Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heaven forbid Newsday actually do its dang job and provide an in-depth analysis of such things.
However, I would imagine it's at the current rate. Others have said the number of days on a payout is capped. Besides, given the length of time it takes to get to retirement, I seriously doubt anyone has sick days left over from their years as a rookie or newjack. You're talking 20-odd years of service.
Likewise, when you take a sick day now, they pay you the salary you are currently earning, so why would a payout on final leave it be any different?
The payout use to capped. Caps were put in place during the Suozzi administration due to the very high payouts during Gullotta's tenure. Mangano then removed those caps
The payout use to capped. Caps were put in place during the Suozzi administration due to the very high payouts during Gullotta's tenure. Mangano then removed those caps
For everyone? Or just the old salts to get 'em out of there?
For everyone? Or just the old salts to get 'em out of there?
The caps were removed period, for everyone. The "get em out of there" old salts type thing got an additional incentive to retire in addition to the caps on the payouts being removed across the board.
First, Cablevision is exploitative when it comes to Newsday. Also, when you read the link, you'll see a few familiar names that have come up on threads like this in the past, like "Suozzi"--who was no friend to law enforcement. Connect the dots, and you have the pot-stirring that others in this thread have mentioned.
Second, every newspaper in the country has fallen apart. Long story short--and I'm not sure if Newsday specifically does this--but when you have interns (free labor) and cubs (no experience but cheap) reporting on contentious issues, this is what happens. Also, more media are buying material packaged by scrub pay-per-click outfits like Demand Media, most of which is written by amateurs, stay-at-home moms, and hobbyists who think getting pennies on a word is acceptable and who have zero training in research and reporting. Again, not sure if Newsday does this, but I wouldn't be surprised. While intern abuse and third-party packaging happens with almost every "beat," it's more detrimental to the important beats like politics, government, crime, civics, economics, and health than it is for fluff like fashion and entertainment. Given Newsday's constant advertising for writers and editors, I can only imagine what their process is over there.
Yes, the story with Newsday specifically is that they (Cablevision) have been feuding with the union that Newsday reporters and other workers are in (Local 406 of the Teamsters Newspaper, Magazine, and Electronic Media Workers Division) and quality has suffered greatly as a result of the low morale and infighting. In this case, I think that Cablevision expecting a 10% paycut is wrong, especially when Cablevision hired SUOZZI for a cushy high level (7 figures + perks) "consulting gig" with one of their divisions. What experience does Suozzi have in media? But what he lacks in experience, he makes up for with CRONYISM with the Dolans. And so it goes! If you were a good and experienced reporter, would you want a job with Newsday? No way! As for the rest of the stuff you are saying in general, yes, it sucks that something that is a SKILL like reporting has been commoditized to piecework like it has. Turns out to be GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avienne
And I don't like your employer's new practice. "Lump leave" is another reason for the measure before Congress that will require employers with more than X number of employees to specifically designate and offer X number of hours as sick leave to be earned for X number of hours worked. Basically, it comes down to 7 sick days a year for full-time employees of every company but small businesses and start-ups. Greed being what it is, I'm sure some companies will cheap out and then cut back on the amount of vacation time they offer to compensate, but in my socialist utopia, there would be minimums for vacation leave, too.
My employer formerly had 7 sick days and then a vacation schedule that started with 3 weeks a year at hire and after 3 years of service increases to 4 weeks, etc. When they made the move to all purpose leave, they still gave us the same number of days, just in bulk. I don't find it bad. In any job I usually never took the full amount of sick time given per year anyway because I don't get sick that often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avienne
It's ironic: In the places where I worked that had generous leave and benefits, people were loyal, dedicated, and happy in their jobs. Even though we had the time, we had to be forced to take it. It's a psychological thing--it's nice to know it's there if you need it, and it's motivating to know that the organization understands you have a life outside of work. They considered their generosity as an investment in well-rested employees, and it worked. I think police deserve the same kind of investment. I sure wouldn't want an overworked stress-bomb to be the one answering a call for a crime in progress against me.
OTOH, the places where benefits were tight and cheap had lousy morale and high turnover. Turnover might be different now, with slave-driving companies trying to get as much productivity for the least amount of give: They figure people will just bend over and take it because the economy is so lousy and jobs are scarce. But you can bet morale still sucks. When people feel unappreciated and like they have no power or control over their time, like it or not, ethical or not, they get subversive. They steal office supplies. They play solitaire on the computer. If the phone rings at 4:58, they let it go to voicemail, instead of taking the call and staying until 5:10 to handle it. They post on C-D on company time. It's GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). In turn, companies clamp down even more.
Mark my words: When the tides turn, those are the very companies that will be complaining about how good help is hard to find. You read it here first.
I am wondering IF the tide will turn to a better and more secure employment situation for the middle class in America or if high unemployment IS going to be the "new reality" of having so many jobs commoditized by globalization and automation. Some experts think the trend is more towards "casual employment" where nobody really works for anybody and is only called in when needed and only paid for exactly what hours they work (no vacation, no sick time, no holidays, no benefits). The growth of the temp agencies with companies using them to "employ" people for years certainly points towards that. Take this book, for instance:
Come to think of it, you are a "free agent" yourself but the difference is by your choice and for many, this may very well not be by choice, but more like what is described in Chapter 13, which discusses "Temp Slaves and Permatemps."
The caps were removed period, for everyone. The "get em out of there" old salts type thing got an additional incentive to retire in addition to the caps on the payouts being removed across the board.
So then you won't have a lot of people calling in sick just to take a day, and therefore requiring someone else to work OT.
Of course, you might also have people sneezing their winter colds into the air, too.
I am not sure what companies your talking about regarding things like mental health days but most companies don't have a replacement on standby ready to come in, if someone calls in sick its an impact. They need to compete and if the system is abused they won't last long. Sick leave is an insurance policy and if it is abused it needs to be addressed.
Sick leave should not be turned into bonus pay at retirement, if they abuse it during their career they need to be held accountable just as they would in any workplace.
Most private companies don't hire replacement personnel when someone calls in sick. The police department, as a 24/7 public safety agency, needs to ensure sufficient staffing is present to do the job. Officers who call in sick are replaced -- on overtime because there are a limited number of bodies to go around. Since cops are contractually entitled to a number of days of sick leave each year, it is clearly in the Department's interest to pay straight time to a retiring officer who doesn't use sick leave he is entitled to than it is to pay overtime to his replacement.
The issue of sick leave in the police department is handled quite differently than in the civilian world. An officer who calls in sick must remain confined to his residence for the period he is sick and cannot leave without express permission from a supervisor. Any officer who calls in sick can expect to be visited by a supervisor at any time of his confinement in order to verify that he is indeed sick (and home). And any officer who abuses sick leave can expect to have a number of sanctions placed on him: things like being ordered to report to the police surgeon at Headquarters each time he calls in sick; or being denied the opportunity to work any overtime while designated a sick leave abuser.
Private industry practices are not necessarily applicable to nor interchangeable with government practices. There's a reason that the academics study both "business administration" and "public administration." Two very different animals.
The caps were removed period, for everyone. The "get em out of there" old salts type thing got an additional incentive to retire in addition to the caps on the payouts being removed across the board.
The contractual caps on termination pay were temporarily lifted in order to provide additional incentive for retirements. Once the incentive expires, the caps return.
Most private companies don't hire replacement personnel when someone calls in sick. The police department, as a 24/7 public safety agency, needs to ensure sufficient staffing is present to do the job. Officers who call in sick are replaced -- on overtime because there are a limited number of bodies to go around. Since cops are contractually entitled to a number of days of sick leave each year, it is clearly in the Department's interest to pay straight time to a retiring officer who doesn't use sick leave he is entitled to than it is to pay overtime to his replacement.
The issue of sick leave in the police department is handled quite differently than in the civilian world. An officer who calls in sick must remain confined to his residence for the period he is sick and cannot leave without express permission from a supervisor. Any officer who calls in sick can expect to be visited by a supervisor at any time of his confinement in order to verify that he is indeed sick (and home). And any officer who abuses sick leave can expect to have a number of sanctions placed on him: things like being ordered to report to the police surgeon at Headquarters each time he calls in sick; or being denied the opportunity to work any overtime while designated a sick leave abuser.
Private industry practices are not necessarily applicable to nor interchangeable with government practices. There's a reason that the academics study both "business administration" and "public administration." Two very different animals.
The police are not the only ones with that practice. NYC Sanitation does the same thing to garbagemen.
These policies make it very unattractive to call in sick without good reason ... nobody will get away with going fishing!
So why is a "retirement bonus" windfall necessary for some people on top of that?
The contractual caps on termination pay were temporarily lifted in order to provide additional incentive for retirements. Once the incentive expires, the caps return.
For the time being it was removed for everyone and Mangano offered no timetable on when the caps would be put back into place.
For the time being it was removed for everyone and Mangano offered no timetable on when the caps would be put back into place.
Apparently you're not as current as you think you are. The caps are back in place. The incentive has expired.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Lump leave" is another reason for the measure before Congress that will require employers with more than X number of employees to specifically designate and offer X number of hours as sick leave to be earned for X number of hours worked. Basically, it comes down to 7 sick days a year for full-time employees of every company but small businesses and start-ups. Greed being what it is, I'm sure some companies will cheap out and then cut back on the amount of vacation time they offer to compensate, but in my socialist utopia, there would be minimums for vacation leave, too.
