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:

• 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

The article on union management communications committees (UMCCs) was also strengthened so that regular meetings are scheduled. The article also clarifies the use of a collaborative process with solutions to improve the effectiveness of this group, and agreements will be documented. Release time for travel and preparation also added. This change is important to our bargaining unit because of the lengthy list of unresolved issues our own UMCC has pursued with management.

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.

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:

• Focus on prioritizing core services
• 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

The 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.

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:

• 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.)

For more details or questions about the UMCC, contact your UMCC employee representative. ■

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. ■

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.