The Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) convened with representatives of the management team after seating several newly elected members. Tied headquarters representatives Charles San Juan and Kurt Unger graciously attended together with the understanding that the run-off election will be conducted to decide the tie.
Other unfilled positions were occupied by volunteers who were asked to serve as voices for their respective offices.
Also present for the meeting, all or in part, were Sally Lawrence from NWRO, Kathy Conaway and Alisa Huckaby from RFO, and Kerry Graber for SWRO. Polly Zehm, Chris Parsons, Amy Heller, Pat McLain, and Gary “Mace” Maciejewski (IT) were there representing the management team.
Inclement Weather Policy – Polly let us know that they would not be changing the policy, but had changed the decision making criteria to include more safety considerations. The new criteria will be posted on Inside Ecology.
Natural Resource Reform – Polly will be meeting with the Natural Resource Reform Cabinet on November 13 to formulate recommendations to the Governor. Polly said they are still looking at employee input. While there appears to be little enthusiasm for the most drastic option of consolidating into one giant agency, it is also not acceptable to the Governor to get a “no action” recommendation. She shared that much of this effort may get overshadowed by budget problems.
Printer Management – Members wanted assurance that the new print management software would not be used as a source for “going after” employees. Gary “Mace” Maciejewski clarified that efforts to reduce printing stems from a legislatively adopted - “paper conservation act” – climate-related goal to reduce paper use by 30% for state government. The goal deadline to achieve reduction is July 1, 2010. To meet this challenge Gary found software that provides the costs of print jobs. When you push “print” a bubble will pop up giving you the cost of the previous print job and asking whether you are sure you have to print this one. In the future they hope the software will estimate the cost of the print job you are about to send to the printer. Gary said this focus on awareness and the ability to catch errors in print decisions (oops, you didn’t mean to ask for the whole document for example), may go a long way toward meeting the required goal. Each individual will be able to look up a summary of how much they printed. (No one else, other than the administrator of the system, will be able to do this.)
We briefly discussed the status of efforts to move toward electronic record keeping. Polly said plans to buy software for electronic archiving are on hold due to budget difficulties.
WMS and Management Reductions – Polly was asked whether there had been further thought about reducing the number of managers at Ecology and increasing the minimum “span-of-control” numbers to flatten the organization. Polly said that she is continuing to look at reductions where they make sense, and urging program managers to look at this before they fill positions. A reorganization and reduction in one manager at the Richland office was pointed to as an example of this. Polly committed to looking at taking cuts in management “commensurate with staff cuts.” Other than this, a broader or systemic look is not being conducted. Polly believes the issue is getting attention with talks between the Federation (WFSE) and Department of Personnel (DOP). Chris Parsons shared that from research he found the private sector has made significant movement toward flatter organizational structures.
We continue to urge Ecology to look at the WMS band 2 level and evaluate what the agency really needs. Chris said he would be doing a profile of WMS 2 managers, and acknowledged he had committed to provide that to the budget team. He said that DOP is considering two categories within WMS, one for managing people and one for advisors.
Kerry Graber explained that members have expressed concern about program budget planners being in WMS. By placing them in WMS the potential exists for being ethically compromised. This idea was flatly rejected by Pat. Chris was quick to point out that WMS are protected by the civil service rules. The subject was dropped for now.
Budget Ad-hoc Report – Pat shared that she has been putting together a “budget 101” presentation using the budget questions posed by the committee. January is being considered for rolling this out to the rest of the agency. This might be timely with the legislative session starting. The supplemental budget has been posted on Inside Ecology. We reviewed with Pat some of the information she provided during the recent All-Staff meeting. Pat said a list of activities funded by general fund – the mandatory list – is the next deliverable to OFM.
Kurt asked why not move the Water Resources Program to a fee-based system, with an annual assessment. Washington needs to place a value on water it gives away for free. A database would have to be developed in short order. We discussed recent successful efforts by Oregon and California to shift to a fee-based system. Pat said that although this would alleviate the Water Resources Program’s reliance on the General Fund, it is only 380 million in relation to an over 1 billion budget deficit. A more serious discussion about this will likely occur in the 2011/13 biennium. Although Jay Manning has talked about a fee publicly this is a tough political environment to try to get something passed. Legislators are averse to any new revenue legislation.
Timesheet Processing – Amy Heller reported that talks have been held with IT staff on developing an interface program that would allow employees to directly enter their timesheet information and eliminate double logging. They are also looking at off-the-shelf technology. A decision on which way to go will be made in the next five weeks.
Overtime Eligibility – In anticipation of a U.S. Department of Labor audit, the agency will be reviewing previous determinations on overtime eligibility on a position-by-position basis. Amy said HR is anticipating some reversals from exempt to eligible. The evaluation primarily looks at salary level and job duties. There will be a formal notice to the union when this evaluation is complete.
Environmental Specialist Series – Chris Parsons was asked whether there has been any further work on quantifying recruitment and retention problems due to the low salaries of this series. Chris said they have put a system in place to follow up with employees who leave Ecology to help HR quantify retention problems and build some data. Chris said the agency is still supportive of efforts to gain high-cost compensation, not limited by job class, for the Bellevue office. Members will be renewing this request through the contract proposal process in hopes that compensation will be honored by the Governor and legislature in the next CBA.
Summary – The UMCC meets a minimum of three times per year under the CBA. This UMCC hopes to pursue a more frequent meeting schedule particularly as we face another tough legislative session and more budget crises. Please talk to your UMCC representative about your issues and concerns. ■
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Budget Team’s Impact On Lay-off Subtle but Tangible
– By Kerry Graber
A team of five member volunteers have been meeting informally with members of the management team to exchange information and explore options to lay-offs. A smaller subgroup of three then negotiated with the Governor’s labor relations team to mitigate impacts. Their work is nearly done now that this lay-off cycle is complete.
Members of the budget team include Scott Mallery, Tryg Hoff, Tammy Hall, Helen Pressley, and Charles San Juan.
------------------------------------------------------------
The budget team’s efforts are nearly complete after holding a number of informal talks with the goal of sharing ideas and advancing the ideas of employees for mitigating lay-offs from the recent budget cuts.
Negotiated Accomplishments - Reflecting on how the reduction-in-force (RIF) unfolded, the team agreed that we could take credit for a number of accomplishments, including:
Unanswered Questions - The budget team is still seeking answers to remaining questions that were raised during informal talks, including:
The team is concerned about getting a clearer sense of direction from Polly and possibly the new director on just how employees prioritize their work and “do less with less.” Most people are going through their work plans during evaluation time and having these kinds of discussions with their supervisors. However, the team feels that clearer direction and leadership is needed from the top to help employees and supervisors in the midst of making some tough decisions. In the absence of clear direction this process is made more stressful for everyone involved.
The team expects to discuss the outstanding questions and the lingering workload issues at an additional informal meeting. The team expects that a “budget 101” session will also be scheduled, and possibly expanded to the rest of the agency.
More Budget Reductions Likely - There is an expectation that more budget reductions and possibly lay-offs are in our future, however it is important to complete the process on this first round and close-out the bargaining before opening a new negotiation. We anticipate Ecology will notify us as soon as they know whether another round of lay-offs will be necessary. We are hoping to continue the trend of open and frequent talks with decision makers as they craft another set of cuts. ■
A team of five member volunteers have been meeting informally with members of the management team to exchange information and explore options to lay-offs. A smaller subgroup of three then negotiated with the Governor’s labor relations team to mitigate impacts. Their work is nearly done now that this lay-off cycle is complete.
Members of the budget team include Scott Mallery, Tryg Hoff, Tammy Hall, Helen Pressley, and Charles San Juan.
------------------------------------------------------------
The budget team’s efforts are nearly complete after holding a number of informal talks with the goal of sharing ideas and advancing the ideas of employees for mitigating lay-offs from the recent budget cuts.
Negotiated Accomplishments - Reflecting on how the reduction-in-force (RIF) unfolded, the team agreed that we could take credit for a number of accomplishments, including:
- An agreement to slightly modify the collective bargaining agreement (contract) procedure for the benefit of members identified for lay-off
- A more objective and fair process as a result of the team’s advocacy
- As a result of the engagement with management more effort was made to find places for RIF’d folks
- Without the additional time to talk to management and the expanded process many of these improvements would not have been discussed.
Unanswered Questions - The budget team is still seeking answers to remaining questions that were raised during informal talks, including:
- What are the functions of WMS 2 section managers within the agency?
- Why did the Water Quality Program take the TMDL program supervisors from Natural Resource Specialist 5s to WMS 1s?
- Why is Ecology’s percentage of managers the highest among natural resource agencies? (See table next page – OFM website source data.)
- Will Ecology roll out a “budget 101” to clearly explain to employees where the money goes, and why?
- Why did it take so long for Program Managers to provide the number of vacant, funded positions to Polly when she asked for it? Why isn’t this information readily available?
The team is concerned about getting a clearer sense of direction from Polly and possibly the new director on just how employees prioritize their work and “do less with less.” Most people are going through their work plans during evaluation time and having these kinds of discussions with their supervisors. However, the team feels that clearer direction and leadership is needed from the top to help employees and supervisors in the midst of making some tough decisions. In the absence of clear direction this process is made more stressful for everyone involved.
The team expects to discuss the outstanding questions and the lingering workload issues at an additional informal meeting. The team expects that a “budget 101” session will also be scheduled, and possibly expanded to the rest of the agency.
More Budget Reductions Likely - There is an expectation that more budget reductions and possibly lay-offs are in our future, however it is important to complete the process on this first round and close-out the bargaining before opening a new negotiation. We anticipate Ecology will notify us as soon as they know whether another round of lay-offs will be necessary. We are hoping to continue the trend of open and frequent talks with decision makers as they craft another set of cuts. ■
Negotiations Over Internal Policies Yield Results
– By Alisa Huckaby
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 38 (Mandatory Subjects), WFSE requested negotiations (“demand to bargain”) for proposed new policies and revision of existing policies. The negotiations occurred on September 18.
Attending the negotiations representing Ecology CBA members were: Debbie Brookman (Washington Federation of State Employees), Pete Kmet (HQ), Norm Peck (Central Regional Office), and Alisa Huckaby (Richland Field Office).
Policy 11-10 (Operating Ecology Vehicles): WITHDRAWN - The negotiating team requested that if/when policies referenced directives, and those directives were changed (such as the requirement to fill the gas tank every time you use a vehicle), that those directives be considered part of the policy revision and therefore negotiated with the bargaining unit. The negotiating team identified many directive requirements that were not feasible for safety and cost reasons. Ecology management agreed to not implement this proposed policy/directive revision and will provide a new policy/directive revision notification to the union.
Policy 1-50 (Layoff): WITHDRAWN. Ecology management withdrew the language that included represented employees under this policy. Given this agreement, the new policy would have no impact on our members (i.e., represented employees will follow the CBA when layoffs are implemented).
Policy 1-28 (Security Program): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The revised policy requires members to turn in identification and access badges during “extended absences.” Ecology management provided explanation and application of “extended absence.” “Extended absence” is intended to mean an approved leave without pay (e.g., leaving the country for several months or on home assignment due to investigation). Furthermore, “extended absence” is not intended to be applied when someone is on leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or on maternity/paternity leave. Ecology management explained they will consider a member’s “extended absence” on a case-by-case basis. If Ecology managers apply “extended absence” requirements in an abusive or harassing manner, Human Resources will work with the union to resolve it. Agreement was reached on the “extended absence” term and its intended application for this policy.
Policy 5-54 (Training): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The negotiating team expressed concern with the frequency (i.e., too repetitive for value) of some of the required trainings. In addition, concern was expressed about some manager’s interpretations of “highly recommended” or “recommended” as “required.” The negotiating team promoted consideration of training costs and impacts to employees’ ability to get work done when managers send employees to repetitive or unnecessary training sessions. Ecology management agreed the policy’s training matrix could be clarified (e.g., “highly recommended” areas that are blank will be removed from the matrix). Ecology management also explained that all training costs are being evaluated as this was a commitment made during the Layoff negotiations. An example of a training improvement is the shorter version of the Ethics training (2 versus 4 hours). Ecology management anticipated revision and updates to the training policy within the next 6 months. Agreement was reached to have on-going discussion about training issues via the Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) meetings.
Policy 1-32 (Preventing Conflicts of Interest Based on Familial or Personal Relationships): The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the proposed new policy and explained the edited version was an attempt to incorporate criteria communicated by Jay Manning in an email to Ecology managers. Note: the red-line/strike-out language of the draft policy would only apply to Ecology managers, would not allow employees with familial relations with the Program Manager to work in the same program, and would require management’s disclosure of familial relationships to Ecology Human Resources. The negotiating team explained that the draft policy did not appear to address the original audit findings that it was intended to address and that Ecology member’s fundamental issue is fairness in the workplace. The negotiating team expressed concern that the draft policy only addresses the supervisor/employee relationship and not the relationship between the line employee and the Program Manager. Agreement was reached that the policy should not prevent family members from being hired into the agency. The negotiating team communicated the sensitivity associated with existing familial relationships in the work place and the belief that the policy provided a mechanism for appropriate exceptions via the Director’s discretion and documentation. After much discussion, the negotiating team was amenable to “grandfathering” in of existing situations (including disclosure) with clear restrictions on future hiring. Ecology management were unable to agree to the negotiating team’s proposal without first discussing the proposed changes to the draft policy with Ecology’s Executive Management Team.
Policy 11-17 (Reserving and Using Ecology Facilities): INTERPRETATION CLARIFIED. The negotiating team requested clarification of the policy regarding the union’s right to use Ecology Headquarter building facilities. Ecology management explained that the revised policy is not intended to restrict the Union from use of rooms (other than the auditorium). Amy Heller further explained that it is permissible for the Union to use Ecology Headquarter conference rooms S-16 & S-17 near the cafeteria.
Policy 1-76 (Suspending Operations): UNDER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the revised policy. However, the Labor Relations Office’s representative stated his opinion that this negotiation session could only “bargain” over the items in the policy that have been changed. Although the negotiating team did not have the benefit of knowing the proposed revisions of the policy (due to a red-line/strike-out version not having been provided by Ecology management), the proposed changes to this policy were minimal and included the deletion of a paragraph referencing Policy 1-75 (leave policy that wasn’t finalized) and minor clean-up changes. Because the major revisions to this policy are still under development (by Ecology’s Carol Fleskes), the Ecology negotiating team agreed to hold off on negotiation of revisions to this policy until the significantly revised policy is available. The Ecology negotiating team requested that Carol Fleskes be provided our red-line/strike-out version of the policy for her consideration as she revises the existing policy.
UPDATE: In the recent UMCC meeting Polly Zehm said she would be leaving Policy 1-76 as is, but would broaden her decision making criteria for building closure. She agreed to have this new criteria posted in Inside Ecology so that everyone can read it. Significant movement was made on this issue. Thank you to the membership for making your views known about last winter’s experience! ■
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 38 (Mandatory Subjects), WFSE requested negotiations (“demand to bargain”) for proposed new policies and revision of existing policies. The negotiations occurred on September 18.
Attending the negotiations representing Ecology CBA members were: Debbie Brookman (Washington Federation of State Employees), Pete Kmet (HQ), Norm Peck (Central Regional Office), and Alisa Huckaby (Richland Field Office).
Policy 11-10 (Operating Ecology Vehicles): WITHDRAWN - The negotiating team requested that if/when policies referenced directives, and those directives were changed (such as the requirement to fill the gas tank every time you use a vehicle), that those directives be considered part of the policy revision and therefore negotiated with the bargaining unit. The negotiating team identified many directive requirements that were not feasible for safety and cost reasons. Ecology management agreed to not implement this proposed policy/directive revision and will provide a new policy/directive revision notification to the union.
Policy 1-50 (Layoff): WITHDRAWN. Ecology management withdrew the language that included represented employees under this policy. Given this agreement, the new policy would have no impact on our members (i.e., represented employees will follow the CBA when layoffs are implemented).
Policy 1-28 (Security Program): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The revised policy requires members to turn in identification and access badges during “extended absences.” Ecology management provided explanation and application of “extended absence.” “Extended absence” is intended to mean an approved leave without pay (e.g., leaving the country for several months or on home assignment due to investigation). Furthermore, “extended absence” is not intended to be applied when someone is on leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or on maternity/paternity leave. Ecology management explained they will consider a member’s “extended absence” on a case-by-case basis. If Ecology managers apply “extended absence” requirements in an abusive or harassing manner, Human Resources will work with the union to resolve it. Agreement was reached on the “extended absence” term and its intended application for this policy.
Policy 5-54 (Training): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The negotiating team expressed concern with the frequency (i.e., too repetitive for value) of some of the required trainings. In addition, concern was expressed about some manager’s interpretations of “highly recommended” or “recommended” as “required.” The negotiating team promoted consideration of training costs and impacts to employees’ ability to get work done when managers send employees to repetitive or unnecessary training sessions. Ecology management agreed the policy’s training matrix could be clarified (e.g., “highly recommended” areas that are blank will be removed from the matrix). Ecology management also explained that all training costs are being evaluated as this was a commitment made during the Layoff negotiations. An example of a training improvement is the shorter version of the Ethics training (2 versus 4 hours). Ecology management anticipated revision and updates to the training policy within the next 6 months. Agreement was reached to have on-going discussion about training issues via the Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) meetings.
Policy 1-32 (Preventing Conflicts of Interest Based on Familial or Personal Relationships): The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the proposed new policy and explained the edited version was an attempt to incorporate criteria communicated by Jay Manning in an email to Ecology managers. Note: the red-line/strike-out language of the draft policy would only apply to Ecology managers, would not allow employees with familial relations with the Program Manager to work in the same program, and would require management’s disclosure of familial relationships to Ecology Human Resources. The negotiating team explained that the draft policy did not appear to address the original audit findings that it was intended to address and that Ecology member’s fundamental issue is fairness in the workplace. The negotiating team expressed concern that the draft policy only addresses the supervisor/employee relationship and not the relationship between the line employee and the Program Manager. Agreement was reached that the policy should not prevent family members from being hired into the agency. The negotiating team communicated the sensitivity associated with existing familial relationships in the work place and the belief that the policy provided a mechanism for appropriate exceptions via the Director’s discretion and documentation. After much discussion, the negotiating team was amenable to “grandfathering” in of existing situations (including disclosure) with clear restrictions on future hiring. Ecology management were unable to agree to the negotiating team’s proposal without first discussing the proposed changes to the draft policy with Ecology’s Executive Management Team.
Policy 11-17 (Reserving and Using Ecology Facilities): INTERPRETATION CLARIFIED. The negotiating team requested clarification of the policy regarding the union’s right to use Ecology Headquarter building facilities. Ecology management explained that the revised policy is not intended to restrict the Union from use of rooms (other than the auditorium). Amy Heller further explained that it is permissible for the Union to use Ecology Headquarter conference rooms S-16 & S-17 near the cafeteria.
Policy 1-76 (Suspending Operations): UNDER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the revised policy. However, the Labor Relations Office’s representative stated his opinion that this negotiation session could only “bargain” over the items in the policy that have been changed. Although the negotiating team did not have the benefit of knowing the proposed revisions of the policy (due to a red-line/strike-out version not having been provided by Ecology management), the proposed changes to this policy were minimal and included the deletion of a paragraph referencing Policy 1-75 (leave policy that wasn’t finalized) and minor clean-up changes. Because the major revisions to this policy are still under development (by Ecology’s Carol Fleskes), the Ecology negotiating team agreed to hold off on negotiation of revisions to this policy until the significantly revised policy is available. The Ecology negotiating team requested that Carol Fleskes be provided our red-line/strike-out version of the policy for her consideration as she revises the existing policy.
UPDATE: In the recent UMCC meeting Polly Zehm said she would be leaving Policy 1-76 as is, but would broaden her decision making criteria for building closure. She agreed to have this new criteria posted in Inside Ecology so that everyone can read it. Significant movement was made on this issue. Thank you to the membership for making your views known about last winter’s experience! ■
Friday, September 18, 2009
Federation Natural Resources Task Force Needs Your Feedback on State's Reform Ideas
– WFSE Hotline
The Legislature ordered the governor to convene a work group of natural resource agencies to "identify consolidation opportunities to improve service delivery and reduce costs.
The Legislature ordered the governor to convene a work group of natural resource agencies to "identify consolidation opportunities to improve service delivery and reduce costs.
"That subcabinet group released a set of ideas on Sept.14, and is now seeking public comment. The Federation's internal Natural Resources Task Force also needs to hear from you so we can present your perspective to the administration.
Visit WFSE's Natural Resources Policy Committee blog to submit comments and feedback on our website.
Or go to www.wfse.org and look for the "flash" display at the bottom of the main page. Or you can go to www.wfse.org > WFSE Blogs and More > Natural Resources Policy Committee.
There, you will find state documents detailing the ideas and you can link to an online survey.
Your Natural Resources Task Force will then compile your comments and present them to the governor and public lands commissioner.
They need to hear from you by Oct. 5.
The Federation task force includes representatives from several natural resource agencies, including Ecology, Parks andRecreation, Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Health
Bargaining Update-
Volunteers have been bargaining over lay-offs and policies that affect working conditions. Here’s an update on those efforts.
The Budget Team continues to push for common sense solutions and compassionate options to prepare for the next round of cuts.
Bargaining Team volunteers met with manager representatives before, during, and after formal negotiations to first gain a clear understanding of the budget issues, come up with mitigating alternatives, and continue talks. The team has continued to request specific information about all of the job-shifting, or informal movements of employees, around the agency that has also been a part of managing the budget crisis.
One thing is clear, the complexity of Ecology’s budget funding sources, and the difficulty in getting accurate information from individual programs, makes this task daunting for the team. After all the meetings and discussions the team has still not been provided definitive information on how many funded vacancies exist. Either the programs have not been forthcoming with the information, or the managers we’re bargaining with don’t want to provide it. Either way the situation makes it impossible to grasp Ecology’s ability to absorb further cuts or to understand why, with so many vacancies and hiring going on, that we have any formal reductions-in-force.
The consistent message from management’s side is that because Ecology has so many vacancies that rely on dedicated funds, cutting more of these unfilled positions as an alternative to RIFs will not help reduce the strain on the general fund. The team has been asking why funds cannot be shifted to support positions on the chopping block, and again the consistent message is that this cannot be done. Why is it, then, that OFM is able to “scrub” excess funds out of just about any dedicated fund when trying to make up for a general fund shortfall but Ecology can’t shift anything around? OFM shifted money into the general fund as part of the Governor’s budget, resulting in the “giving up” of unused funds from a variety of dedicated sources.
Given that Ecology has so few programs relying heavily on the general fund, and cuts are disproportionately felt by those same programs, it could be concluded that political forces are at foot that are taking a back-handed swipe at areas such as water rights permits, and water quality enforcement. Water resources funding has long been a challenge for Ecology. The program continues to suffer from insecure funding and a legislature that seems to hate what it does. If Puget Sound and climate change are so important, isn’t it time for the Governor to place the water supply of this state front and center by solving the funding problem? As long as we have programs that must compete with social services and education for operating budgets, we will continue to see these important programs struggle to compete.
Other issues that the bargaining team continues to bring to the table include the unwaivering position by management on cutting itself. No surprise here, however the team continues to point out the inequities in the numbers, the salary growth, and the cuts. Statements made in “Inside Ecology” touted that cuts were taken in WMS as part of the belt tightening. This was misleading, as the actual “cut” was the movement of a number of individuals from WMS positions into the highest level classified vacancies. None of these individuals were “shown the door.” Even so, Ecology continues to be at the upper limit of the Governor’s guideline for the percentage of managers within state agencies. According to data provided by DOP for last year Ecology had the highest percentage of managers compared to all the other state agencies. The team continues to advocate for a comprehensive review of Ecology’s hierarchical organizational structure but it has not been received well.
For now the Budget Team is continuing to talk with representatives of management on an informal basis anticipating that the September budget forecast will likely be grim. It is anticipated there will be another cut, and the team will be called on again to try to negotiate over the impacts.
Policy Negotiations Update – By Pete Kmet
This summer Ecology announced changes to several agency policies. Ecology stewards noted several of these policies affected working conditions and requested WFSE to invoke negotiations over them. WFSE invoked our right to negotiate and as a result Alisa Huckaby (Richland), myself, Norm Peck (CRO) and Debbie Brookman (WFSE) will be representing employees at a negotiating meeting.
Policies up for negotiations include:
The Budget Team continues to push for common sense solutions and compassionate options to prepare for the next round of cuts.
Bargaining Team volunteers met with manager representatives before, during, and after formal negotiations to first gain a clear understanding of the budget issues, come up with mitigating alternatives, and continue talks. The team has continued to request specific information about all of the job-shifting, or informal movements of employees, around the agency that has also been a part of managing the budget crisis.
One thing is clear, the complexity of Ecology’s budget funding sources, and the difficulty in getting accurate information from individual programs, makes this task daunting for the team. After all the meetings and discussions the team has still not been provided definitive information on how many funded vacancies exist. Either the programs have not been forthcoming with the information, or the managers we’re bargaining with don’t want to provide it. Either way the situation makes it impossible to grasp Ecology’s ability to absorb further cuts or to understand why, with so many vacancies and hiring going on, that we have any formal reductions-in-force.
The consistent message from management’s side is that because Ecology has so many vacancies that rely on dedicated funds, cutting more of these unfilled positions as an alternative to RIFs will not help reduce the strain on the general fund. The team has been asking why funds cannot be shifted to support positions on the chopping block, and again the consistent message is that this cannot be done. Why is it, then, that OFM is able to “scrub” excess funds out of just about any dedicated fund when trying to make up for a general fund shortfall but Ecology can’t shift anything around? OFM shifted money into the general fund as part of the Governor’s budget, resulting in the “giving up” of unused funds from a variety of dedicated sources.
Given that Ecology has so few programs relying heavily on the general fund, and cuts are disproportionately felt by those same programs, it could be concluded that political forces are at foot that are taking a back-handed swipe at areas such as water rights permits, and water quality enforcement. Water resources funding has long been a challenge for Ecology. The program continues to suffer from insecure funding and a legislature that seems to hate what it does. If Puget Sound and climate change are so important, isn’t it time for the Governor to place the water supply of this state front and center by solving the funding problem? As long as we have programs that must compete with social services and education for operating budgets, we will continue to see these important programs struggle to compete.
Other issues that the bargaining team continues to bring to the table include the unwaivering position by management on cutting itself. No surprise here, however the team continues to point out the inequities in the numbers, the salary growth, and the cuts. Statements made in “Inside Ecology” touted that cuts were taken in WMS as part of the belt tightening. This was misleading, as the actual “cut” was the movement of a number of individuals from WMS positions into the highest level classified vacancies. None of these individuals were “shown the door.” Even so, Ecology continues to be at the upper limit of the Governor’s guideline for the percentage of managers within state agencies. According to data provided by DOP for last year Ecology had the highest percentage of managers compared to all the other state agencies. The team continues to advocate for a comprehensive review of Ecology’s hierarchical organizational structure but it has not been received well.
For now the Budget Team is continuing to talk with representatives of management on an informal basis anticipating that the September budget forecast will likely be grim. It is anticipated there will be another cut, and the team will be called on again to try to negotiate over the impacts.
Policy Negotiations Update – By Pete Kmet
This summer Ecology announced changes to several agency policies. Ecology stewards noted several of these policies affected working conditions and requested WFSE to invoke negotiations over them. WFSE invoked our right to negotiate and as a result Alisa Huckaby (Richland), myself, Norm Peck (CRO) and Debbie Brookman (WFSE) will be representing employees at a negotiating meeting.
Policies up for negotiations include:
1-50 Lay-off ProceduresNegotiations with Ecology Management are scheduled for September 18, 2009.
1-70 Suspending Operations
11-10 Operating Agency Vehicles
11-17 Use of Ecology Facilities
5-54 Training Requirements and Frequency
1-16 Hiring and managing family members
UMCC Report: Issues of the past year
– by Debbie Brookman
Elections were held for new employee members of the Union-Management Committee. The HQ Rep vote was a tie and will be re-voted. Reps are still needed for SWRO, CRO, and ERO. If you want to help your workplace, please consider volunteering. Vacant seats will be filled by the new UMCC once its members are confirmed.
The new UMCC will start out with a transition meeting where the departing UMCC can provide a briefing on issues it’s been tracking. The following article summarizes those issues. - the Editors
Ecology Statewide UMCC
Outstanding Issues as of 3/23/09
Elections were held for new employee members of the Union-Management Committee. The HQ Rep vote was a tie and will be re-voted. Reps are still needed for SWRO, CRO, and ERO. If you want to help your workplace, please consider volunteering. Vacant seats will be filled by the new UMCC once its members are confirmed.
The new UMCC will start out with a transition meeting where the departing UMCC can provide a briefing on issues it’s been tracking. The following article summarizes those issues. - the Editors
Ecology Statewide UMCC
Outstanding Issues as of 3/23/09
Inclement Weather – (2/18/09):
The UMCC sent information to Carol Fleskes for consideration during the “hot wash” review of this winter’s situation. We are waiting for a response in the form of more discussion and/or a policy update proposal.
Environmental Specialist/Planner 4 designations – (2/18/09):
Polly Zehm agreed to review any situations we bring to her attention where we feel employees are working out of class. She indicated a preference for removing duties rather than an upward reallocation.
Environmental Specialist pay – (2/18/09):
Chris Parons previously indicated that an agency-sponsored package was being developed for submission to DOP for the next round of contract negotiations. This has been put on hold due to DOP’s current refusal to consider any such packages until the budget crisis is past. In the meantime, we may engage in on-going discussion about the ES pay issues in the hopes that collaboration can occur in the future.
High Cost-Of-Living Area pay – (12/1/08):
Chris Parsons related that Jay Manning is interested in addressing this through a package to DOP. At this time, this is on hold due to budget issues.
Time Accounting System – (12/1/08):
Amy committed to pass along any ideas we provide to her to OFM for improving the system. She also promised to let us know what kind of response our ideas receive. (Suggestions about this topic through government form appears to have gained traction.)
Spills Program Budget – (12/1/08):
Dale Jensen promised to check-in with the stewards in Spills more regularly regarding concerns and anxiety around the budget. He also said he would “think about” our offer to collaboratively work with the program to address budget issues.
Workplace Behavior – (10/20/08):
We call it “bullying,” they call it “uncivil workplace behavior”
We have a tentative agreement to jointly provide training on the new CBA provisions – Article X Workplace Behavior. Before that can happen training will likely be developed for Ecology managers. We may need to develop the curriculum ourselves. Our goal is to provide this training jointly and on work time.
Jay Manning in the field – (7/18/08)
On Jay’s behalf, Polly stated that Jay is willing to spend more time in the field and accompanying employees while they do their work to get a better understanding of the non-enforcement side of field work.
More UMCC Ad Hoc’s to address regional issues – (7/18/08)
Polly and Amy confirmed willingness to form ad hoc UMCC’s to address region specific issues such as bike lockers at NWRO.
Budget 101 – (7/18/08)
Polly agreed to talk to Pat McLain about developing education for all employees on how the agency budget works. In the same meeting, it was acknowledged that the Water Quality budget needs to be explained to employees.
Exchange Time – (2/14/08)
Chris Parsons said he would provide specific citations in the law that justifies the Agency’s position on denying one-for-one exchange time.
Making Your Evaluation Work For You
– by Pete Kmet
Evaluations are a critical part of every employee’s work life. Stewards find that many employees are confused by their role in the process. Sometimes employees find out for the first time during an evaluation that their supervisor is having problems with their performance.
This is such a critical issue needing employee education that we are rerunning this article from last year. If you have any questions about evaluations and how you should do them, don’t hesitate to contact a steward. -The Editors
It’s that time of year again, when your supervisor evaluates your performance over the past year (Oct, 1, 2007-Sept. 30, 2008) and sets your performance expectations for the next year. Evaluations always seem to come at the busiest time of the year. They ought to be a time to celebrate accomplishments and set goals for the coming year. But for many staff, evaluations are viewed as a necessary evil, while for others evaluations can be a traumatic experience.
Many stewards at Ecology are long-term employees, having gone through many evaluation cycles. Some stewards have supervised staff and experienced evaluations from a supervisor’s perspective. This article attempts to gather that experience to help you through the evaluation process. We hope even experienced staff will find some pearls of wisdom you can use.
What is an Evaluation?
An evaluation has four parts:
Before the Evaluation
Read your previous year’s evaluation. Reflect on the performance expectations identified for you and what you accomplished over the last year. Note which expectations you met, which ones you didn’t meet and what things you accomplished beyond the expectations.
Anticipate what your supervisor might say about your performance and how you can professionally respond. Make a list of what you accomplished over the last year. It’s helpful to look at your monthly reports. Look through your emails and electronic files and make a list of all the times you helped another employee, answered a letter, solved a problem for a citizen, or any of those other little things that that take our time but usually don’t get recognized.
Where you didn’t meet an expectation, reflect on why. There could be a wide variety of reasons: lack of training or proper equipment, budget constraints, actions or lack of action by clients, peers or supervisors; different work taking precedence; or, underestimating the effort it would take to accomplish the expectation (by you or your supervisor).
Think about what you want to accomplish next year. Set realistic expectations. Remember, next year’s performance will be measured by these new targets.
Think about training you need to do your job better or to help you progress in your profession development. Identify specific training courses you would like to attend. If you cannot identify a specific course, identify a category of training you would like to take. Be realistic in recognition of our tight budget times. Ask for support for a tuition reimbursement opportunity.
Reflect on your supervisor’s performance over the last year. How were they helpful? How did they make accomplishing your job more difficult?
If you expect a particularly contentious evaluation, consider asking people you’ve worked well with (either clients or peers) about your performance. Where possible, ask them to use e-mail to document their responses. This will be useful information you can refer to in part 4 of your evaluation.
Some supervisors provide a draft evaluation prior to the evaluation meeting. Consider asking for the draft and then revising it to your satisfaction. Many issues can be worked out this way. At the very least, you can go into the Evaluation Meeting with your different drafts and your focus on the issues needing discussion.
During the Evaluation Meeting
Some supervisors will have two meetings—the first to reflect on last year’s performance and a 2nd to set performance expectations for next year and to follow up on issues discussed during the first meeting. Some supervisors will accomplish both in one meeting and through the use of e-mail.
During the meeting, listen carefully to what your supervisor is saying. Use active listening techniques (asking clarifying questions). Don’t accept a statement like “your co-workers think you are a slacker”. Ask more specifically who said this and when and for what reason. Ask for comparative data comparing your performance to peers to back up the assertion. Remember, your evaluation is supposed to reflect your performance over the entire year, not just one recent incident.
Make sure you fully understand the expectations being asked of you for next year. If you think they are unrealistic, say so, providing concrete examples why.
Keep cool and professional! Getting into a shouting match is not productive and will stress your relationship with your supervisor even more.
If you are taken by surprise by an unfavorable comment, express your surprise. Ecology and DOP guidance clearly states supervisors are not supposed to surprise employees in their evaluation. Surprise statements may be grounds for a grievance.
If you think the conversation will be contentious, consider asking a steward to join you in the evaluation meeting. It’s amazing how simply having a 3rd party in the room to take notes will make a supervisor think twice about attacking you.
After the Evaluation
Agency rules require you to sign your evaluation, whether you agree with it or not. You can note that you are not in agreement in the signature block.
If you think the evaluation does not accurately reflect on your performance, use part 4 of the evaluation to rebut specific statements you disagree with. Make your response professional and factual. Remember, your evaluation can be reviewed by other supervisors considering hiring you in the future. If you are uncertain how to respond, consult with a steward. Stewards can also help polish draft part 4 responses before you include them in your evaluation.
If you are surprised by a statement placed in the evaluation, or confidential health information is placed in your evaluation, or the evaluation process is not followed, you may have grounds for a grievance to challenge your evaluation. Consult immediately with a steward. Stewards have only 21 calendar days to file a grievance. And before they file a grievance they will want to try to contact your supervisor to see if the issue can be resolved without filing a grievance.
In Conclusion
A key role of any supervisor is to help employees be successful. A successful employee is not only productive, but helps a supervisor get more resources to make everyone’s life easier. The evaluation process is one tool a good supervisor can use to help employees be successful.
Evaluations can be a great opportunity for you and your supervisor to build on a positive relationship for everyone’s benefit. Unfortunately, some supervisors on a power trip save up chits during the year and use the evaluation process to unload them on staff. We hope you will find the information in this article helpful in responding if you find yourself in this situation.
Evaluations are a critical part of every employee’s work life. Stewards find that many employees are confused by their role in the process. Sometimes employees find out for the first time during an evaluation that their supervisor is having problems with their performance.
This is such a critical issue needing employee education that we are rerunning this article from last year. If you have any questions about evaluations and how you should do them, don’t hesitate to contact a steward. -The Editors
It’s that time of year again, when your supervisor evaluates your performance over the past year (Oct, 1, 2007-Sept. 30, 2008) and sets your performance expectations for the next year. Evaluations always seem to come at the busiest time of the year. They ought to be a time to celebrate accomplishments and set goals for the coming year. But for many staff, evaluations are viewed as a necessary evil, while for others evaluations can be a traumatic experience.
Many stewards at Ecology are long-term employees, having gone through many evaluation cycles. Some stewards have supervised staff and experienced evaluations from a supervisor’s perspective. This article attempts to gather that experience to help you through the evaluation process. We hope even experienced staff will find some pearls of wisdom you can use.
What is an Evaluation?
An evaluation has four parts:
- Performance Feedback
- Performance Expectations
- Training and Development Needs/Opportunities
- Organizational Support
Before the Evaluation
Read your previous year’s evaluation. Reflect on the performance expectations identified for you and what you accomplished over the last year. Note which expectations you met, which ones you didn’t meet and what things you accomplished beyond the expectations.
Anticipate what your supervisor might say about your performance and how you can professionally respond. Make a list of what you accomplished over the last year. It’s helpful to look at your monthly reports. Look through your emails and electronic files and make a list of all the times you helped another employee, answered a letter, solved a problem for a citizen, or any of those other little things that that take our time but usually don’t get recognized.
Where you didn’t meet an expectation, reflect on why. There could be a wide variety of reasons: lack of training or proper equipment, budget constraints, actions or lack of action by clients, peers or supervisors; different work taking precedence; or, underestimating the effort it would take to accomplish the expectation (by you or your supervisor).
Think about what you want to accomplish next year. Set realistic expectations. Remember, next year’s performance will be measured by these new targets.
Think about training you need to do your job better or to help you progress in your profession development. Identify specific training courses you would like to attend. If you cannot identify a specific course, identify a category of training you would like to take. Be realistic in recognition of our tight budget times. Ask for support for a tuition reimbursement opportunity.
Reflect on your supervisor’s performance over the last year. How were they helpful? How did they make accomplishing your job more difficult?
If you expect a particularly contentious evaluation, consider asking people you’ve worked well with (either clients or peers) about your performance. Where possible, ask them to use e-mail to document their responses. This will be useful information you can refer to in part 4 of your evaluation.
Some supervisors provide a draft evaluation prior to the evaluation meeting. Consider asking for the draft and then revising it to your satisfaction. Many issues can be worked out this way. At the very least, you can go into the Evaluation Meeting with your different drafts and your focus on the issues needing discussion.
During the Evaluation Meeting
Some supervisors will have two meetings—the first to reflect on last year’s performance and a 2nd to set performance expectations for next year and to follow up on issues discussed during the first meeting. Some supervisors will accomplish both in one meeting and through the use of e-mail.
During the meeting, listen carefully to what your supervisor is saying. Use active listening techniques (asking clarifying questions). Don’t accept a statement like “your co-workers think you are a slacker”. Ask more specifically who said this and when and for what reason. Ask for comparative data comparing your performance to peers to back up the assertion. Remember, your evaluation is supposed to reflect your performance over the entire year, not just one recent incident.
Make sure you fully understand the expectations being asked of you for next year. If you think they are unrealistic, say so, providing concrete examples why.
Keep cool and professional! Getting into a shouting match is not productive and will stress your relationship with your supervisor even more.
If you are taken by surprise by an unfavorable comment, express your surprise. Ecology and DOP guidance clearly states supervisors are not supposed to surprise employees in their evaluation. Surprise statements may be grounds for a grievance.
If you think the conversation will be contentious, consider asking a steward to join you in the evaluation meeting. It’s amazing how simply having a 3rd party in the room to take notes will make a supervisor think twice about attacking you.
After the Evaluation
Agency rules require you to sign your evaluation, whether you agree with it or not. You can note that you are not in agreement in the signature block.
If you think the evaluation does not accurately reflect on your performance, use part 4 of the evaluation to rebut specific statements you disagree with. Make your response professional and factual. Remember, your evaluation can be reviewed by other supervisors considering hiring you in the future. If you are uncertain how to respond, consult with a steward. Stewards can also help polish draft part 4 responses before you include them in your evaluation.
If you are surprised by a statement placed in the evaluation, or confidential health information is placed in your evaluation, or the evaluation process is not followed, you may have grounds for a grievance to challenge your evaluation. Consult immediately with a steward. Stewards have only 21 calendar days to file a grievance. And before they file a grievance they will want to try to contact your supervisor to see if the issue can be resolved without filing a grievance.
In Conclusion
A key role of any supervisor is to help employees be successful. A successful employee is not only productive, but helps a supervisor get more resources to make everyone’s life easier. The evaluation process is one tool a good supervisor can use to help employees be successful.
Evaluations can be a great opportunity for you and your supervisor to build on a positive relationship for everyone’s benefit. Unfortunately, some supervisors on a power trip save up chits during the year and use the evaluation process to unload them on staff. We hope you will find the information in this article helpful in responding if you find yourself in this situation.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Have the Proposed Budget Cuts Really Impacted Agency Managers (WMS)?
- By Charles San Juan, Hydrogeologist
By now, all of you have heard the “bad news” about the budget. As of this month (July), six Ecology staff received “verbal” reduction in force (RIF) notices. In other words, their jobs are being cut. Also, we just learned of another mandatory 2% cut, which translates to 11 Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
So what does this mean? For staff, things are obviously stressful for some (e.g. possible bumps) and downright terrifying for others (losing a job altogether). However, for agency managers (WMS), things remain murky.
As a result of the proposed cuts, union members (myself, Scott Mallery, ERO; Norm Peck, CRO; Tryg Hoff, WR and others) has organized a “budget team” (See the chair’s report in this issue). Our “mission” is to try and dampen the blows to members to the extent practicable.
In our on-going discussions, we have made it clear that we expect agency managers to “share the pain”. For example, one of our recommendations is for Ecology to reduce the 92 agency “middle-managers” (WMS-2, e.g. Section Heads, etc.). Here’s why: the current 92 WMS-2 positions will cost the agency ~ 27 million in salaries in benefits over the next biennium (09-11). To put this in perspective, the current salary and benefit costs for 101 agency Hydrogeologists is ~27 million (09-11 budget). In other words, over the next biennium, one layer of management (WMS-2) could fund an entire job class at Ecology (Hydrogeologists)!
Another interesting statistic: if you check annual salary and benefits costs (Table 1) what you’ll find is that the typical agency “middle” manager (WMS-2) costs ~ $150,000 per / yr. However, a “soldier-on-the-ground” (e.g. ES-3), costs about 50% less ($97,000 per / yr). Thus, in terms of annual salary and benefit costs, 1 agency middle-manager equates to ~ 1.5 lower-level staff (e.g. ES-3).
Note: 1 FTE = 27.6% “fringe benefits” and 36.8% “indirect” costs (agency standard, Apr-09). WMS = average 2008 salaries.
For another example, Table 2 provides data on the number of front-line supervisors and WMS-1 in each Ecology program. If you compare the number of front-line mangers (Unit Supervisors and WMS-1; 115 total) and WMS-2 (89 total), then 115 / 89 = 1.3. In other words, there’s 1.3 “front-line” managers for every “middle manager”.
The conclusion is that Ecology is “top heavy” with managers. Why do we need 1.3 frontline managers for every middle manager? Can’t unit supervisors and WMS-1 do the job?
In her July 7, 2009 Intranet article, Deputy Director Polly Zehm said: “I also want to let you know that there will be eight fewer management and supervisory positions as a result of our review.” When the budget team asked Polly about this, she said some of those positions were vacant and are being cut. It also appears that some WMS-1 are being “Y-rated” (salaries) and reallocated to classified staff.
However, so far, it doesn’t appear that anyone in management is losing their job
By now, all of you have heard the “bad news” about the budget. As of this month (July), six Ecology staff received “verbal” reduction in force (RIF) notices. In other words, their jobs are being cut. Also, we just learned of another mandatory 2% cut, which translates to 11 Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
So what does this mean? For staff, things are obviously stressful for some (e.g. possible bumps) and downright terrifying for others (losing a job altogether). However, for agency managers (WMS), things remain murky.
As a result of the proposed cuts, union members (myself, Scott Mallery, ERO; Norm Peck, CRO; Tryg Hoff, WR and others) has organized a “budget team” (See the chair’s report in this issue). Our “mission” is to try and dampen the blows to members to the extent practicable.
In our on-going discussions, we have made it clear that we expect agency managers to “share the pain”. For example, one of our recommendations is for Ecology to reduce the 92 agency “middle-managers” (WMS-2, e.g. Section Heads, etc.). Here’s why: the current 92 WMS-2 positions will cost the agency ~ 27 million in salaries in benefits over the next biennium (09-11). To put this in perspective, the current salary and benefit costs for 101 agency Hydrogeologists is ~27 million (09-11 budget). In other words, over the next biennium, one layer of management (WMS-2) could fund an entire job class at Ecology (Hydrogeologists)!
Another interesting statistic: if you check annual salary and benefits costs (Table 1) what you’ll find is that the typical agency “middle” manager (WMS-2) costs ~ $150,000 per / yr. However, a “soldier-on-the-ground” (e.g. ES-3), costs about 50% less ($97,000 per / yr). Thus, in terms of annual salary and benefit costs, 1 agency middle-manager equates to ~ 1.5 lower-level staff (e.g. ES-3).
Note: 1 FTE = 27.6% “fringe benefits” and 36.8% “indirect” costs (agency standard, Apr-09). WMS = average 2008 salaries.For another example, Table 2 provides data on the number of front-line supervisors and WMS-1 in each Ecology program. If you compare the number of front-line mangers (Unit Supervisors and WMS-1; 115 total) and WMS-2 (89 total), then 115 / 89 = 1.3. In other words, there’s 1.3 “front-line” managers for every “middle manager”.
The conclusion is that Ecology is “top heavy” with managers. Why do we need 1.3 frontline managers for every middle manager? Can’t unit supervisors and WMS-1 do the job?
In her July 7, 2009 Intranet article, Deputy Director Polly Zehm said: “I also want to let you know that there will be eight fewer management and supervisory positions as a result of our review.” When the budget team asked Polly about this, she said some of those positions were vacant and are being cut. It also appears that some WMS-1 are being “Y-rated” (salaries) and reallocated to classified staff.
However, so far, it doesn’t appear that anyone in management is losing their job
Union-Management Government Reform Ad hoc Committee Breaks New Ground
– By Guy Hoyle-Dodson, Government Reform Ad Hoc Committee Chair
Several months ago, Ecology’s Director, Jay Manning came to our membership and asked for help. The problem: the Governor was asking agency directors, particularly those from Natural Resource Agencies, to provide her with ideas for reforming state government, creating a more efficient and effective public sector, to deliver better services for less money. The union responded by forming an Ad Hoc Committee of bargaining unit activists, tasked to provide the director with new and innovative ideas that serve the mission of our agency, the general public good, and the needs of our members.
The first thought that occurred to committee members was that these ideas had to come from the general membership. They reasoned that only they had the collective knowledge and insight to recognize how Ecology and other Natural Resource Agencies could better serve the public. To this end they recommended to our management counterparts that we create a program of outreach to the rank and file. Many ideas were explored, but one suggestion from the Ad hoc Committee stood out, use computer networks and Wiki-like technology to allow members to debate and fashion a list of recommendations, a “Wisdom-Gestalt” from those closest to the problems.
Management consulted with their Information technology program, and yes, it could be done, using SharePoint software already under development within the agency. And thus, was launched a new experiment in union-management collaboration, one that finally elevated our membership into a respectful partnership with our management.
This experiment has succeeded beyond all expectations. Many hundred of suggestions were generated by our members and these were debated both on-line among members and within the Union-Management Government reform Committee. Several weeks ago we distilled the essence of these suggestions and sent our first recommendations to the Director. He will present at these meetings of Natural Agency Resource Directors and their staff over the next several months, with the ultimate goal of presenting a coherent plan for Government Reform to the Governor.
You can see some of these ideas on the SharePoint Website, prominently located on our Agency Intranet site. Follow up meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee and Management will tackle several other issues of Government Reform specific to Central Services and Ecology in future meetings.
The committee members thank you for all for your input. This is an exciting new direction for our agency, and we sincerely hope that such collaborations continue in the future
Several months ago, Ecology’s Director, Jay Manning came to our membership and asked for help. The problem: the Governor was asking agency directors, particularly those from Natural Resource Agencies, to provide her with ideas for reforming state government, creating a more efficient and effective public sector, to deliver better services for less money. The union responded by forming an Ad Hoc Committee of bargaining unit activists, tasked to provide the director with new and innovative ideas that serve the mission of our agency, the general public good, and the needs of our members.
The first thought that occurred to committee members was that these ideas had to come from the general membership. They reasoned that only they had the collective knowledge and insight to recognize how Ecology and other Natural Resource Agencies could better serve the public. To this end they recommended to our management counterparts that we create a program of outreach to the rank and file. Many ideas were explored, but one suggestion from the Ad hoc Committee stood out, use computer networks and Wiki-like technology to allow members to debate and fashion a list of recommendations, a “Wisdom-Gestalt” from those closest to the problems.
Management consulted with their Information technology program, and yes, it could be done, using SharePoint software already under development within the agency. And thus, was launched a new experiment in union-management collaboration, one that finally elevated our membership into a respectful partnership with our management.
This experiment has succeeded beyond all expectations. Many hundred of suggestions were generated by our members and these were debated both on-line among members and within the Union-Management Government reform Committee. Several weeks ago we distilled the essence of these suggestions and sent our first recommendations to the Director. He will present at these meetings of Natural Agency Resource Directors and their staff over the next several months, with the ultimate goal of presenting a coherent plan for Government Reform to the Governor.
You can see some of these ideas on the SharePoint Website, prominently located on our Agency Intranet site. Follow up meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee and Management will tackle several other issues of Government Reform specific to Central Services and Ecology in future meetings.
The committee members thank you for all for your input. This is an exciting new direction for our agency, and we sincerely hope that such collaborations continue in the future
UMCC holds final meeting in June
- By Paul Pickett
The Union Management Communications Committee held its last meeting under the current Bargaining Agreement on June 17th. All employee representatives were present, as well as the chairs of the Budget and Government Reform UMCC subcommittees. Director Jay Manning attended the entire meeting, along with the usual management team. Budget issues dominated the meeting, but time was spent on other issues, including exchange time and bullying.
Polly Zehm began the meeting by providing a summary of the lay-off situation (provided later to employees in her Inside Ecology article). The UMCC discussed lay-offs and reiterated their concerns that employees be provided with as much information as possible and that lay-offs be distributed fairly between managers and represented employees. Jay expressed his support for this principle. Paul Pickett (HQ representative and UMCC employee chair) noted that the Budget Subcommittee had been created to discuss the details of budget and layoff issues prior to a formal Reduction In Force, and would be the team to negotiate RIFs once they occur.
Scott Mallery, chair of the Budget subcommittee, said he was looking forward to working with management. He presented an analysis of management positions that showed the distribution of EMS, WMS, and general classification managers in the agency (see article elsewhere in this bulletin). He expressed his concern that many managers supervised few or no employees, which seemed contrary to the goal of a “flatter” organization. Further discussion of this analysis will occur with the Budget Subcommittee.
Management expressed their interest in looking at management structure and noted that they were eliminating 8 or 9 WMS positions, mostly by reclassification to general classification positions.
Jay described recent discussions in the cabinet regarding government reform, and emphasized that budget problems are going to get worse, and the Governor is serious about changes that can increase efficiency and reduce cost. Government Reform Subcommittee Chair Guy Hoyle-Dodson discussed employee suggestions and the process being followed to analyze them. In response to Guy’s questioning, Jay noted that all “big and bold” ideas would be considered, as long as they were politically feasible and could be done in the next year or two. He agreed that the cost-effectiveness of ideas needed to be examined and documented.
The UMCC asked about a voluntary leave without pay program, and Jay said that the agency is still open to the idea. Chris Parsons, Ecology’s Human Resources Director, noted the difficulties with a voluntary LWOP program, especially in light of the many funding sources in Ecology and the challenges in linking savings to protection of positions. The Budget Subcommittee will continue to look at this issue.
Amy Heller, Ecology’s labor relations manager, noted that an employee suggestion to switch from printed earnings statements to electronic statements was being implemented immediately. Management would discuss the issue with the union regarding any impacts on working conditions.
Paul asked if the new contract language about workplace behavior (in other words, “bullying”) would result in any training? Amy responded that existing procedures are adequate and no training is planned. Polly noted that the contract allows employee complaints about bullying to be provided to stewards who could carry the complaint to management anonymously. The UMCC employee members said they would like the union to provide training on this subject if management had no plans to.
The UMCC discussed whether “appropriate behavior” can be better defined. Amy noted that no definition came out of the contract negotiations, and Polly expressed her concern on going farther than the contract. Union members offered to bring examples to management, possibly through a meeting of stewards with management. Management agreed to continue the discussion of this issue through this approach.
In the final minutes, UMCC employee members expressed their concerns about employee illness in the workplace. This is a complex issue because employees with communicable disease such as flu who should be at home sometimes feel compelled to come to work. On the other hand, staff with minor symptoms such as a cough are sometimes sent home when they aren’t ill. Management pointed to an existing pandemic response plan, which they will send out, and offered to discuss this further.
Elections are being held this summer for new employee members of the UMCC, and meetings will resume in September.
The Union Management Communications Committee held its last meeting under the current Bargaining Agreement on June 17th. All employee representatives were present, as well as the chairs of the Budget and Government Reform UMCC subcommittees. Director Jay Manning attended the entire meeting, along with the usual management team. Budget issues dominated the meeting, but time was spent on other issues, including exchange time and bullying.
Polly Zehm began the meeting by providing a summary of the lay-off situation (provided later to employees in her Inside Ecology article). The UMCC discussed lay-offs and reiterated their concerns that employees be provided with as much information as possible and that lay-offs be distributed fairly between managers and represented employees. Jay expressed his support for this principle. Paul Pickett (HQ representative and UMCC employee chair) noted that the Budget Subcommittee had been created to discuss the details of budget and layoff issues prior to a formal Reduction In Force, and would be the team to negotiate RIFs once they occur.
Scott Mallery, chair of the Budget subcommittee, said he was looking forward to working with management. He presented an analysis of management positions that showed the distribution of EMS, WMS, and general classification managers in the agency (see article elsewhere in this bulletin). He expressed his concern that many managers supervised few or no employees, which seemed contrary to the goal of a “flatter” organization. Further discussion of this analysis will occur with the Budget Subcommittee.
Management expressed their interest in looking at management structure and noted that they were eliminating 8 or 9 WMS positions, mostly by reclassification to general classification positions.
Jay described recent discussions in the cabinet regarding government reform, and emphasized that budget problems are going to get worse, and the Governor is serious about changes that can increase efficiency and reduce cost. Government Reform Subcommittee Chair Guy Hoyle-Dodson discussed employee suggestions and the process being followed to analyze them. In response to Guy’s questioning, Jay noted that all “big and bold” ideas would be considered, as long as they were politically feasible and could be done in the next year or two. He agreed that the cost-effectiveness of ideas needed to be examined and documented.
The UMCC asked about a voluntary leave without pay program, and Jay said that the agency is still open to the idea. Chris Parsons, Ecology’s Human Resources Director, noted the difficulties with a voluntary LWOP program, especially in light of the many funding sources in Ecology and the challenges in linking savings to protection of positions. The Budget Subcommittee will continue to look at this issue.
Amy Heller, Ecology’s labor relations manager, noted that an employee suggestion to switch from printed earnings statements to electronic statements was being implemented immediately. Management would discuss the issue with the union regarding any impacts on working conditions.
Paul asked management if the new contract language about exchange time would result in any new agency practices or training. Amy said that no changes were expected. She mentioned an analysis that showed that exchange time is being used throughout the agency. Employees asked for a copy of the analysis, which she agreed to provide. Alisa Huckaby noted that the analysis only looks at exchange granted and not at requests that were turned down. UMCC employee members expressed their desire to track both exchange requests, denials, and approvals. Amy said that might not be possible due to the workload. Paul suggested that Exchange be added to the ALF system so employee requests and supervisor responses could be easily tracked. Scott noted that another aspect of this issue is schedule adjustment, which is also handled differently across the agency.
Paul asked if the new contract language about workplace behavior (in other words, “bullying”) would result in any training? Amy responded that existing procedures are adequate and no training is planned. Polly noted that the contract allows employee complaints about bullying to be provided to stewards who could carry the complaint to management anonymously. The UMCC employee members said they would like the union to provide training on this subject if management had no plans to.
The UMCC discussed whether “appropriate behavior” can be better defined. Amy noted that no definition came out of the contract negotiations, and Polly expressed her concern on going farther than the contract. Union members offered to bring examples to management, possibly through a meeting of stewards with management. Management agreed to continue the discussion of this issue through this approach.
In the final minutes, UMCC employee members expressed their concerns about employee illness in the workplace. This is a complex issue because employees with communicable disease such as flu who should be at home sometimes feel compelled to come to work. On the other hand, staff with minor symptoms such as a cough are sometimes sent home when they aren’t ill. Management pointed to an existing pandemic response plan, which they will send out, and offered to discuss this further.
Elections are being held this summer for new employee members of the UMCC, and meetings will resume in September.
Subcommittee on Bullying Formed to Explore Problems
– By Helen Pressley
A subcommittee of the stewards group is taking on the topic of bullying in the workplace in order to determine the depth and scope of the problem and to better support assertions that bullying is a problem within Ecology. Stewards who volunteered for this committee with me are Charles San Juan, Kim Pearson, and Tryg Hoff.
We are looking for additional examples of workplace bullying, or hostile work environments. Stories will be confidential. Please contact one of the committee members with your examples and concerns. Your help is appreciated.
A subcommittee of the stewards group is taking on the topic of bullying in the workplace in order to determine the depth and scope of the problem and to better support assertions that bullying is a problem within Ecology. Stewards who volunteered for this committee with me are Charles San Juan, Kim Pearson, and Tryg Hoff.
We are looking for additional examples of workplace bullying, or hostile work environments. Stories will be confidential. Please contact one of the committee members with your examples and concerns. Your help is appreciated.
Monday, June 8, 2009
CONTRACT RATIFICATION GEARING UP
From May 12, 2009 WFSE Hotline
Now that the health care article has been wrapped up, the ratification process for the Federation’s completed contracts can go forward.
The ratification packets that will go out to 30,000 General Government members are being printed this week to go in the mail next week.
Full summaries and the re-negotiated articles are now online at www.wfse.org > Contract Center > General Government Contract Center. Important gains from the original bargaining were preserved. The following is a short list of important gains EBU members were concerned about going into this re-negotiation:
If you get a chance, please say thanks to Norm Peck who graciously served on the original bargaining team, and was called back to help re-negotiate this tentative agreement. Well done Norm!
Now that the health care article has been wrapped up, the ratification process for the Federation’s completed contracts can go forward.
The ratification packets that will go out to 30,000 General Government members are being printed this week to go in the mail next week.
Full summaries and the re-negotiated articles are now online at www.wfse.org > Contract Center > General Government Contract Center. Important gains from the original bargaining were preserved. The following is a short list of important gains EBU members were concerned about going into this re-negotiation:
- the current formula where you pay 12% of your health insurance premium costs and management picks up 88%
- one new personal leave day in each year of the agreement—with the caveat that it has to be cost-neutral for positions requiring backfill
- new longevity step; those who have been at the new Step L for five years move to a new Step M after July 1, 2011
- a new article on Workplace Behavior that came from the campaign against bullying
- announcements for recruiting for a bargaining unit position must be posted at least seven (calendar days)
- new language added to ensure that employees using the e-recruiting system can submit paper applications
- grievance procedure strengthened
- an employee’s preference will be considered when adjusting work schedules
If you get a chance, please say thanks to Norm Peck who graciously served on the original bargaining team, and was called back to help re-negotiate this tentative agreement. Well done Norm!
Election Time Approaching for Union Management Communications Committee Representatives –
By Kerry Graber
As ratification approaches for the new tentative agreement so does election time for representatives on the state-wide union management communications committee (UMCC). Under the contract the bargaining unit is entitled to elect seven representatives to meet with management to tackle workplace issues. The election will take place shortly after July 1, the date the new contract takes effect.
As in the past we need a representative from each regional office and headquarters, as well as a field office representative. A call for nominations will go out to bargaining unit members, followed by a ballot.
At the bargaining unit meeting on May 12 an elections committee was formed. Helen Pressley and Scott Mallery volunteered to serve on the committee to help put together the call for nominations and the ballot, oversee the mailing, and officiate the count. We need a few more volunteers for this short term task – please contact Helen or Scott if you can help get this election off the ground. Volunteers should be members who do not intend to run in this election for a position.
Also included in this election will be a call for nominations and vote for Ecology board representative for Local 443’s executive board.
As ratification approaches for the new tentative agreement so does election time for representatives on the state-wide union management communications committee (UMCC). Under the contract the bargaining unit is entitled to elect seven representatives to meet with management to tackle workplace issues. The election will take place shortly after July 1, the date the new contract takes effect.
As in the past we need a representative from each regional office and headquarters, as well as a field office representative. A call for nominations will go out to bargaining unit members, followed by a ballot.
At the bargaining unit meeting on May 12 an elections committee was formed. Helen Pressley and Scott Mallery volunteered to serve on the committee to help put together the call for nominations and the ballot, oversee the mailing, and officiate the count. We need a few more volunteers for this short term task – please contact Helen or Scott if you can help get this election off the ground. Volunteers should be members who do not intend to run in this election for a position.
Also included in this election will be a call for nominations and vote for Ecology board representative for Local 443’s executive board.
The Times They are A’Changin, But We Can Choose How It Matures
By Guy Hoyle-Dodson
Washington State’s Governor, Christine Gregoire has decided that its time for a new direction in how we administer state government. She is looking for efficiencies and savings in all agencies at all levels and has formed a Business and Labor Advisory Group on State Government Reform. Her vision for transforming state government includes:
Our director, Jay Manning has come to our Bargaining Unit and asked us to help Ecology to sort through the many nuances of what would be the best kind of change for our mission to protect the environment, serve the public interest, and preserve the many fine attributes of Ecology as an institution. His basic strategy: this is going to happen and we had better provide the best possible advice to the governor to preempt other, perhaps not so sound advice. He has turned to the bargaining unit, because it represents the rank and file, those people who best know just what is environmentally sound policy, what truly serves the public interest, and who know what is brightest about our agency. This represents a profound change from past interactions with our members and offers a level of respect and trust that is at last commensurate with our actual role in pursuing our mission.
The Bargaining Unit realized intuitively that the best way to accomplish this undertaking was to go directly to our members and ask for their collective insights, wisdom, and their practical experience.
This is a daunting task. There are as many opinions as there are members, not all information is available to everyone, and of course, there will be disagreements. How this divergent counsel would be organized into a practical and unified position to be presented to the Governor also presented an awesome challenge. Committee members from the Bargaining Unit were convinced, however, that this was the best approach and that we should find a means, at all costs.
Fortunately, there is new technology that can help with this. We proposed a Wiki, a shared site, where opinions could be aired and consolidated. This had some practical difficulties, so we settled for an Agency SharePoint, an Intranet site, where ideas could be presented and debated. Management agreed, and this has now become a reality.
Now it is up to you, our members, to bring this task to fruition. The leadership and activists of the Bargaining Unit urge you to visit this site, to share your well considered thoughts about the future of the agency. This is also the desire of Jay and our management. They need your advice. More importantly, you need to give it.
This is our opportunity. This is an open forum. No negative consequences will result from a free, honest, open opinion. Large and important positive consequences could result for both the agency and its employees. A lack of input could have equally dire consequences. Please, find the time to add you voice to this important endeavor. You will influence these changing times.
Washington State’s Governor, Christine Gregoire has decided that its time for a new direction in how we administer state government. She is looking for efficiencies and savings in all agencies at all levels and has formed a Business and Labor Advisory Group on State Government Reform. Her vision for transforming state government includes:
• Focus on prioritizing core servicesThe governor has assured everyone that change will happen. How and what kind of change is still an open question. Of course, change can come with a whole load of baggage, mistakes can be made, and change does not always reflect what is best for the public or for our mission.
• Consolidate and streamline shared functions
• Serve the customer, i.e. the public, not the bureaucracy
• Identify priorities by comparing value against the investment of time and resources
• Involve citizens to strengthen our democracy and enrich our civil society
• Empower employees who actually deliver the services
• Build trust, openness, accountability, and integrity
• Embrace and reward creativity and innovation
Our director, Jay Manning has come to our Bargaining Unit and asked us to help Ecology to sort through the many nuances of what would be the best kind of change for our mission to protect the environment, serve the public interest, and preserve the many fine attributes of Ecology as an institution. His basic strategy: this is going to happen and we had better provide the best possible advice to the governor to preempt other, perhaps not so sound advice. He has turned to the bargaining unit, because it represents the rank and file, those people who best know just what is environmentally sound policy, what truly serves the public interest, and who know what is brightest about our agency. This represents a profound change from past interactions with our members and offers a level of respect and trust that is at last commensurate with our actual role in pursuing our mission.
The Bargaining Unit realized intuitively that the best way to accomplish this undertaking was to go directly to our members and ask for their collective insights, wisdom, and their practical experience.
This is a daunting task. There are as many opinions as there are members, not all information is available to everyone, and of course, there will be disagreements. How this divergent counsel would be organized into a practical and unified position to be presented to the Governor also presented an awesome challenge. Committee members from the Bargaining Unit were convinced, however, that this was the best approach and that we should find a means, at all costs.
Fortunately, there is new technology that can help with this. We proposed a Wiki, a shared site, where opinions could be aired and consolidated. This had some practical difficulties, so we settled for an Agency SharePoint, an Intranet site, where ideas could be presented and debated. Management agreed, and this has now become a reality.
Now it is up to you, our members, to bring this task to fruition. The leadership and activists of the Bargaining Unit urge you to visit this site, to share your well considered thoughts about the future of the agency. This is also the desire of Jay and our management. They need your advice. More importantly, you need to give it.
This is our opportunity. This is an open forum. No negative consequences will result from a free, honest, open opinion. Large and important positive consequences could result for both the agency and its employees. A lack of input could have equally dire consequences. Please, find the time to add you voice to this important endeavor. You will influence these changing times.
Summary of April's UMCC Meeting: Progress At Last On Certain Issues
By Paul Pickett
The Union-Management Communications Committee met on April 21, 2009. Attending for management were Jay Manning, Polly Zehm, Chris Parsons, Pat McLain, Amy Heller, Corrina McElfish, and Pam Durham. Employees were represented by Paul Pickett (Chair, HQ), Roger Johnson (CRO), Rebekah Padgett (NWRO), Alisa Huckaby (RO), Shara Trantrum (ERO), Kerry Graber (SWRO), and Barry Wenger (BFO – small offices). Debbie Brookman attended as staff representative for WFSE.
Top of the agenda were the agency’s budget problems.
Jay described the scene at the legislature, and union members thanked Jay for management’s level of effort in communicating with employees. Then Pat provided a detailed overview of management’s plans to respond to the budget when passed. Much of the complexities of this process – the many job classes, programs, job duties, and funding sources – were presented (much as you probably heard at the All-Hands Meeting on May 5, although in more detail.) Alisa expressed the desire of union members for a process that takes advantage of as many opportunities as possible while also being fair and equitable.
Paul explained some of the frustrations with the Water Quality Program RIF process in 2008. In particular, union members were not involved in decisions made prior to the RIF, and then were caught “flat-footed” with a management proposal for RIFs with little advance notice. He explained that the union was planning to assemble a negotiating team in advance so they were ready to negotiate RIF impacts if needed, and asked if it were possible to have more discussions in the pre-RIF process so we could contribute to the best possible outcome.
Polly expressed a willingness to involve the union in discussions prior to a formal RIF, if needed. Amy emphasized the need for a clear line between pre-layoff discussions and negotiations after a formal notice of layoff. Union members agreed that any actions prior to a formal RIF would be communication only, possibly as a subcommittee of the UMCC, while the union may propose to have the same team serve as the negotiating team should the formal RIF be needed.
Alisa asked about the information she had requested in February regarding the number of managers and how many employees they manage. Amy said that due to workload issues the analysis wasn’t completed. (It has since been provided to the UMCC.) Alisa expressed the union’s desire to see any budget cuts play out equitably for both represented employees and managers. Polly responded that management span of control would be reviewed in the light of position cuts, and small units questioned if they didn’t make sense. She also noted that a manager may have reversion rights to a represented position if they are cut, so that had to be factored in as well.
The UMCC discussed the vacancies shown on EPIC, and management assured employees that the positions were being reviewed and any truly “dead” positions would be abolished. However, positions whose funding was still possible would be retained. Chris explained that this “scrubbing” process was ongoing and should be completed soon. Employees asked that management make every effort to advertise new hirings, such as those from federal stimulus money, widely in the agency.
Management asked union members what they thought about voluntary leave without pay or furloughs.
Kerry said that some employees appear to want this opportunity, but only if it helps preserve jobs for their fellow employees, not for things like management bonuses or new cars. Polly and Chris explained the challenges with a voluntary furlough program and that it may be very difficult to implement in an agency with as many different duties and funding sources as Ecology.
At this point (late in the meeting) the topic switched to the use of meeting rooms at HQ/SWRO for union meeting. Paul noted that agency policy didn’t allow the use of any room for a union meeting that held more than 15 people, except the cafeteria which has impossible acoustics. He mentioned the problems last year with management resistance to a proposed union barbecue on the cafeteria patio and the visit by legislators to the building. Union members would like the policy modified, or at least clarified. Management’s interpretation of the current policy does not seem fair, especially considering the hundreds of members in the building, including SWRO staff, and the availability of larger rooms in the other Regions.
Management responded that the dining meeting rooms were available (R1S-16/17) and that they would look into whether the training rooms could be made available as well. Chris said that he didn’t see the need for a change in the policy, and that they would be open to considering our requests for larger rooms on a case-by-case basis. Union UMCC members view this as a significant relaxing of the stance taken by management historically.
Other issues discussed briefly near the end of the meeting:
The Union-Management Communications Committee met on April 21, 2009. Attending for management were Jay Manning, Polly Zehm, Chris Parsons, Pat McLain, Amy Heller, Corrina McElfish, and Pam Durham. Employees were represented by Paul Pickett (Chair, HQ), Roger Johnson (CRO), Rebekah Padgett (NWRO), Alisa Huckaby (RO), Shara Trantrum (ERO), Kerry Graber (SWRO), and Barry Wenger (BFO – small offices). Debbie Brookman attended as staff representative for WFSE.
Top of the agenda were the agency’s budget problems.
Jay described the scene at the legislature, and union members thanked Jay for management’s level of effort in communicating with employees. Then Pat provided a detailed overview of management’s plans to respond to the budget when passed. Much of the complexities of this process – the many job classes, programs, job duties, and funding sources – were presented (much as you probably heard at the All-Hands Meeting on May 5, although in more detail.) Alisa expressed the desire of union members for a process that takes advantage of as many opportunities as possible while also being fair and equitable.
Paul explained some of the frustrations with the Water Quality Program RIF process in 2008. In particular, union members were not involved in decisions made prior to the RIF, and then were caught “flat-footed” with a management proposal for RIFs with little advance notice. He explained that the union was planning to assemble a negotiating team in advance so they were ready to negotiate RIF impacts if needed, and asked if it were possible to have more discussions in the pre-RIF process so we could contribute to the best possible outcome.
Polly expressed a willingness to involve the union in discussions prior to a formal RIF, if needed. Amy emphasized the need for a clear line between pre-layoff discussions and negotiations after a formal notice of layoff. Union members agreed that any actions prior to a formal RIF would be communication only, possibly as a subcommittee of the UMCC, while the union may propose to have the same team serve as the negotiating team should the formal RIF be needed.
Alisa asked about the information she had requested in February regarding the number of managers and how many employees they manage. Amy said that due to workload issues the analysis wasn’t completed. (It has since been provided to the UMCC.) Alisa expressed the union’s desire to see any budget cuts play out equitably for both represented employees and managers. Polly responded that management span of control would be reviewed in the light of position cuts, and small units questioned if they didn’t make sense. She also noted that a manager may have reversion rights to a represented position if they are cut, so that had to be factored in as well.
The UMCC discussed the vacancies shown on EPIC, and management assured employees that the positions were being reviewed and any truly “dead” positions would be abolished. However, positions whose funding was still possible would be retained. Chris explained that this “scrubbing” process was ongoing and should be completed soon. Employees asked that management make every effort to advertise new hirings, such as those from federal stimulus money, widely in the agency.
Management asked union members what they thought about voluntary leave without pay or furloughs.
Kerry said that some employees appear to want this opportunity, but only if it helps preserve jobs for their fellow employees, not for things like management bonuses or new cars. Polly and Chris explained the challenges with a voluntary furlough program and that it may be very difficult to implement in an agency with as many different duties and funding sources as Ecology.
At this point (late in the meeting) the topic switched to the use of meeting rooms at HQ/SWRO for union meeting. Paul noted that agency policy didn’t allow the use of any room for a union meeting that held more than 15 people, except the cafeteria which has impossible acoustics. He mentioned the problems last year with management resistance to a proposed union barbecue on the cafeteria patio and the visit by legislators to the building. Union members would like the policy modified, or at least clarified. Management’s interpretation of the current policy does not seem fair, especially considering the hundreds of members in the building, including SWRO staff, and the availability of larger rooms in the other Regions.
Management responded that the dining meeting rooms were available (R1S-16/17) and that they would look into whether the training rooms could be made available as well. Chris said that he didn’t see the need for a change in the policy, and that they would be open to considering our requests for larger rooms on a case-by-case basis. Union UMCC members view this as a significant relaxing of the stance taken by management historically.
Other issues discussed briefly near the end of the meeting:
- Relatives in reporting relationships. Management is working on a policy on this issue. Union members suggested reviewing policies in place at other agencies. However, we recognize that some agencies have draconian policies, and want a balanced approach. Our values are privacy, fairness, and not having an appearance of unfairness, and starting from those values is the best approach.
- Inclement weather. Carol Fleskes is continuing with her “hot wash” of the December storms. Polly will report to the UMCC in June.
- Clerical Class Study. Union members have been trying to find out the outcomes for quite some time. Amy and Pam offered to create a report and send it to Debbie, or meet with Debbie and a UMCC employee member.
- Whistleblower Training. Union members have been hoping for some training on the new provisions passed in the 2008 legislature. Chris said that he is not planning any training, but information is available at the State Auditor’s website. Kerry suggested that this might be a topic for an employee forum.
- Government Reform UMCC Subcommittee. The subcommittee has been meeting and working on a wiki or SharePoint site for employee input. It should roll out in May with a joint email from Jay and subcommittee Chair Guy Hoyle-Dodson. (See article elsewhere in this bulletin.)
Seniority List Lacks Veteran Time
Please take note that employees who have spent time in the service do not have this accounted for in their seniority listing. Time served as a veteran must be added when there is a RIF. Human Resources will add this time to a person’s seniority if the individual identified for RIF has spent time in the service.
Chris Parsons, HR director, explained that not listing Veteran’s status is a way of respecting the privacy of individual employees who may be concerned about discrimination. Chris has asked for a second list to be compiled that accounts for time in the service. This list will more accurately report seniority for the purpose of RIF consideration.
Be sure to check your own status on the currently posted list and contact human resources as soon as possible if you have questions or concerns. ■
Chris Parsons, HR director, explained that not listing Veteran’s status is a way of respecting the privacy of individual employees who may be concerned about discrimination. Chris has asked for a second list to be compiled that accounts for time in the service. This list will more accurately report seniority for the purpose of RIF consideration.
Be sure to check your own status on the currently posted list and contact human resources as soon as possible if you have questions or concerns. ■
Here is the current status of past issues discussed by the UMCC
The following list of issues are still on the table and under discussion for the statewide Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC). Meetings with Chris Parsons, Amy Heller, Polly Zehm, and sometimes Jay Manning have been held over nearly two years. Please contact your UMCC representative with proposals of new issues about communications with Ecology management.
- Environmental Specialist/Planner 4 designations – (2/18/09) Polly agreed to review any situations we bring to her attention where we feel an employee is working out of class. She did indicate that the review may result in duties being pulled rather than an upward reallocation. Outcome: no action until the union provides specific examples.
- Environmental Specialist pay – (2/18/09) Chris had previously indicated that an agency-sponsored package was being developed for submission to DOP for the next round of contract negotiations. Outcome: This has been put on hold due to DOP’s current refusal to consider any such packages until the budget crisis is past. In the meantime, we may engage in on-going discussion about the ES pay issues in the hopes that collaboration can occur in the future.
- High Cost-Of-Living Area pay – (12/1/08) Chris related that Jay is interested in addressing this through a package to DOP. Outcome: At this time, this is on hold due to budget issues.
- Time Accounting System – (12/1/08) Amy committed to pass along the ideas we provided to her for improving the system. She also promised to let us know what kind of response our ideas receive. Outcome: no action to date.
- Spills Program Budget – (12/1/08) Dale promised to check-in with the stewards in Spills more regularly regarding concerns and anxiety around the budget. He also said he would “think about” our offer to collaboratively work with the program to address budget issues. Outcome: uncertain, no specific activities to date.
- Workplace Behavior (we call it “bullying,” they call it “uncivil workplace behavior”) – (10/20/08) The tentative agreement calls for joint training on the new CBA provisions. Outcome: Amy wants to revisit this issue after she begins implementing the new contract. Our goal is to provide this training jointly and on work time.
- Jay Manning in the field – (7/18/08) On Jay’s behalf, Polly stated that Jay is willing to spend more time in the field and accompanying employees while they do their work to get a better understanding of the non-enforcement side of field work. Outcome: uncertain.
- More UMCC Ad Hoc’s to address regional issues – (7/18/08) Polly and Amy confirmed willingness to form ad hoc UMCC’s to address region specific issues such as bike lockers at NWRO. Outcome: none to date.
- Budget 101 – (7/18/08) Polly agreed to talk to Pat McLain about developing education for all employees on how the agency budget works. In the same meeting, it was acknowledged that the Water Quality budget needs to be explained to employees. Outcome: improved communication from management about the budget process.
- Exchange Time – (2/14/08) Chris said he would provide specific citations in the law that justifies the Agency’s position on denying one-for-one exchange time. Outcome: no response to date.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)