'Alderman urges mayor not to use FOP president’s mistake to deny police officers a retro pay hike BY Fran Spielman, Chicago Sun-times
A Northwest Side alderman whose ward is home to scores of Chicago Police officers urged Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday not to use a paperwork mistake made by the police union president to deny rank-and-file police officers their automatic right to a retroactive pay raise in 2012.
Ald. Mary O’Connor (41st) said she introduced the resolution at a City Council meeting in response to concerns voiced by police officers who have called her office and stopped her on the street.
“People feel there’s a rift between the mayor and the FOP president and they’re caught in the crossfire,” O’Connor said Wednesday.
“The perception out there is that they are going to lose income because of a deadline that was missed. That should not be the case. It’s a clerical error made by their representative, but it impacts 10,000 police officers. It has an impact on their livelihood and their families. That would not be fair to the police.”
O’Connor said she talked to Emanuel about stalled negotiations with the Fraternal Order of Police and, “The mayor has not implied to me that he wasn’t going to bargain in good faith.” But, that hasn’t stopped police officers in her ward from feeling “a little lost” and a lot concerned.
“The city is strapped. Concessions have to be made both ways. I’m just asking that it be fair. Be respectful of work the officers have done. It’s unfortunate President [Mike] Shields did not abide by the deadline. But, I don’t want that mistake to impact their ability to get their retroactive paycheck.”
Shields, who recently apologized to his membership for his mistake, was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about the resolution.
He would only say, “Chicago Police officers, whom the FOP negotiates for, are very grateful to those aldermen who signed on to this resolution.”
Last year, Shields failed to notify the city between Feb. 1 and March 1 that he intended to terminate the police contract and commence negotiations on a new agreement. If that notice is not given within the one-month window, the contract automatically rolls over for another year.
When the same one-month window rolled around this year, Shields acknowledged his earlier mistake by sending the city the required notice to avoid having the old contract roll over for a second straight year.
That gave Emanuel an opening to declare that, if the FOP wants a pay raise retroactive to June 30, 2012, they’ll have to give up something to get it. It will no longer be automatic.
The move was widely viewed as the mayor’s attempt to get even with Shields for working to torpedo a four-year contract with police sergeants — tied to pension and retiree health-care reform — that Emanuel had hoped to use a road map to solve the city’s pension crisis.
Last month, Shields suffered a major blow in his effort to recoup from the paperwork mistake that threatens to cost the average police officer anywhere from $1,400 for a back pay raise of two percent to $2,100 if it’s three percent.
The executive director of the Il. Labor Relations Board dismissed Shields’ unfair labor practices complaint against the city.
Unfair labor practices complaints must be filed within six months of the alleged unlawful conduct. Like the contract termination letter, the complaint was filed too late. Shields has appealed the ruling.
Shields angrily accused Emanuel of unfairly punishing rank-and-file police officers in an effort to silence their feisty union president.
“It’s personal against me because I’m one of two people in the city of Chicago who has spoken out against Mayor Emanuel and his administration,” Shields said then, identifying Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis as the other mayoral critic.
Shields said the same oversight was made by CTA ironworkers, but Emanuel “did not stick it to them.”
He added, “This is a very vicious and vindictive move by the mayor and it comes at a time when police officers are being faced with greater challenges on the streets of Chicago and they think the mayor is gonna screw them.”
Ald. Mary O’Connor (41st) said she introduced the resolution at a City Council meeting in response to concerns voiced by police officers who have called her office and stopped her on the street.
“People feel there’s a rift between the mayor and the FOP president and they’re caught in the crossfire,” O’Connor said Wednesday.
“The perception out there is that they are going to lose income because of a deadline that was missed. That should not be the case. It’s a clerical error made by their representative, but it impacts 10,000 police officers. It has an impact on their livelihood and their families. That would not be fair to the police.”
O’Connor said she talked to Emanuel about stalled negotiations with the Fraternal Order of Police and, “The mayor has not implied to me that he wasn’t going to bargain in good faith.” But, that hasn’t stopped police officers in her ward from feeling “a little lost” and a lot concerned.
“The city is strapped. Concessions have to be made both ways. I’m just asking that it be fair. Be respectful of work the officers have done. It’s unfortunate President [Mike] Shields did not abide by the deadline. But, I don’t want that mistake to impact their ability to get their retroactive paycheck.”
Shields, who recently apologized to his membership for his mistake, was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about the resolution.
He would only say, “Chicago Police officers, whom the FOP negotiates for, are very grateful to those aldermen who signed on to this resolution.”
Last year, Shields failed to notify the city between Feb. 1 and March 1 that he intended to terminate the police contract and commence negotiations on a new agreement. If that notice is not given within the one-month window, the contract automatically rolls over for another year.
When the same one-month window rolled around this year, Shields acknowledged his earlier mistake by sending the city the required notice to avoid having the old contract roll over for a second straight year.
That gave Emanuel an opening to declare that, if the FOP wants a pay raise retroactive to June 30, 2012, they’ll have to give up something to get it. It will no longer be automatic.
The move was widely viewed as the mayor’s attempt to get even with Shields for working to torpedo a four-year contract with police sergeants — tied to pension and retiree health-care reform — that Emanuel had hoped to use a road map to solve the city’s pension crisis.
Last month, Shields suffered a major blow in his effort to recoup from the paperwork mistake that threatens to cost the average police officer anywhere from $1,400 for a back pay raise of two percent to $2,100 if it’s three percent.
The executive director of the Il. Labor Relations Board dismissed Shields’ unfair labor practices complaint against the city.
Unfair labor practices complaints must be filed within six months of the alleged unlawful conduct. Like the contract termination letter, the complaint was filed too late. Shields has appealed the ruling.
Shields angrily accused Emanuel of unfairly punishing rank-and-file police officers in an effort to silence their feisty union president.
“It’s personal against me because I’m one of two people in the city of Chicago who has spoken out against Mayor Emanuel and his administration,” Shields said then, identifying Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis as the other mayoral critic.
Shields said the same oversight was made by CTA ironworkers, but Emanuel “did not stick it to them.”
He added, “This is a very vicious and vindictive move by the mayor and it comes at a time when police officers are being faced with greater challenges on the streets of Chicago and they think the mayor is gonna screw them.”
This is so orchestrated to save O'Connor and the Mayor.
ReplyDeleteSomebody needs to tell O'Connor that the cops beef is with the incompetent leadership of their Union.
ReplyDeleteOMG what a joke. Rahm knows he can't hold back the retro pay and get any union boots on the ground or votes. Please don't start kissing O'Connor. Rahm manages by crisis. He is using this for his benefit through O'Connor who has been nothing but a lap dog.
ReplyDeleteSo, O'Connor was approached by the dozen or so cops left in the 16th district? Where is she when we need someone to fight for more officers? We have lost more than half the police who work in the district, and she is doing a media suck up?
ReplyDeleteLook at O'Connor's voting record. She has voted with the Mayor > 100%. This resolution was created, stamped and approved by Rahm to earn a few votes. So twisted. If O'Connor really cared about the police, she would make sure there are enough of them
ReplyDeleteThis is a non-binding resolution. It means squat, legally.
ReplyDeleteThis morning city hall announced a new hotline number for citizen complaints regarding O'Hare jet noise and/or camera speeding tickets. Just dial 1-666-screw-you.
ReplyDeleteI must have missed the aldermans' resolution in support of striking teachers. And somehow I missed her resolution in support of the fired union janitors at O'Hare. Those janitors were replaced by migratory workers employed by a mobbed-up contractor. Somehow I also missed her resolution supporting Fire fighters' Local 2, working without a contract for quite some time. Keep up the good work Alderman.
ReplyDeleteWhere was O'Connor's support for teachers? This stunt was meant to divide the police union further. Sounds like something Rahm would create and use Alderman O'Connor for.
ReplyDeleteSmart note 8:08am, this is a non-binding resolution. It's a feel good to win over dumb cops. Wake up, you are being played.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder Spasato is keeping his distance. Resolution makes cops look like idiots and divides union workers. Good for you aldermen who won't sign on.
ReplyDeleteBest advice for cops- stick together against Rahm, no matter what. Just like the teachers union. Have your differences but don't let on to the "divide and conquer king". Remember, the teachers beat Rahm and made him look like the idiot he is because they styed together. This "non-binding" resolution was a gift given to O'Connor, nothing more.
ReplyDeleteSpasoto knew this was a politically motivated move - good for him. Taking advantage of a clerical error to screw cops would have made Rahm look like the real monster he is. And that he would play this out using his little pawn, O'Connor is nauseating
ReplyDeleteSposato signed on...
DeleteInteresting, Second City ran with your 8am comment about the resolution being non-binding.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe the cops don't see through this.
ReplyDeleteI think Mary thinks doing this will show support. Not everything is political!
ReplyDeleteI think the coppers are being played
ReplyDeleteeveryone in the media knows a Rahm play when they see it, and they are steering clear.
ReplyDeleteThis woman is a total goof! On her way out the door...she can't even get as much as a light pole painted!! Call her office and all you get are bull shit answers from her lackeys that could care less about the police. What did you do about the o hare noise and new runway Mary?? Did Quigley even call you or you him? Your a one n done alderman...you do nothing. Stop grandstanding in the paper on the police department issues...your hurting us by bringing up old problems of comments by mike shields vs rham. Keep your nose out of OUR business and worry about the ward period.
ReplyDeleteI am a teacher. I called the alderman's office during the CTU strike and never heard back. Why doesn't the alderman support all city workers? Unless this has absolutely nothing to do with supporting city workers and more to do with dividing the FOP. Yep, that's it. FOP is now negotiating with the alderman directly? Is Mary O'Connor now in charge of the police union contract negotiations. Like everything else Rahm does, he does it in the media. Smells rotten.
ReplyDeleteRahm, always negotiates in the media. He threw out this carrot because he wants to ream FOP for more. Just wait. Rahm never gives without wanting ten fold back. And the entire city council waddling behind him, means the ten fold get back will be HUGE.
ReplyDeleteThe whole issue has to do with police officers running for 41st ward and other alder "maniac" seats. Shields is also facing an election and the mayor doesn't want a strong man as FOP President. The mayor prefers Shields as he knows how to intellectually beat him. It's all snoke and mirrors.
ReplyDelete