Laying off Doormen

There are many fine management-side labor attorneys in New York City. If your question is more than academic, you ought to ask one of them.

When I went to see Griffin Court last year, the sales rep really emphasized their state-of-the-art video intercom system ("virtual doorman"). When I asked why a bldg. w/ a 24-7 doorman would need such an expensive and unnecessary system, she responded, "Given the economy, we never know if we can continue to pay our doormen. So, this will come in handy when we decide to do without them."

I am not really sure about the union issues, but, I suppose this particular developer/management company thought that was possible...

JacksonHole, if the employees are represented by the union, see the contract at http://www.rabolr.com/sites/default/files/2010%20Apartment%20Building%20Agreement.pdf

The building could theoretically decide to fire everyone and break the contract, and thereby break federal law (not "union rules") but that'd end up costing much more than it'd save.

Griffin Court may be non-union now, but there's nothing to prevent the employees from choosing to be represented by the union.

We tend to forget that management also have some rights...If you restructure your workforce due to economic reasons it is perfectly legit. Of course if unions rule the world it is a different issue.

I'm not a lawyer, and so don't take this as legal advice, but the age of the building probably comes into play. If there are older RS tenants in the building, and the building cuts a doorman shift, those tenants could (and probably would) sue the building over the reduction in services.

See a lawyer.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Ali, I'm not a real estate expert, but what is RS in "older RS tenants..."???

RS = rent stabilized

Probably no need for a lawsuit. DHCR can grant a rent reduction.

Barring what Ali said about reduction in services for RS/RC tenants, it's extremely rare for any union contract to dictate staffing levels to management.

In other words, management is free to eliminate positions at their discretion.

Ali:

You're correct. If building had doormen at time rent-stabilized tenants initially
leased, ending doorman service constitutes a diminution in services which entitles
the tenants to a DHCR-determined rent rollback.

That is a problem which sometimes comes up in Coops when the Coop board makes changes
such as replacing manually operated elevators with modern ones.

"That is a problem which sometimes comes up in Coops when the Coop board makes changes
such as replacing manually operated elevators with modern ones."

Honestly??

It's this kind of absurdity that gives rent-controlled/rent-stabilized tenants a bad name -- if you're going to cry "dimunition of services" when you're forced to have to push your own elevator buttons.

If you cannot afford to live in a doorman building then maybe you should look else where.

rb, so then it essentially becomes a problem of the relative strength of the varying constituencies, right? If I as an investor have purchased certain apartments from the original sponsor, and those apartments are occupied by RS tenants, I don't necessarily want my building's board to reduce services and stick me with having to offer my tenants a rent rollback on what are probably already cash-flow-negative apartments.

Certainly in buildings I've lived in, the holder of any large parcel of these kind of shares makes sure he has a seat on the board.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

I lived in a building with modern elevators, but the building employed elevator operators in the elevators despite them being new (installed 2009). This was because there were RS tenants with very old leases, who didn't agree to the reduction of services from the management company. So instead of having an extra porter to help with bags or lower operating costs, we had an elevator operator. It was an absurd situation.

Just as maddening as our tax dollars (and MTA fares) paying for elevator operators on selected elevators in subway stations ... literally just sitting there pushing buttons.

JSW that is absurd...not only are these people paying ridiculous rents but they then dictate how the building runs and could care less about costs......OCCUPY Rent Stabilizers....lol

From the contract:

ARTICLE VII
Reduction of Force
1. The Employer shall have the right to
reduce its workforce (a) due to economic
hardship or (b) in the following circumstances,
provided that in the case of either (a) or (b) it
can establish that the changes listed below
eliminate an amount of work similar to the
proposed reduction in worker hours:
(i) A change in work specifications or work
assignment which results in a reduction of work
(ii) Elimination of all or part of specified
work
(iii) Vacancies in building
(iv) Reconstruction of all or part of building
(v) The tenant performing the work himself
(vi) Introduction of technological advances
(vii) Change in the nature or type of
occupancy.

So if layoffs are done according to the contract, there is no reason they can't do it so long as they can show that there had been other changes that obviates the need for the new staff. "elimination of the specified work" means no doorman is safe if the tenants decide they no longer want a doorman.

RS tenants are a different issue, but if there was no doorman when they first signed their leases I wonder if they are required to have one if it was added later?

>I lived in a building with modern elevators, but the building employed
>elevator operators in the elevators despite them being new (installed 2009).

I think I know the bldg.! A friend of mine lives in a CPS coop and was furious when old residents insisted on keeping the elevator man--in their modern but TINY elevator!!! This is apparently causing a major headache, especially in the morning. But, of course, those old residents don't go to work, so they wouldn't care...

Ali:

1. the terms of every proprietary lease in every building converted to Coop since at least
the mid 1980's require Sponsors to surrender control of the Coop's board no later than
five years after an Offering Plan is declared Effective.

2. there's been a lot of litigation over the years concerning a Sponsor's right to elect a
board which it effectively controls after expiration of the five-year turnover period

3. if I recall the court decisions correctly, at least some if not all courts have let them
4. that is a moot point in most Manhattan Coops because owner-occupants control the board
5. that is why holders of Unsold Shares of stabilized/controlled apts are sometimes at risk
6. it's not just elevators: it could be roof access, building storage units, a launddry room

This is a big issue and we tried to do it but had to compromise that we would just not replace 2 of thevstaff when they retired.

- the building employed elevator operators in the elevators despite them being new

How do they feel when a 2 year old can do there job just as well and finds a lot more joy in pushing buttons?

"How do they feel when a 2 year old can do there job just as well and finds a lot more joy in pushing buttons?"

Probably a lot better than all the people that don't even have jobs two year olds can do. (I agree this is a silly job most of the time, but in this economy I'm sure there are a bunch of people who aren't super-picky about which job they're willing to take, especially with a union wage.)