Vol. 24, No. 2                                                                                       June 20, 2005

BOWEN CAN'T AND WON'T TELL THE TRUTH
BARBARA'S FABRICATIONS, EXAGGERATIONS
AND NUMBERS GAMES

      A glance at some of the recent issues of the Clarion, a peek at the PSC's Web site and a cursory look at the silly communications from PSC local chapters reveal that there are many stories about numerous demonstrations, parades and pickets with repetitious use of such words as 'mobilize,' 'demand,' 'campaign,' 'impasse,' and 'job action,' and plentiful pictures of such dubious characters as Bill Crain (the Gandhi of the PSC), Marxist guru Aronowitz, Queen of Released Time Susan O'Malley, Babbling Barbara Bowen, and Tough Talking Nancy Romer. One might wonder if the PSC's "usual suspects" -- that brotherhood and sisterhood of rapidly aging 60s radicals -- had anything to do besides protesting. Furthermore, these stories carry mind-numbing descriptions of these demos and rallies, and inflated numbers of attendees. (See for example, the picture on page 7 of the January 2005 Clarion claiming 200 attendees).

Although these rallies and demos are in Manhattan, mostly in mid-town, and at such important addresses as Chairman Schmidt's office and Chancellor Goldstein's home, the inattention paid by New York's vibrant mass media is quite interesting. This in a union town hungry for labor news with a media known for its appetite for covering almost any demonstration, large or small. We have seen no reports in print or on local TV and radio about the PSC demos. CUNY One might cover them, of course, but then who watches it? We believe that the New Caucasians' reputation -- in particular Bowen's and London's - is so bad and their credibility is so low that no reporter would want to cover their endless, pointless exhibitions. We suspect that Barbara exaggerates when recounting the numbers. In order to keep her job, the Clarion reporter takes pictures in such a way that it looks like more people are demonstrating than actually are. Barbara then can take her radical buddies to lunch or dinner at the union's expense. Have you ever heard of Barb's rallies being rained out or poorly attended? We have. As far as we can tell, the PSC is printing and posting pictures of massive rallies by Barbara and her "my five" cronies. This does not surprise us, for we all know that she is renowned for NOT TELLING THE TRUTH -- NEVER DID, NEVER WILL.

       PAGES FROM THE PSC PRIMER

Q. WHEN IS A STRIKE NOT A STRIKE?
A. WHEN IT'S A JOB ACTION?

       The Vol. 23, No. 5, May 1st issue of the TPR provided the membership with undisputed proof, from the written words of Barbara's resident mate Tony O'Brien and Marxist guru Aronowitz, that Barbara Bowen, President of the PSC and the disputed leader (Steve London thinks that he is in charge) of the New Caucasians was NOT TELLING THE TRUTH when she stated on the Senate Forum that the PSC Delegate Assembly has neither considered nor voted on a strike. Ever since that time, we have noted a metamorphosis - to whispers and code words, that no one is supposed to understand. We at TPR, however, can hear everything and have agents with eyes and ears every where.

       When, for instance, the DA and the Executive Committee ramble on about resolutions and "job actions," we know what they are chattering about. Their May 26th Resolution Authorizing a Referendum on Job Action includes the clause:

       Resolved, that if the City University of New York fails to agree to a fair contract with the PSC by September 1, 2005, the Executive Council of the PSC will have the authority to determine whether and when to conduct a referendum, either by campus or union-wide, on the question of whether the PSC Executive Council should authorize a job action;

       What, pray tell, might that "job action" be? And why the need for a referendum? If by "job action" Bowen and company mean distributing leaflets, informational pickets, rallies and on-campus demonstrations, why then the need for any additional authorization? Was the recent "Declaration of a State of Emergency" not sufficient? Have all the recent contract related actions been done without sufficient authority? We at TPR think not. But if, as we suspect, "job action" is the New Caucasian code for a strike, then a referendum would make sense. But come on, Barbara, call it what is: a STRIKE VOTE!

      Further, we find the "campus or union wide" phrase to be most interesting. From all that we've read and heard, the union grows ever stronger each passing day. Why then this campus opt-out clause? Surely, the PSC does not want to suggest that the membership is anything but mobilized and militant. Might it be that a university-wide "job action" referendum might fail?

      In the name of clarity, TPR would like to remind the Executive Council, the Delegate Assembly, and the PSC rank and file of the terms of the Taylor Law as explained by New York's Public Employment Relations Board:

http://www.perb.state.ny.us/faq.asp#boa

Frequently Asked Questions About the Taylor Law & Board

Q: What is the Taylor Law?

      A: The Taylor Law (Article 14 of the Civil Service Law) is a comprehensive labor relations statute covering all public employees in New York State. It became effective in 1967 and does the following:
1. grants public employees the right to organize and be represented by a union of their choice, or to refrain therefrom;
2. requires public employers to negotiate with such unions concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees;
3. establishes impasse procedures for the resolution of disputes in negotiations;
4. defines and prohibits improper practices by unions and public employers;
5. prohibits strikes.

Frequently Asked Questions About Strikes

Q: What conduct is prohibited by the Taylor Law's no-strike provisions?

      A: Civil Service Law Section 210 states that "[n]o public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause, instigate, encourage, or condone a strike." In addition, the law states that "[n]o person exercising on behalf of any public employer any authority, supervision or direction over any public employee shall have the power to authorize, approve, condone or consent to a strike, or the engaging in a strike, by one or more public employees, and such person shall not authorize, approve, condone or consent to such strike or engagement."

Q: What is a strike?

      A: The Taylor Law defines a strike as "any strike or other concerted stoppage of work or slowdown by public employees." The Board has found sick-outs, slowdowns, a refusal to work regularly scheduled overtime, concerted high absenteeism, sometimes called the "blue flu," "work-to-rule" tactics, and teachers' refusals to participate in field trips, faculty meetings, and parent-teacher conferences, all to be unlawful strikes in the particular circumstances presented in each case.

Q: Is the reason for a strike relevant to determining whether a strike has occurred?

      A: No. The Board has found strikes in the particular circumstances where employees refused to work in allegedly hazardous and uncomfortable working conditions, because of an alleged lack of the proper safety equipment on the employers' vehicles, and in response to certain administrative policies or procedures.

Q: What is the penalty for striking?

      A: A public employee whose employer determines that he or she has unlawfully engaged in or consented to a strike is liable to have deducted from his or her compensation an amount equal to twice his or her daily rate of pay for each day or part of a day that it is determined that the employee violated Civil Service Law Section 210. This penalty is often referred to as the "two-for-one" penalty. In addition, an employee who unlawfully strikes may be subject to removal or other disciplinary action provided by law for misconduct. The public employer makes the strike determination and imposes these strike penalties.

      A public employee union that violates Civil Service Law Section 210 is liable to forfeit its right to have the public employer deduct membership dues and agency shop fees from the compensation of employees in the bargaining unit that union represents. PERB makes the strike determination and imposes any strike penalty in regard to unions.

      If by "job action" the Executive Committee is planning a "concerted stoppage of work" on a campus or across the university, we wish that they would say so. And before taking any such action, we suggest that they discuss the criminal and civil implications with their newly appointed legal advisor. He, for one, is well aware of the consequences of violating the law.

      THE RUMOR COLUMN: WHO HIRED CHARNY?
THE FINGER POINTING GAME.

      On one CUNY campus, rumor has it that Counselor Charny is not going to be representing the membership. On another campus people have heard that he will only serve as a consultant to the Executive Committee. On yet another campus people are saying that when Charny accompanies the Negotiating Team, attorneys on the management side, knowing his record of conviction and suspension, give him the cold shoulder. No one at the PSC knows what to do with Charny: to keep him or to let him go is a dilemma. To keep him means employing a liability for years to come. To let him go means paying him off with big bucks to go quietly: taken again from your dues money. Everyone is blaming everyone else for hiring him in the first place. Barbara is fingering Steve. Steve is pointing the fingers at Stanley Aronowitz, who spotted him at the Workers Education Center and recommended him to the PSC. Other members of the Executive Committee are blaming Barbara for embarrassing them and members of the DA feel cheated by being kept in the dark. If counselor C. continues with the PSC, people are wondering if they can keep him away from the next year's election and fund raising events. Might he repeat his old catchphrase of "Where is the money?" In the mean time, no one is doing any work at the PSC, and day and nights are filled with gossip and speculations about embattled Barbara's burgeoning scandals.

      NEXT YEAR'S PSC ELECTION:
ARE LONDON AND ARONOWITZ ON THE WAY OUT?

      The rumor that appeared in the Patriot (vol.23, no. 6) that "Solidarity Steve" London may not be on the slate next time 'round is gaining momentum. There have been unconfirmed reports that Charny affair has further strained the already deteriorated relations between Barbara and Steve. Although our Marxist Guru Aronowitz appears to be hearty and healthy, murmurs and rumors have been manufactured about Stanley's breathing and walking problems, as well as a weight gain. As these surface, so do suspicions that the Bowen gang is trying to push him off the Executive Committee and to use his health as an excuse. Within the PSC Politburo, there appears to be a strong sentiment that Aronowitz has not been an asset. Instead he has become a huge liability. The feeling is that it is time to dump him from the ticket. So much for being respectful to your elders.

Forthcoming issues of The Patriot may be accessed at the www.patriotreturns.com Archived editions are available at http://www.patriotreturns/archive.htm.