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
No comments:
Post a Comment