yesterday afternoon testimony concluded at the labor commission on the decertification of campus police.
Each side presented their case, the campus police trying to establish what they felt made them unique. We presented evidence that made each of us unique, in the positions we hold. I also believe we established a community of interest for everyone in this local.
We, the local and the council, tried to settle this issue by presenting to the BHE a proposal that the campus police be established as a separate unit ( Unit III ). Some of you might recall that the BHE had rejected that idea at the last contract negotiations. We reached an agreement with the BHE and they proposed the formation of the new unit to their attorney, Campus Police Officer Curtis and Campus Police Officer O'Connell, they rejected that offer. I was a bit curious that the officers rejected that offer without contacting the membership, since it was part of their initial request. I remain concerned about the possible contracting out of campus police duties should the decert be successful, but that'a another battle for another time
So here is where we are at now, the briefs from the attorneys will be sent to the Labor Commission by the 21st of April. Some time in the future, TBA, we will have an answer as to whether they will be able to vote to leave the local or not.
We continue to push for the opening of negotiations on our contract and the BHE continues to stall, I guess we will have to make some sort of decision on that very soon.

In Solidarity,

Christopher Olsen
President
AFSCME Local 1067

Any comments brothers and sisters? :-k
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
mpd61";p="61766 said:
I remain concerned about the possible contracting out of campus police duties should the decert be successful, Any comments brothers and sisters? :-k
OK has this guy read the Pacheco Law? As I understand it the only time a state job can be contracted out is if it can be proven that the exact same service can be provided by a vendor for less $$ than it costs to have state employee doing it. For some reason I don't think that MSP is going to issue SSPO warrants to a private security company, therefore it would be impossible to have any private company provide the exact same service that state employees do. Why is it any time AFSCME is up against the ropes they start yelling like Chicken Little?
mpd61";p="61766 said:
We presented evidence that made each of us unique, in the positions we hold.
Of course their jobs are different; one pushes a mop, one cleans the toilets, one mows the lawn and trims the hedges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
You have got to be kidding me!

I am so sick of the AFSCME threats. If any service could be contracted out for less money it would be the maintainence services for each campus.

Who is this Chris Olsen guy? Why does he feel it necessary to threaten us? He does not know a damn thing about Law Enforcement. His ignorance is clearly stated by not properly addressing both Detective Sergeant's Curtis and O'Connell by their proper title.

Please nobody believe this propaganda they can and will not contract our duties out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Who is this Chris Olsen guy?
AFSCME Local 1067 President Christopher J. Olsen is an HVAC II Technician, who works in the power plant at Westfield State College. He appeared before the Commission with long hair and jeans.

We presented evidence that made each of us unique, in the positions we hold.
MCLEA submitted color photographs of firearms qualification, uniformed police officers, and police cruisers. AFSCME submitted poor quality black and white photocopies of photos depicting snow plows, dump trucks, and boilers. (no joke).

We, the local and the council, tried to settle this issue by presenting to the BHE a proposal that the campus police be established as a separate unit ( Unit III ).
It was not until the 11th hour that they came up with this "Unit III concept." It was summarily rejected because it would accomplish absolutely nothing. "Unit 3" would be a "legal fiction" - just another label on the same representation. This is nothing but a last ditch attempt to stop MCLEA.

I remain concerned about the possible contracting out of campus police duties should the decert be successful, but that's another battle for another time.
Another scare tactic (just like you'll all get fired, be without representation for a year, Romney will refuse to negotiate with you, etc...) All AFSCME is concerned about is the almost $65,000 they make from CPOs. The BHE would never privatize. A "security guard" can't investigate crimes. Therefore, when a crime occurred on campus- they'd do what every civilian does - call the police. I don't think the local police or the MSP would be willing to start handling college crimes (they're short-staffed anyway.) Even if they were - would the BHE place themselves in the position to have to call in an outside law enforcement agency where they had absolutely no control over them? The individual colleges like having their own police forces - they're simply not going to give this up. Why would the BHE contract out if AFSCME is "decertified?" If they were going to "contract out," why wouldn't they have done so already?

Some time in the future, TBA, we will have an answer as to whether they will be able vote to leave the local or not.
Notice the "they" (as in us vs. them). This whole process at the LRC was simply for CPOs to be able to vote for their bargaining representative. Why must AFSCME go through such lengths to prevent CPOs from having a choice? If they were delivering a decent level of service and it was appropriate to include sworn police officers in the same unit as storekeepers, groundskeepers, plumbers, electricians, and maintainers - why would they try so hard to stop this election?

Please send me a message if you would like more detailed information on this AFSCME vs. MCLEA issue.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,713 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Change in Tone of message:

July 14th 2004-

"Greetings Sisters and Brothers,

I would like to start this open letter, to all of my Sisters and Brothers in the position of Campus Police Officer by thanking each and every one of you for your calls, your emails and your unfailing support. You my fellow members are what a union is all about. Thank You.


We are inviting all CPO's from all of the campuses to come to Elks Hall on Mill Street in Worcester, where we will have our AFSCME Local 1067 Executive Board meetings, between 1 & 4PM on August 12th. ....These meetings are to allow discussion on contract issues and other issues of any kind with Bill, the table officers, council 93, your staff reps and chief stewards. Let's get your message to the ones who can do something for you."
:roll:

Well Chris,

I hope you got the message now. Yours was quite the epitome of "Too little, too late." How many CPO's were taken in by this mailing to our homes subsequent to the possibility of us taking measures to leave AFSCME?

I must LAUGH at Group III Proposal. That's all it will EVER be, a proposal, to give false hope to the minority of CPO's who still listen to Local 1067 rhetoric.

If anyone truly wants to stay in AFSCME after all that has transpired, then PLEASE, exercise your right to VOTE! But remember this FACT:
MCLEA fought for your opportunity to choose, AFSCME spent your dues to prevent you from having any choice...................
 
G

·
mpd61";p="61841 said:
But remember this FACT:
MCLEA fought for your opportunity to choose, AFSCME spent your dues to prevent you from having any choice...................
Seems like the most important point of all. As a former CPOI who escaped, I hope all you guys are listening! Good Luck MCLEA!
:t:
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
288 Posts
AFSCME should just walk away at this point. Their time draws short, and my patience draws even shorter... :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
In response to the email sent by Christopher Olsen to the AFSCME email list:

Massachusetts College Law Enforcement Association has never requested a UNIT III designation as a condition of our petition to the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission. MCLEA and the sworn officers that have signed showing of interest cards have from the beginning requested only that we be given the chance to have an election where every state and community college police officer and sergeant is given the chance to vote to either stay with AFSCME or be represented by a separate association. The discussed “proposal” was presented near the end of the hearings. The proposal was a Unit III designation for campus police officers within the current Local, represented by AFSCME. This was not an offer of a separate local and certainly not an offer of an opportunity to bargain a separate contract. This “proposal” was nothing more than an attempt to persuade MCLEA to withdraw its petition prior to the decision of the Labor Relations Commission.

MCLEA believes it has a solid case. Massachusetts State and Community College Police Officers do not belong in a union with non-law enforcement members. Law enforcement has its own needs and owes absolute allegiance to their employer and the Commonwealth. Law enforcement has its own unique bargaining concerns and its own unique legal representation needs. MCLEA feels that Massachusetts State and Community College Police Officers need to be able to be part of an association that will represent their needs only. UMASS police and a host of private college police belong to their own locals of national police unions, or their own police associations. This is not a new concept. An inherent conflict of interest exists when police officers are charged with the responsibilities of enforcing rules, regulations and state law against fellow “union brothers” and in some cases “union officials.” It is for those reasons that we feel we should be severed and AFSCME should focus on the needs of the rest of the bargaining unit exclusively.

The current local representing approximately 3000 individuals is not conducive to law enforcement. AFSCME would be doing its membership a disservice if it focused more on the needs of the college police, as we only make up a very small percentage of the entire unit (approximately 179 members).

In his letter, Christopher Olsen eluded to the issue of “a fear of privatization.” That is interesting, especially when currently #6 community colleges are completely contract security and others have contract security on overnight shifts, under AFSCME’s watch. Mr. Olsen also eluded to the fact that I failed to check with “the membership” on the proposal. As he pointed out, not every campus police officer in the state is for MCLEA. Those that signed a showing of interest card were interested in being represented by a “police association” or wanted to be given the opportunity to vote in an election over the matter. An AFSCME UNIT III is not a “police association” and accepting the proposal would have made sure the election never happened.

Unfortunately I expect this AFSCME propaganda to continue, as it has been their policy from the beginning of the MCLEA movement to spread disinformation, fear and outright lies.

Lastly, to all the non-law enforcement members who feel that MCLEA is holding up “your contract” and that the petition by MCLEA is costing you money. MCLEA filed its petition in October of 2004, the contract expired in June of 2004. No negotiations had begun as of the filing of our petition. A hearing date was set for December, 2004. Following the first day of testimony, new dates were to be set. Attorney Simoneau and I advised the Labor Relations Commission that we wished to have the soonest date possible, and would change our schedules to accommodate the soonest dates. AFSCME and their attorney delayed the next day of hearings until March of 2005. If AFSCME would submit to an election where the college police officers were given a choice between MCLEA and AFSCME, bargaining would resume following the election. Until then, bargaining is frozen for the obvious reason that you cannot bargain or sign a contract until the actual makeup of the bargaining unit is decided. Finally, anyone who has been a member of AFSCME knows we never have a contract on time. I guess this time they have this process as an excuse…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Unfortunately I expect this AFSCME propaganda to continue, as it has been their policy from the beginning of the MCLEA movement to spread disinformation, fear and outright lies.
Your expectations are correct (see below)

Excerpt from a letter which AFSCME is circulating to CPOs:

The union feels that a separate union for campus police would make the officers "At Will" employees of the state for a limited time. The danger there would be that the officers will not be covered by a contract.
This is completely untrue. (See Below - excerpts from Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission Cases):

"An election does not impair the validity of the predecessor agreement or the vitality of any derivative vested rights. Under the Board's law, "[t]he certification of the insurgent union does not of its own force dissolve the contract with the incumbent union," although such a newly-certified union "is not to be bound involuntarily to honor the terms of the contract negotiated by the ousted union and is free to negotiate a new one." Gorman, Basic Text on Labor Law, at 57-58, citing American Seating Co., 106 NLRB 250, 32 LRRM 1439 (1953). Massasoit Greyhound Assoc, CR-3676 (1992).

"When employees select a new bargaining representative, the employer's obligation to maintain the status quo is unaffected. To find otherwise would unduly restrain employees from selecting the bargaining representative of their choice."
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 19 MLC 1069 (1982).

Simply stated - All terms and conditions of employment will remain in effect. No CPO will be without collective bargaining representation for one minute.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top