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.
No comments:
Post a Comment