CWA 1180 - HRA Watch

HRA Watch

Shame on you, HRA!
Poor planning, broken promises, more work plague AJOS workers
September 2004

"I took the title because this was the only way to get a promotion, to move from a level I to a level II," explained Kathy Simmons about why she became an Associate Job Opportunity Specialist (AJOS) at the Human Resources Administration (HRA). She also did not want to face a transfer from the Crotona Job Center where she works in the Bronx to some other center, possibly far away. So the second reason was "because I have a young child and wanted to be close to home."

But none of the promises that HRA made about better pay, promotions, or workloads turned out to be true. "They told us all this rhetoric, but their word is really null and void. I think it's sad that we are in an agency where their word means nothing."

Shirley Davis, who also works at Crotona, refused to take the new AJOS position when it was created three years ago. "They didn't offer anything positive," she says, adding that she didn't believe management's promises. "All they offered was more work." Looking back now, she says "the city didn't keep any of the promises it made to those people."

Three years after the creation of the Job Opportunity Specialist (JOS) title series, 1180 members say, it has been nothing but a disaster. The centers are in chaos and none of the benefits the agency touted about the job have come true. Clients and workers are both paying the price: Workloads have increased and client services have deteriorated.

"It looks like just what I perceived," said Davis. "A lot of work, no money. And [the agency] threatening workers, 'if you don't do this, you're going to lose your job.' There's no improvement in client services. In fact, it's worse. People are stressed out. Clients are here more often, there's more fair hearings." Like Davis, Local 1180 leaders predicted that no good would come of the title and raised many questions when HRA first announced it was implementing it. Indeed, the union opposed the creation of the title and advised members not to take it.

In theory, the idea of the JOS title series was to combine the employment and eligibility pieces of public assistance work, a "single case management" model. There is nothing inherently wrong with that idea—but at the same time, that idea doesn't magically solve problems either. For instance, as 1180 members pointed out then and now, creating a new title doesn't address the chronic and systemic understaffing problem at HRA. Restructuring is no substitute for adequate resources. And by all accounts, HRA implemented this idea with a breathtaking lack of forethought.

"When you actually asked them questions, they turned beet red and then they'd say it's time to go," recalled Karen Wilkinson, a shop steward at the Linden Job Center, about HRA management's initial push to get workers to take the new titles. "They could not tell you what the salary was going to be, the benefits, who the union was going to be. It was gray what you were going to do, it was not clear what the job was, they didn't have tasks and standards initially. We were asking intelligent questions and they did not have answers. That is why I did not join," she added.

"AJOS, JOS was a good idea but it wasn't implemented properly," opined Jacqueline Gaskin from the Linden Center, saying she could see the vision former HRA Commissioner Jason Turner had in terms of combining eligibility and employment. But "it wasn't thought out properly. If they had done it the way it was supposed to be, if they had gone through the union, it would be OK. You wouldn't have all these disgruntled workers, the salaries would be straightened out. Their biggest mistake was not to work with the union. They just said, we're going to skip the union, and browbeat people into doing it. If they hadn't done that, we wouldn't have the chaos we have now."

Local 1180 members and officials had several concerns at the time. First of all, they knew that creating an agency-specific title would trap people in HRA. As PAAs, members at HRA could take jobs in other agencies, but as AJOS, they are stuck forever in HRA. Second, it was clear that HRA had only vague and inadequate plans to train workers for the new positions. Gaskin says she received a total of only five days of training, for instance. Third, the union was concerned about HRA rushing into this new title series without considering the consequences of not resolving jurisdictional issues. There are members from DC 37's Local 371 and Local 1549 in the AJOS title as well as 1180 members. The 'plan' (such as it was) was to leave everyone represented by the union from which they came until the jurisdictional issue was settled; this also meant that people doing the exact same jobs, working side by side, would be paid different salaries, depending on whether they were from 371 or 1180 or newly hired off the street.

When the JOS title series was announced, 1180 raised all these issues with HRA management. It also raised them with members, and as noted, urged them to reject the title. The union produced a series of informational flyers, as well as a cover story in the March 2001 Communique, and staff reps held shop meetings to discuss the issue. Meanwhile, Local 1180 filed a grievance to stop implementation of the title; the union's position was and is that AJOS work is PAA work and that creating this whole new title is unnecessary and unwarranted. In May 2001, the union won a temporary restraining order barring HRA from implementing the title. The restraining order was almost immediately stayed, however, when HRA appealed the decision. The grievance itself is winding its way through the notoriously slow grievance process.

On the jurisdiction issue, Local 1180 filed a petition to represent the AJOS title, as did Local 371. Over a year of hearings were held at the Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB) on the issue and thousands of pages of legal documentation submitted. Now everyone is waiting for a recommendation from the OCB hearing officer. OCB could assign the title to one union or another, or it could order an election between the two unions, an outcome most 1180 observers think more likely.

While all the legal processes were going on, Local 1180 was also busy on the ground, helping members who turned down the title resist HRA bullying, and helping those who took it make the best of a bad situation. Resistance to the title from 1180 members was widespread, and HRA management soon became desperate to find workers to buy into their ill-conceived scheme. As noted, they promised more money and better promotional opportunities. They even tried to implement a merit pay scheme that was a direct violation of the union contract, which already sets out criteria for merit pay; the union grieved and won that issue. In addition to these promises, HRA management also made threats and were generally very heavy-handed about trying to pressure workers into taking the new titles. Top HRA officials, including Turner, showed up repeatedly at welfare centers to personally pressure workers to take the jobs.

Gaskin says she took the title because "you basically had to if you wanted to stay in your location. You were told to take it if you don't want to be shipped out to West Bubblehell."

Gaskin's experience was shared by many others who took the title. Deborah Friedman, who works at the Linden Job Center, said an HRA manager, Mr. Gold, "bothered us to death with the might-get-transferred thing."

One worker even said she was threatened with blacklisting. "I took it because I was told I could be blacklisted if I didn't, in terms of being able to move up."

Others took the title because they were promised money or promotions. Maria Claudia, from Crotona, said she did it "for the money, the promise of money."

Janice Mann from Linden said, "they told us one thing [about the money] but it was completely different."

Crotona Shop Steward Pearl Joachim, who herself did not take the job, explained, "some people took it for promotions. They dangled that in front of people."

Unfortunately, every concern the union had about why the title might be bad for workers and bad for clients has been borne out. "If I want to get out of HRA, I can't," said Evelyn Dupree, from Linden, "and I want out."

"An equalization of pay between the titles hasn't happened. We've gotten none of it. Just more work," says Claudia.

Valerie Jarvis from Crotona, meanwhile, commented, "I don't see the opportunities to advance."

Crotona member Zeneida Valdez said, "it's more work. Much more work. They said it was going to be a caseload of 75, that we were going to have more opportunity to work with clients. It hasn't happened! It has affected the clients, because the more work the workers have, the less time they have for the clients."

Charles Villegas, who works at the Crotona Job Center, echoed what others had said. He recalled that management was "threatening to send people off. 'This is the only way you're going to stay in your center.'" As for the promises of money and promotions, he said, "I didn't believe any of it. They lied through their teeth. Big time."

Asked if there was any good that came out of the creation of the JOS title series, any positive for either workers or clients, Villegas responded first with a long silence. Then he said, "My mother said if you don't have anything good to say about someone, don't say anything."

Back to HRA Watch Page