The UPOA’s provisional contract is a solid agreement

As president of the United Probation Officers Association, let me set the record straight on behalf of the members who I proudly represent. Let me be clear: while the union’s tentative contract agreement with the city does not deliver everything we wanted, we bargained in good faith and made significant gains for our officers. I will continue to fight for our members' rights, benefits, and fair treatment — and I will not let misinformation stand in the way.

First, the notion, included in a recent op-ed in this paper, that our work schedules were imposed without consideration of our needs is simply false. What the writers conveniently failed to mention is that the agreement requires discussions about remote work feasibility and increased flexibility in work schedules. This includes, but is not limited to, compressed and flexible scheduling — both designed to enhance recruitment, retention and employee morale. Far from ignoring our concerns, the city has committed to addressing them directly.

On the subject of uniforms, the anonymous op-ed is equally misleading. The Department of Probation is indeed requiring uniforms, but what the writers omit is that the city is paying for them. Not only that, but the contract provides for a $300 annual maintenance allowance for uniforms and a $500 one-time lump-sum payment. The claim that this was some covert operation done “under the table” is laughably incorrect. Ask the city or the probation commissioner directly: the city will pay for the uniforms they require. End of story.

The complaints about pensions and retirement age are another example of willful ignorance. Probation officers do not fall under Section 220 of the labor law’s taxing provisions. Additionally, the retirement age is not set by our collective bargaining agreement — it is set by pension law. If the anonymous writers want to change the retirement age, they should be lobbying the state for a change in law, not attacking union contract negotiations.

The claim that work tours were not addressed in the contract is flat-out wrong. Apparently, those making this assertion didn’t bother to read the information we distributed to our members. We fought for transparency and open negotiations, and we will always continue to push for the best outcomes for our officers.

Regarding salaries, the letter omits critical facts. First, the anonymous writers failed to disclose that the expiring incumbent rate was $52,824, which will now increase to $61,386 as of November 28, 2024 — an increase of over $9,000 per year. Moreover, salaries will increase further over the next year, reaching $81,000 for those hired on or after August 1, 2004, and $84,000 for those hired before that date.

Supervising probation officers also will see substantial raises, with their salaries climbing from $58,866 to $95,100 annually over the course of the contract. Those currently earning above the incumbent rate will receive even more, with some supervising probation officers surpassing $100,000 annually.

On top of that, probation officers are owed and will receive approximately $15,000 in retroactive pay, along with a $4,366 pensionable bonus — for a total of around $20,000. Supervising probation officers will see even more, with approximately $20,000 in retroactive pay and a pensionable bonus of over $5,000, bringing their total to $25,000. Probation assistants and supervising probation assistants will also receive significant retroactive pay and pensionable bonuses, amounting to over $10,000 and $17,000 respectively.

The anonymous op-ed was filled with half-truths and omissions, painting an inaccurate picture of both the contract and the union’s efforts. I will not allow these distortions to go unchallenged. Our union has fought hard for these gains, and we will continue to push for improvements in working conditions and compensation. But we will do so with transparency, integrity and a clear-eyed understanding of what is truly at stake for probation officers in our city.

Dalvanie Powell is president of the United Probation Officers Association.