u/Equivalent-Mousse302

Does the PEF President Think NO Voters Are the Cockroaches?

Note, click on the image to see who it was posted by.

This meme was reshared by the PEF President is, in my opinion, distasteful and unbecoming of a union president. Instead of bringing members together, it comes across as divisive and relies on fear and guilt to pit one part of the membership against another.

The NO voting members are being portrayed as the cockroaches, while the YES voting members are the ants. But in reality, we're all PEF members. We're all going to live under the same contract. We should be discussing the merits of the agreement, not turning members who disagree into villains.

This reminds me of the contract chair blaming members for the poor turnout at the rally.

True leaders don't blame their members. They ask as leaders what could we have done better?

These individuals have been in positions of leadership for nearly two decades and have participated in at least five rounds of contract negotiations in one capacity or another. They know what turnout levels have historically been. They know what it takes to mobilize members.

Yet somehow, when it comes to PEF Strong / Members Voice elections, they know exactly how to energize and mobilize their voting bloc. But when it comes to rallies, low participation suddenly becomes the members' fault.

Maybe the uncomfortable truth is that the rally was an afterthought. Something to point to later and say, "Look, we tried," while setting up the membership to take the blame for a weak contract.

Now we're hearing that if members reject the agreement, it could take years to secure something better.

At least they admitted what they truly believe, once pattern bargaining takes hold, they believe we're pretty much SOL.

What I find most troubling is the lack of accountability.

How do the PEF President and the contract chair expect solidarity from the membership when they cast blame downward and take no responsibility upward?

Solidarity is a two way street.

You don't build unity by guilt tripping members.

You don't build solidarity through scare tactics.

And you certainly don't build trust by implying that members who disagree are voting for insecticide.

For the record, I'm still voting NO.

Not because I hate the union.

Not because I want my fellow members to suffer.

But because I believe members have the right to vote based on what they believe they are worth and what they deserve.

I know the time and effort I put in every day. I was around during the Cuomo years when we received big fat zeros in raises year after year. I know firsthand that inflation, the cost of living, healthcare premiums, and other expenses are outpacing our salaries.

That's why some members aren't impressed by 4.5%, 4%, 3.5%, 3%, and 3% raises. They're looking at the bigger picture.

They're looking at their grocery bills, their property taxes, their insurance premiums, their utility bills, and the rising cost of simply living in New York, and concluding that these raises still don't cut it.

And I can't help but wonder whether the real reason leadership is pushing so hard for a YES vote is because everything that happened this year was interconnected. In my opinion, Tier 6 changes and contract negotiations were never truly separate issues. Somewhere behind the scenes, tradeoffs were made, priorities were chosen, and certain concessions were accepted.

Whether explicit or implicit, I believe leadership chose immediate Tier 6 relief at the expense of stronger across the board raises, and in doing so threw the rest of us under the bus.

Maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm right, then the contract being put before us today isn't merely the product of "tough" negotiations. It's the consequence of decisions that were made long before the membership was ever asked to vote.

Which is precisely why I'm still voting NO.

Before anyone labels this as trolling, anti-union, or "just complaining," that's not the purpose of this post.

I'm a dues-paying PEF member. I want PEF to be successful because when PEF succeeds, we all succeed. Members also have a responsibility to critically evaluate proposed contracts and the messaging surrounding them.

With that in mind, I went back and reviewed the 2023 contract email, listened to the entire 2023 contract town hall (https://vimeo.com/840981892), and compared those communications with the recent email announcing the conceptual agreement for the proposed 2026-2031 contract.

Based on those past communications and the current environment, I put together what I believe will be the communication playbook used during the upcoming contract town halls.

This isn't intended as a criticism of having a communication strategy. Every organization has one. Rather, it's an attempt to understand how leadership is likely to present the agreement and what arguments members can expect to hear.

Whether you ultimately vote YES or NO is entirely up to you. My hope is simply that members will go into the process informed, ask questions, and make their own decision based on the merits of the agreement rather than emotion, fear, or slogans.

1. Start with empathy

The message will begin with acknowledgment.

For the past two years, PEF leaders traveled the State listening to members. They heard concerns about rising health insurance premiums, co-pays, prescription costs, gasoline, rent, mortgages, taxes, groceries, and the general cost of living.

The message:

"We heard you."

2. This is the richest contract ever

In 2023, Wayne opened with:

"This is the fourth contract I've negotiated as PEF president, and it is by far the richest."

Expect some variation of:

"This is the strongest contract we've negotiated."

"This is the richest economic package in PEF history."

"This agreement delivers over $4 billion in gains."

"This contract recognizes the value of PEF members."

The word historic will probably appear repeatedly.

3. This was a hard fought agreement

Expect repeated references to:

difficult negotiations

tense discussions

rallies

pressure campaigns

conversations with the Governor

refusing to back down

late nights and early mornings

"we didn't blink"

"we walked away from the table"

"we were ready for a fight"

calls to the highest levels

The message:

"Trust us. We fought hard."

Not necessarily:

"Here is why 4.5%, 4%, 3.5%, 3%, and 3% are the best numbers achievable."

4. Praise the contract team

Expect:

recognition of the bargaining team

stories about sacrifices

mentions of members who worked long hours

"heart and soul"

"we poured everything into this"

The emotional appeal will be strong.

5. Explain why members are getting a vote

Next, I think he'll say the Executive Board voted to send the contract to the members.

The justification will be that some members need immediate relief from the current economy and that members deserve a voice in whether we ratify the contract.

Ironically, this is the same justification used for the Tier 6 changes.

Members need immediate relief.

The message:

"Members always have the final say."

And frankly, history shows that nearly every negotiated agreement reaches the membership for ratification.

6. Focus on the total package, not just the raises

Members are focused on:

4.5%, 4%, 3.5%, 3%, and 3%.

Leadership will likely focus on:

the overall value

billions in gains

dental improvements

additional economic benefits

quality of life improvements

The message:

"Don't look only at percentages. Look at the whole package."

7. Highlight the shiny object

In 2023:

paid parental leave

dental stipend

higher education differential

In 2026:

The centerpiece appears to be the new dental plan.

Expect:

"We've been fighting for this since 2015."

"We finally achieved parity with CSEA and UUP."

Sweeteners such as location pay or other economic benefits may receive significant attention because they are easy to understand and market. Notice we didn't get a signing bonus or increase longevity/performance awards in the new contract proposal.

8. Celebrate past successes

Expect references to:

paid parental leave

telecommuting protections

dental improvements

previous victories

educational recognition

Some members may view these as continuing benefits that were already secured, while leadership will understandably present them as evidence that the overall strategy has produced results.

I suspect he will mention past wins from the previous contract and present them as part of a larger narrative of success, even though many of those gains were already won and grandfathered in.

What I don't expect much discussion about is that the last contract included:

a $3,000 signing bonus

higher education differential

increased performance awards

dental stipends

other one-time sweeteners

9. No contract gets everything

Expect:

"No contract is perfect."

"Contracts are a journey."

"Progress, not perfection."

"Nothing addresses everything."

The message:

"Judge this contract based on whether it moves us forward."

10. The uncertainty argument

Now comes the scare tactics.

Compared to the previous contract, there is an increase in raises.

But if the membership votes NO, and given the Governor's position and what other unions have already agreed to, there will be an uphill battle that may take considerable time to resolve.

The economy is uncertain.

Everything is expensive.

There are no guarantees.

Potential political changes could make things worse.

The message:

"A no vote carries risks."

Translation:

"Be careful what you wish for."

11. Unity

Expect:

vote

turnout

solidarity

unity

PEF Strong

participation

Not explicitly:

"Vote YES."

But rather:

"An informed and engaged membership is a strong membership."

12. Point to comparisons with previous contracts

Expect:

raises are higher than before

overall value is greater

billions more dollars

additional benefits

The message:

"This contract improves upon previous agreements."

13. Mention what the contract does not address

Similar to 2023:

Tier 6 reform is legislative

civil service reform is legislative

salary reallocations are separate

classification issues are separate

The message:

"Not every issue can be solved through collective bargaining."

Topics likely to receive less attention

inflation exceeding raises

rising health insurance premiums

NY HELPS concerns

real wage growth

whether 3% raises in years four and five keep pace with the cost of living

My prediction

The town hall this week will likely follow this script:

Thank the team.

Explain how hard they fought.

Tell stories.

Stress unity.

Emphasize the total dollar value.

Showcase the dental plan.

Say no contract is perfect.

Warn about uncertainty if rejected.

Encourage everyone to vote.

Without explicitly saying it, strongly imply that a YES vote is the responsible choice.

The interesting question won't be what they say.

The interesting question is:

Will members accept raises of 4.5%, 4%, 3.5%, 3%, and 3% over five years when inflation, healthcare premiums, and cost-of-living pressures continue to outpace wage growth?

I'm voting NO.

I hope you'll read the agreement, ask questions, think critically, and make your own decision.

The attached images are screenshots from PEF's official Facebook page. They portray Governor Hochul as "clueless," accuse her of "fuzzy math," and blame her for higher taxes, higher bills, and empty wallets.

Maybe I'm missing the grand strategy here or old-fashioned, but how exactly does this help us get a better contract?

I'm not saying members shouldn't be frustrated. Inflation has outpaced our raises. NY HELPS is eroding the merit system and career mobility. Health insurance premium increases eat away at any gains we receive. Tier 6 remains inferior to Tier 4. We have legitimate grievances.

What I am questioning is the strategy.

PEF stands for the Public Employees Federation Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Unit. The key word is Professional. Publicly mocking and insulting the governor on social media may generate likes, shares, and applause from members who are already angry, but I fail to see how it advances negotiations.

Where is the tact? Where is the decorum? Where is the professionalism?

If your goal is to negotiate with someone, is repeatedly insulting them on social media the best way to get them to the table? Or is it just political theater designed to make members feel like something is happening?

The fact that PEF is pontificating in public indicates internal negotiations with the governor's office is at a standstill.

If PEF leadership believes the governor is the obstacle, then they should be meeting with Assembly members, State Senators, and legislative leadership. At some point, I would rather see less money spent on graphics, slogans, and social media campaigns and more effort spent on building coalitions with other unions, lobbying elected officials, developing legislative strategies, and creating political pressure where it actually matters.

That is how you influence policy.

That is how you improve salaries, benefits, and working conditions.

So what's the end game here? Is there an actual strategy behind these posts, or are we just venting with union dues-funded graphics while hoping something changes?

Because from where I'm sitting, professional lobbying and coalition-building seem far more likely to improve our contract than calling the governor names on Facebook.

What are your thoughts?

It seems like every other union is out there taking victory laps and claiming credit for the Tier 6 changes, while PEF has been completely silent and missing in action.

So where exactly are our union dues going?

Too much money seems to be spent on trips (Puerto Rico), conferences, conventions, hotels, meals, and other perks. We have another convention in Niagara Falls this year, and members are footing the bill.

If PEF is serious about representing members and being responsible with our money, here are a few resolutions I'd like to see a convention delegate brave enough to propose:

1. Cut union dues in half.

Reduce dues from 0.9% of gross salary to 0.45% of net (after-tax) pay. Members are already feeling the squeeze from inflation, rising costs (groceries, rent and mortgage), gas, taxes, and Tier 6.

2. Move annual conventions to a virtual format.

It's 2026. We can conduct business online and save members hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel, hotels, meals, and event expenses.

3. Make routine meetings virtual.

Division meetings and similar gatherings do not need to be in-person events with catered meals (filet mignon and chicken parm) and hotel conference rooms. Use Teams or Zoom and save the money.

4. End the inflated union officer salaries.

Why should elected union officers receive compensation equivalent to Grades 27 through 35 while serving in union positions? If your civil service title is Grade 9, then your compensation should reflect your actual title, not a union office.

5. Eliminate Union Leave and Employee Organization Leave (EOL).

If someone truly believes in the union mission, they can perform union activities on their own time like countless volunteers do in other organizations. Too often, EOL looks more like a union member paid vacation than a necessity.

6. Establish term limits.

Maximum of two terms for elected officers. Right now, there are no limits, and the same people can remain in power for years or decades. Fresh leadership brings fresh ideas and accountability.

At some point, members need to ask whether the union exists to serve the membership or whether the membership exists to fund the union leadership.

So here's my question:

Which delegate attending the convention on our dime is willing to introduce these resolutions?

And while we're at it, what resolutions would you like to see passed?

P.S. Before someone says, "Why don't you run for office?" let's be honest about the reality. When the current president and their running mates have access to PEF sponsored meetings, events, communications, and social media platforms that give them constant visibility with members across the state, it creates a significant advantage for incumbents. It's difficult for any challenger or independent slate to compete on a level playing field when one side already has the built-in exposure, name recognition, and access that comes with holding office.