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

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

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 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.