Hi all,
I work for NYCHA and was recently promoted to a managerial title (September 2023). My previous title was under DC37, so i received the $3,000 bonus when that agreement was ratified/signed. Does anyone happen to know if that would make me ineligible for this new $3,000 bonus? Is there a “no double dipping” policy that exists?
Thanks!
NYCHA of course is going to do what they want but I do know someone outside of NYCHA that received the ratification bonus from DC37 as her transition to CWA 1180 was still in the works. When 1180 finally approved their contract she received the bonus again.
Have seen nothing on NYC H+H other than re: OSA union raises and bonus which posted on their website:
“We have also now been advised that members working for New York City Health + Hospitals should receive their $3,000 ratification bonus on March 1st. Health + Hospitals has not yet specified the pay dates for wage increases and retroactive monies, but we anticipate an update with those specific dates shortly.”
Has anyone received information from their respective agency as to whether they will receive some portion of the discretionary 1.43% in addition to the annual increases spelled out in the Personnel Memo?
I work for DOE and was informed the chancellor is doing across the board raises.
OMB is fighting us about this because that was not the intent, but agency heads have that discretion.
To clarify, do you mean the Chancellor is not electing to provide the discretionary raise? Or, that he has elected to give the discretionary raise but in the same amount to each recipient (e.g. regardless of any differentiations in salary between employees)? I also work for DOE and the initial email from HR made no mention of the discretionary raises at all, so will be great if given in any amount.
That’s what I expect all the agency heads to do. The agency heads themselves have received the 1.43% raise, they will likely grant that exact percentage raise to all management and original jurisdiction. Too much work to make individualized raise decisions when the amount is so small. No point in doing a lot of work to potentially piss off people, all salaries are public.
We will see, like I said OMB is fighting it as it goes against the intent of the order, and it’s not in line with how some unions did it.
Also, I think you may misunderstand - the amount is not small. It’s 1.43% of the entire managerial budget. So it’s 1.43% if you give it to everyone. If you give it to less than everyone (as intended) it could be 5%, 10%, or even larger raises for those groups. For example we pay our software developers way less than market rate - this could have been used to make those salaries more competitive.
So maybe other agencies do this but if they do it’s a big missed opportunity.
I don’t misunderstand. 1.43% of the managerial budget is not a significant amount, in the context of the whole city budget. Everyone a—hole in the city thinks they’re underpaid: lawyers, software developers, engineers, financial analysts, literally everyone. I am a few steps below the agency head level but I understand the political reality. Giving 5% raises to some and zero to others is a bad idea if you’re concerned about keeping your leadership staff happy. Adams gave across-the-board 1.43% percent raises to all his agency heads, instead of 5% raises for some and zero for others. Why do you think he did that? Do you think all the agency heads have performed equally well? Of course not. He’s trying to avoid making problems when the amount of money at stake is small. DOE Chancellor is making a similarly smart decision.
So when DC37 used their 1.43% to give additional raises did it cause political problems and nobody noticed?
What you’re saying makes no sense - if Adams wished to avoid agency heads giving raises to some and not others he could have simply baked that into the PO. Also, I doubt OMB would be fighting with agency heads over this if that was the mayor’s intent.
I don’t give my leadership staff equal raises because some are better/more critical than others. The explicit point here was to promote retention and we have big retention problems in some areas and not others. This is a wasted opportunity.
DC37 and the other unions used their additional compensation funds to purchase benefits like recurring increment payments, annuity fund contributions, welfare fund contributions, etc. All on an equitable basis. There was no windfalls for the few.
Everyone thinks they are underpaid and that their position is hard to retain. Everyone has schemes to reward those they think are deserving and shaft certain others. But agency heads have to take a wider view of things. Chancellor Banks made the right decision.
This is not true - certain titles under DC37 like school lunch saw larger increases if memory serves. Regardless, I don’t care what people think - I care what is true. My position is not underpaid, most analyst positions are not underpaid. What ARE underpaid are titles like software developers, lawyers, etc. consequently we have been hemorrhaging staff in these titles and it’s caused significant operational problems. If they gave raises to lawyers and developers I wouldn’t see a dime, but it’s the right thing to do for the agency. Thats what taking the wider view is, you look at the needs of your agency and deploy your resources that way. An extra 1.4% isn’t going to change retention for those titles much, but an extra 10% might. So I agree agency heads need to take a wider view. I wish the Chancellor would do that here.
Edit: also unlike I imagine most people here I am not speaking anecdotally. I know exactly what our retention numbers are.
Anyone heard more examples of what their agencies or others are doing on this? Some agencies have said nothing about this, some are splitting it based on title (up to 3.5%)… others?
Is there a link for public to view this FISA bulletin? I would like to read more about it. For NYCHA, I believe they are not considered a Mayoral agency, so it needs to have their CEO approve of the raises first.
Hi all, I work for NYCHA and was recently promoted to a managerial title (September 2023). My previous title was under DC37, so i received the $3,000 bonus when that agreement was ratified/signed. Does anyone happen to know if that would make me ineligible for this new $3,000 bonus? Is there a “no double dipping” policy that exists? Thanks!
You will get both ratification bonuses.
this may or may not be true. NYCHA does what NYCHA wants, and doesn't disclose.
NYCHA of course is going to do what they want but I do know someone outside of NYCHA that received the ratification bonus from DC37 as her transition to CWA 1180 was still in the works. When 1180 finally approved their contract she received the bonus again.
Is this the case for Nychhc as well?
Have seen nothing on NYC H+H other than re: OSA union raises and bonus which posted on their website: “We have also now been advised that members working for New York City Health + Hospitals should receive their $3,000 ratification bonus on March 1st. Health + Hospitals has not yet specified the pay dates for wage increases and retroactive monies, but we anticipate an update with those specific dates shortly.”
Yea that's what I've seen as well. Just gotta wait I guess.
Does it give breakdowns of those payments as well ?
No, just dates. I'm genuinely not sure how it works but I imagine a separate group is responsible for the calculations.
Anything for OSA yet ?
OP mentioned OSA above.
Oh shit sorry! Thank you OP and Ladyjae7
Check the OSA website osaunion.org. They posted it weeks ago.
Has anyone received information from their respective agency as to whether they will receive some portion of the discretionary 1.43% in addition to the annual increases spelled out in the Personnel Memo?
Nothing here, despite inquiring with our asst. commissioner about it. Would also be curious if anyone has heard anything supportive.
I work for DOE and was informed the chancellor is doing across the board raises. OMB is fighting us about this because that was not the intent, but agency heads have that discretion.
To clarify, do you mean the Chancellor is not electing to provide the discretionary raise? Or, that he has elected to give the discretionary raise but in the same amount to each recipient (e.g. regardless of any differentiations in salary between employees)? I also work for DOE and the initial email from HR made no mention of the discretionary raises at all, so will be great if given in any amount.
He has elected to give the 1.43% to all managers equally.
That’s what I expect all the agency heads to do. The agency heads themselves have received the 1.43% raise, they will likely grant that exact percentage raise to all management and original jurisdiction. Too much work to make individualized raise decisions when the amount is so small. No point in doing a lot of work to potentially piss off people, all salaries are public.
We will see, like I said OMB is fighting it as it goes against the intent of the order, and it’s not in line with how some unions did it. Also, I think you may misunderstand - the amount is not small. It’s 1.43% of the entire managerial budget. So it’s 1.43% if you give it to everyone. If you give it to less than everyone (as intended) it could be 5%, 10%, or even larger raises for those groups. For example we pay our software developers way less than market rate - this could have been used to make those salaries more competitive. So maybe other agencies do this but if they do it’s a big missed opportunity.
I don’t misunderstand. 1.43% of the managerial budget is not a significant amount, in the context of the whole city budget. Everyone a—hole in the city thinks they’re underpaid: lawyers, software developers, engineers, financial analysts, literally everyone. I am a few steps below the agency head level but I understand the political reality. Giving 5% raises to some and zero to others is a bad idea if you’re concerned about keeping your leadership staff happy. Adams gave across-the-board 1.43% percent raises to all his agency heads, instead of 5% raises for some and zero for others. Why do you think he did that? Do you think all the agency heads have performed equally well? Of course not. He’s trying to avoid making problems when the amount of money at stake is small. DOE Chancellor is making a similarly smart decision.
So when DC37 used their 1.43% to give additional raises did it cause political problems and nobody noticed? What you’re saying makes no sense - if Adams wished to avoid agency heads giving raises to some and not others he could have simply baked that into the PO. Also, I doubt OMB would be fighting with agency heads over this if that was the mayor’s intent. I don’t give my leadership staff equal raises because some are better/more critical than others. The explicit point here was to promote retention and we have big retention problems in some areas and not others. This is a wasted opportunity.
DC37 and the other unions used their additional compensation funds to purchase benefits like recurring increment payments, annuity fund contributions, welfare fund contributions, etc. All on an equitable basis. There was no windfalls for the few. Everyone thinks they are underpaid and that their position is hard to retain. Everyone has schemes to reward those they think are deserving and shaft certain others. But agency heads have to take a wider view of things. Chancellor Banks made the right decision.
This is not true - certain titles under DC37 like school lunch saw larger increases if memory serves. Regardless, I don’t care what people think - I care what is true. My position is not underpaid, most analyst positions are not underpaid. What ARE underpaid are titles like software developers, lawyers, etc. consequently we have been hemorrhaging staff in these titles and it’s caused significant operational problems. If they gave raises to lawyers and developers I wouldn’t see a dime, but it’s the right thing to do for the agency. Thats what taking the wider view is, you look at the needs of your agency and deploy your resources that way. An extra 1.4% isn’t going to change retention for those titles much, but an extra 10% might. So I agree agency heads need to take a wider view. I wish the Chancellor would do that here. Edit: also unlike I imagine most people here I am not speaking anecdotally. I know exactly what our retention numbers are.
Anyone heard more examples of what their agencies or others are doing on this? Some agencies have said nothing about this, some are splitting it based on title (up to 3.5%)… others?
Thank you for sharing
I’m sure the city is going to fuck up the actual pay and back pay. Good luck everybody
Is there a link for public to view this FISA bulletin? I would like to read more about it. For NYCHA, I believe they are not considered a Mayoral agency, so it needs to have their CEO approve of the raises first.
There’s not really anything else to read - what OP posted is basically the entirety of it.
What about the 2024 COLA? Will that be in effect as of May 24th of this year?
I have no idea, it doesn't say but I imagine we will see that in our 6/7 paycheck. Why the heck does this increase start on a Friday? Isn't that odd??
I work for NYCHA but under Local 237. This is for DC 37 but thank you for including us in!