By Paul Pickett, Assistant Chief Steward
Some employee members of WFSE have been discussing whether Ecology should have its own agency-based Local. Over the next few months we will explore this issue in a series of articles.
Last month I shared information about Locals: what they are and what they do. Listed below are many of the issues and how an agency-based Local compares to a geographic Local.
Solidarity. A geographic Local allows Ecology employees to work side-by-side with employees in other agencies. They can learn what they have in common and support each other on solving their problems. An agency-based Local might isolate employees and reduce their power to address systemic issues.
Self-determination. Members in an agency-based Local have greater control over decision-making, including the selection of delegates and financial decisions. Geographic Locals are often dominated by the larger agencies or by cliques of very active member leaders. With the broader range of issues in a geographic Local, issues of concern to Ecology may be lost or ignored.
Access to Financial Resources. An agency-based Local would have its own budget and be able to make decisions quickly about funding for projects. Each Local gets funded at a set amount per member. A Local based on members in the Ecology Lacey building alone could have an annual budget of over $10,000 per year. This could greatly expand the variety of events and projects undertaken. For example, an Ecology Local could pay for speakers or sponsor events.
Legal Responsibilities. A Local has responsibilities under the Union rules and constitution and under federal and state laws, including auditing of books and proper procedure for decision-making. A new agency-based Local will have to develop this expertise to be successful. The broader base of membership and greater experience of the geographic Local helps ensure consistency and continuity for compliance with rules and laws. On the other hand, the geographic Local is more complex and has a larger budget, and compliance may be easier for a small agency-based Local.
Leadership of the Organization. The geographic Local has a larger pool of members from which to find leadership. Finding enough active people to fill leadership positions is a challenge even in a large Local. An agency-based Local might find it even more difficult to get the commitment of time from its members to meet its leadership needs.
Self-empowerment. Because of its smaller size and greater self-determination, an agency-based Local may bring more members into active roles. The large size of the geographic Local is sometimes a disincentive to active participation.
Member Access. The geographic Local allow members to attend Local meetings that are relatively nearby. An agency-based Local based on multiple locations statewide would have the challenge of ensuring access to the Local meetings for all members. Part of the Local budget may be spent paying for travel for members or for telecommunications resources. The agency video-conferencing system would not be available! Meeting might need to be rotated around the state for fairness. On the other hand, geographic Locals are sometimes no more convenient if they represent a large area. In addition, the schedule and agenda of geographic Local meetings may make them relatively inaccessible if the meetings are long, boring, and at an inconvenient time.
Political Clout. The geographic Local can have great influence on politics locally. They are able to endorse with the voice of a diverse membership and mobilize resources in support of candidates and issues. The agency-based Local will have less clout due to its smaller size and narrower focus. However, a Local at Ecology could focus more attention on issues unique to our agency, addressing both traditional labor issues and environmental issues. It would have more freedom to build alliances with environmental groups that support the agency mission.
Flexibility and Responsiveness. A smaller agency-based Local could make decisions and respond to emerging issues much more quickly than a geographic Local. Decision-making in larger Locals is often cumbersome and slow. An agency-based Local could be more nimble in bringing resources to bear on problems.
This discuss may have triggered more ideas and questions in your mind. We encourage you to continue this analysis with your fellow members, stewards, and member leaders. One opportunity is the Bargaining Unit meeting every second Tuesday at noon.
Our next article will look existing agency-based Locals in natural resource agencies to see how they function. ■
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Democracy is not a spectator sport
The legislature is in session, and never before has your involvement been so important. Many bills may affect you personally or impact your fellow employees.
We could see mandated furloughs (i.e. less pay!) or jobs contracted out. On the other hand we could see increased “pay to play” fees to replace General Funds and preserve employee jobs. How can you be a player?
Furlough Bill, SSB 6503, Passes Out of Committee and Moves On to the Floor of the House – excerpted from the WFSE Hotline
The House Ways and Means Committee on Monday night passed out the state employee furlough bill, SSB 6503, somewhat better than it was but still a bad bill.
The bill as it passed the committee gives agencies more flexibility to reduce compensation costs that could include furloughs. The bill does not mandate furloughs, but if agencies don’t come up with plans, then employees in that agency would have to take 11 days of temporary layoff or furlough. An earlier House draft had mandated furlough days whether an agency submitted a plan or not. SSB 6503 as it passed the committee also calls for $50 million in state compensation savings, with $10 million coming from the Washington Management Service and the exempt service. The Senate version called for $69 million in savings, with no mandate in WMS and EMS.
Each General Government agency unit would bargain separately. For Higher Education, it appears that all but the University of Washington and Washington State University would bargain in one big coalition of all unions. UW and WSU would bargain separately.
On the final committee vote, Rep. Sam Hunt, D-22nd Dist., and Rep. Steve Conway, D-29th Dist., voted no.
The full House may vote on the bill later this week.
We could see mandated furloughs (i.e. less pay!) or jobs contracted out. On the other hand we could see increased “pay to play” fees to replace General Funds and preserve employee jobs. How can you be a player?
- Write your legislators about bills that affect our agency.
- Check the WFSE Hotline (www.wfse.com) for breaking news, or better yet, subscribe to their email hotline.
- Call your legislators about fast-moving bills.
- Be a member-lobbyist and tell your story to legislators face to face.
- Attend rallies that stand up for state employees.
- 2459 - Updating hazardous waste fee provisions.
- 2508 - Regarding water right processing improvements.
- 2591 - Recovering the actual cost of processing applications for water right permits.
- 2998 - Suspending certain monetary awards and salary increases.
- 3070 - Providing fiscal reform.
- 3080 - Regarding information technology in state government.
- 6242 - Updating hazardous waste fee provisions.
- 6257 - Concerning water discharge fees.
- 6267 - Regarding water right processing improvements.
- 6503 - Closing state agencies on specified dates.
- Visit the legislative website (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/) and look up the bill read the bill or the bill report.
- Visit TVW and watch the committee hearing on the bill.
Furlough Bill, SSB 6503, Passes Out of Committee and Moves On to the Floor of the House – excerpted from the WFSE Hotline
The House Ways and Means Committee on Monday night passed out the state employee furlough bill, SSB 6503, somewhat better than it was but still a bad bill.
The bill as it passed the committee gives agencies more flexibility to reduce compensation costs that could include furloughs. The bill does not mandate furloughs, but if agencies don’t come up with plans, then employees in that agency would have to take 11 days of temporary layoff or furlough. An earlier House draft had mandated furlough days whether an agency submitted a plan or not. SSB 6503 as it passed the committee also calls for $50 million in state compensation savings, with $10 million coming from the Washington Management Service and the exempt service. The Senate version called for $69 million in savings, with no mandate in WMS and EMS.
Each General Government agency unit would bargain separately. For Higher Education, it appears that all but the University of Washington and Washington State University would bargain in one big coalition of all unions. UW and WSU would bargain separately.
On the final committee vote, Rep. Sam Hunt, D-22nd Dist., and Rep. Steve Conway, D-29th Dist., voted no.
The full House may vote on the bill later this week.
Union Management Communications Committee Notes
– By Kerry Graber and Debbie Brookman
The Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) convened in January with five primary agenda items to discuss, and two items added at the beginning of the meeting. The following were present:
Ecology Management: Polly Zehm, Corinna McElfish, Amy Heller, Chris Parsons, Pat McLain; Ted Sturdevant attended the last half hour.
Ecology Representatives for WFSE: Kerry Graber - chair, Kurt Unger, Charles San Juan, Scott Mallery, Shara Trantum, Kathy Conaway, Roger Johnson, Kasey Ignac, Sally Lawrence, Debbie Brookman
1. Hiring Practices – Employee concerns were raised about a number of hiring practices that are unfair, and create the perception of the system being manipulated to favor certain employees over others. Examples of changes in past practices were discussed. There were certain practices, such as announcing position openings consistently by internet, which are now not being done.
We asked for more transparency, for jobs to continue to be posted on the intranet, and for recruitments to be as broad as possible.
Chris replied that they’ve been trying to fix the problem of rampant reallocations rather than promotions. They have been having recruitments that limit opportunity to within the section to avoid budget issues and/or layoffs. Ecology is trying to create a process that allows promotional opportunities. He agreed that they also like to open recruitments as wide as possible – agency wide. But, circumstances don’t allow it if it requires an alternate position in the program to be abolished. (For example, if the person awarded the promotion will have their position abolished “behind them.”)
Amy feels the contract provides the ability to limit recruitment. She agreed with Chris that they do prefer to have broad recruitment but it is not always possible. Chris has been emphasizing to program managers that there are a lot of tools out there so that overuse of reallocations should be reduced.
Chris will let Debbie know if there are any changes to hiring processes between now and the next UMCC.
2. Budget Ad Hoc – Scott thanked management for sitting down with us over the last few months to discuss budget related issues in the wake of the last reduction-in-force (RIF). The remaining issues:
a. Feedback on WMS numbers
b. Priorities and workload
c. Positions vs. FTE’s – which numbers are correct?
d. Funded vacancies – Where are they? How are they being filled? How are they funded?
Amy and Chris want to sunset the adhoc committee and instead talk about budget at the Statewide UMCC. They are willing to meet more frequently, i.e. monthly, and to allow an additional person to attend (Scott, as a resource). The union could also adjust the participation and agenda at specific meetings where the budget will be discussed more extensively.
Kerry expressed concerns about leaving out the people on the budget adhoc that are fully engaged in the topic, and burdening the UMCC with this potentially time consuming agenda that might dominate over other employee issues. Also meeting more often is difficult given scheduling challenges. We agreed to take this to our leadership group and the adhoc committee.
(Note: The next UMCC meeting could not be scheduled until March because the video conferencing system would not be available until then.)
3. Budget Update – Pat McLain explained there’s not much that’s new since the last updates that have gone out to all staff. Ecology’s internet page has a budget snapshot available.
Kerry asked about revenue options and what the agency is doing in that direction. Pat explained that they’ve created a table of all fees and an estimation of how much of the work is actually paid for by the fee for the Office of Financial Management. The legislature has been asking for information on fees, too. The governor has not officially taken a position on increasing revenue and Ecology has not been asked for specific revenue packages. A few fee adjustments have been proposed.
Given this, a lot of the internal focus in on the ’11-13 biennium – we need a supported, thoughtful package for the legislature. This spring, the agency’s strategic plan will be updated. They’ll be looking at the fund portfolio and developing a strategy for improving revenue. They’ll be looking at what should be moved to general fund, and what federal funding should be increased.
Kurt expressed concern that the Water Resources program sees the Water Quality section actively going after fees while Water Resources seems to want to give the work up to the private sector. Polly explained further the timing of the issue – whether or not to move the Water Resources program into a fee based system rather than a general fund based system.
4. Travel Limitations – For some employees avoiding unnecessary travel has worked out. In other cases employees have been compelled to travel to meetings that could have been easily attended by conference phone.
We believe employees should not attend in person if they don’t need to and that we should all challenge ourselves to travel less and attend via VTC and phone more. We’re also seeing PMT’s revert back to more frequent meetings with managers starting again to travel regularly across the state to attend in person.
We realize managers may need to travel more than line-level employees but it just doesn’t look right given the extent to which it is happening. Some employees complain that they’re being denied training opportunities and travel – there’s not much consistency program by program. The burden is not being equally shared. Kurt suggested the PMT might not need to meet as often – maybe every 6 weeks instead of monthly.
Charles made an observation that we’ve heard criticism from staff that their managers end up going to conferences in place of line staff. We’ve seen examples where the person working on the project doesn’t get to go but the manager does. It makes no sense.
Kerry also expressed the concern with out-of-state travel. There’s a lack of transparency that creates a perception by employees who feel they can’t get the travel and training they need to do their job. On the other hand, we see managers traveling to Copenhagen paid for by entities with which Ecology has a contractual relationship, an ethical concern.
Polly explained an NGO paid for the Copenhagen trip. She said was evaluated to ensure there were no ethics violations, although she did not offer any details.
Polly understands the concern the union is expressing. She thinks there will always be criticism. However, she is committed to working with managers about travel issues. She’s heard these concerns from other sources as well. She wants travel to occur when necessary and to not occur when there are less expensive options. She will continue to work with managers on management team travel. She’ll touch basis with the NWRO management team to make sure they’re sensitive to the travel issues between Bellingham and Bellevue.
Polly assured the team that she evaluates very closely any out-of-state travel requests. Most of this travel is related to the climate change governor’s executive order.
5. Communication Issues – Kerry complimented the quality of communication sent to employees on important issues. However, the timeliness of communication is occasionally a concern. For example, the print cost-tracking software was in place a few months before it was announced. This created a rumor of a “conspiracy” to collect information against staff.
Pat shared that the state auditor recently commended us for implementation of the print management program but agrees that the more information employees have, the less likely they are to think there is a conspiracy. (Ted Sturdevant was able to join the UMCC at this point in the agenda…)
6. Contracting Out - Debbie explained that we see patterns in the use of contracting-out that may be better served by building skills in-house. For example, Ecology seems to have an on-going need for facilitation. The amount of money spent on facilitation contracts is enormous. Other examples include high-level hydrogeologist modeling, community outreach, and management consulting.
Ted agreed to consider “contracting-in” when we have the talent, especially when we have such difficult budget times.
Kurt added that a lot of the work contracted out in the Water Resources program goes to consultants for the rule making processes. The issue is becoming more pronounced as we do more of this. The consultants rely on the staff that has all the program knowledge. We end up feeling that we do all the work for them but they get all the dollars. It doesn’t make sense. The need for 3rd party neutrality as the reason to hire facilitation outside the agency comes up repeatedly but it’s unfair to assume that Ecology employees can’t be objective or neutral. We are capable of listening and responding to stakeholders.
We’ve also seen a few cases where the summary of the contract provided the union for review doesn’t match up with the details of the contract and work assignment. We may be asking for more information. We’ll be paying more attention to all of this because jobs are at stake. Every dollar spent on a contract is money that could be spent on jobs in Ecology.
Ted asked for more information regarding Storm Water contracting. Scott explained that almost 1.5 million dollars in grant money was allocated to give to local governments/entities to develop strategies for low impact development (LID). Pat explained that these grants are funded through the local toxics account – the grants can only go to local entities. She explained that this statutory requirement is putting us the spot where we really can’t do the work because of how the funding is structured in the statute. Kerry pointed out to Ted that as Director we (the employees) work for him. When he’s talking to the legislature about bills that give out grants to others for our work, he needs to be looking out for his people and fighting for us too.
Ted gave us some thoughts… There are shared interests here. Growing capacity is something he thinks about. With the facilitation example, there are issues there that can’t be ignored. Sometimes there’s a concern with neutrality, in reality and in perception. If we’ve gotten into a mindset where we always default to an outside contractor for neutrality we may need to change that mindset. Capacity and appropriate skill sets are also an issue. Regarding capacity, how do we build capacity for work that is intermittent? It’s a challenge. Due to the current budget issues, we’re not in a mode of building capacity – we’re in a mode of reducing capacity.
Two key things to look at - will it be viewed as an objective process if Ecology is running it? There’s a lot of tension in the public about Ecology’s motives. The other issue is the intermittent nature of some of the work. We try to find balance.
Kerry said that we have worked on agreements on contracts that meet intermittent needs, and by agreement it hasn’t set a precedent for contracting out our work indefinitely. The point is we can work things out, even for intermittent needs as long as it is done wisely and with jobs in mind.
These issues deserve scrutiny - we are asking the agency to push back when managers ask to contract out.
Ted responded that if we can come together and have a discussion about building capacity, he has no problem keeping as much work in-house as possible.
7. Legislative lobbying (management issue) – Ted explained a need for on-going conversation about legislative priorities. Ecology employees and union membership can create a conflict with time and lobbying. We also don’t want to provide ammunition to those who look for impropriety or an appearance of inappropriate collusion.
Kerry committed to bringing this message to our union leadership group and stewards so that we all understand where the line is. We may not always agree where the line is drawn and that requires a continued discussion at the UMCC when issues arise.
Charles asked if Ted had any suggestions for how we can work more cooperatively on issues where we do have an intersection of interest. Ted did not have a quick answer but is interested in hearing ideas. ■
The Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) convened in January with five primary agenda items to discuss, and two items added at the beginning of the meeting. The following were present:
Ecology Management: Polly Zehm, Corinna McElfish, Amy Heller, Chris Parsons, Pat McLain; Ted Sturdevant attended the last half hour.
Ecology Representatives for WFSE: Kerry Graber - chair, Kurt Unger, Charles San Juan, Scott Mallery, Shara Trantum, Kathy Conaway, Roger Johnson, Kasey Ignac, Sally Lawrence, Debbie Brookman
1. Hiring Practices – Employee concerns were raised about a number of hiring practices that are unfair, and create the perception of the system being manipulated to favor certain employees over others. Examples of changes in past practices were discussed. There were certain practices, such as announcing position openings consistently by internet, which are now not being done.
We asked for more transparency, for jobs to continue to be posted on the intranet, and for recruitments to be as broad as possible.
Chris replied that they’ve been trying to fix the problem of rampant reallocations rather than promotions. They have been having recruitments that limit opportunity to within the section to avoid budget issues and/or layoffs. Ecology is trying to create a process that allows promotional opportunities. He agreed that they also like to open recruitments as wide as possible – agency wide. But, circumstances don’t allow it if it requires an alternate position in the program to be abolished. (For example, if the person awarded the promotion will have their position abolished “behind them.”)
Amy feels the contract provides the ability to limit recruitment. She agreed with Chris that they do prefer to have broad recruitment but it is not always possible. Chris has been emphasizing to program managers that there are a lot of tools out there so that overuse of reallocations should be reduced.
Chris will let Debbie know if there are any changes to hiring processes between now and the next UMCC.
2. Budget Ad Hoc – Scott thanked management for sitting down with us over the last few months to discuss budget related issues in the wake of the last reduction-in-force (RIF). The remaining issues:
a. Feedback on WMS numbers
b. Priorities and workload
c. Positions vs. FTE’s – which numbers are correct?
d. Funded vacancies – Where are they? How are they being filled? How are they funded?
Amy and Chris want to sunset the adhoc committee and instead talk about budget at the Statewide UMCC. They are willing to meet more frequently, i.e. monthly, and to allow an additional person to attend (Scott, as a resource). The union could also adjust the participation and agenda at specific meetings where the budget will be discussed more extensively.
Kerry expressed concerns about leaving out the people on the budget adhoc that are fully engaged in the topic, and burdening the UMCC with this potentially time consuming agenda that might dominate over other employee issues. Also meeting more often is difficult given scheduling challenges. We agreed to take this to our leadership group and the adhoc committee.
(Note: The next UMCC meeting could not be scheduled until March because the video conferencing system would not be available until then.)
3. Budget Update – Pat McLain explained there’s not much that’s new since the last updates that have gone out to all staff. Ecology’s internet page has a budget snapshot available.
Kerry asked about revenue options and what the agency is doing in that direction. Pat explained that they’ve created a table of all fees and an estimation of how much of the work is actually paid for by the fee for the Office of Financial Management. The legislature has been asking for information on fees, too. The governor has not officially taken a position on increasing revenue and Ecology has not been asked for specific revenue packages. A few fee adjustments have been proposed.
Given this, a lot of the internal focus in on the ’11-13 biennium – we need a supported, thoughtful package for the legislature. This spring, the agency’s strategic plan will be updated. They’ll be looking at the fund portfolio and developing a strategy for improving revenue. They’ll be looking at what should be moved to general fund, and what federal funding should be increased.
Kurt expressed concern that the Water Resources program sees the Water Quality section actively going after fees while Water Resources seems to want to give the work up to the private sector. Polly explained further the timing of the issue – whether or not to move the Water Resources program into a fee based system rather than a general fund based system.
4. Travel Limitations – For some employees avoiding unnecessary travel has worked out. In other cases employees have been compelled to travel to meetings that could have been easily attended by conference phone.
We believe employees should not attend in person if they don’t need to and that we should all challenge ourselves to travel less and attend via VTC and phone more. We’re also seeing PMT’s revert back to more frequent meetings with managers starting again to travel regularly across the state to attend in person.
We realize managers may need to travel more than line-level employees but it just doesn’t look right given the extent to which it is happening. Some employees complain that they’re being denied training opportunities and travel – there’s not much consistency program by program. The burden is not being equally shared. Kurt suggested the PMT might not need to meet as often – maybe every 6 weeks instead of monthly.
Charles made an observation that we’ve heard criticism from staff that their managers end up going to conferences in place of line staff. We’ve seen examples where the person working on the project doesn’t get to go but the manager does. It makes no sense.
Kerry also expressed the concern with out-of-state travel. There’s a lack of transparency that creates a perception by employees who feel they can’t get the travel and training they need to do their job. On the other hand, we see managers traveling to Copenhagen paid for by entities with which Ecology has a contractual relationship, an ethical concern.
Polly explained an NGO paid for the Copenhagen trip. She said was evaluated to ensure there were no ethics violations, although she did not offer any details.
Polly understands the concern the union is expressing. She thinks there will always be criticism. However, she is committed to working with managers about travel issues. She’s heard these concerns from other sources as well. She wants travel to occur when necessary and to not occur when there are less expensive options. She will continue to work with managers on management team travel. She’ll touch basis with the NWRO management team to make sure they’re sensitive to the travel issues between Bellingham and Bellevue.
Polly assured the team that she evaluates very closely any out-of-state travel requests. Most of this travel is related to the climate change governor’s executive order.
5. Communication Issues – Kerry complimented the quality of communication sent to employees on important issues. However, the timeliness of communication is occasionally a concern. For example, the print cost-tracking software was in place a few months before it was announced. This created a rumor of a “conspiracy” to collect information against staff.
Pat shared that the state auditor recently commended us for implementation of the print management program but agrees that the more information employees have, the less likely they are to think there is a conspiracy. (Ted Sturdevant was able to join the UMCC at this point in the agenda…)
6. Contracting Out - Debbie explained that we see patterns in the use of contracting-out that may be better served by building skills in-house. For example, Ecology seems to have an on-going need for facilitation. The amount of money spent on facilitation contracts is enormous. Other examples include high-level hydrogeologist modeling, community outreach, and management consulting.
Ted agreed to consider “contracting-in” when we have the talent, especially when we have such difficult budget times.
Kurt added that a lot of the work contracted out in the Water Resources program goes to consultants for the rule making processes. The issue is becoming more pronounced as we do more of this. The consultants rely on the staff that has all the program knowledge. We end up feeling that we do all the work for them but they get all the dollars. It doesn’t make sense. The need for 3rd party neutrality as the reason to hire facilitation outside the agency comes up repeatedly but it’s unfair to assume that Ecology employees can’t be objective or neutral. We are capable of listening and responding to stakeholders.
We’ve also seen a few cases where the summary of the contract provided the union for review doesn’t match up with the details of the contract and work assignment. We may be asking for more information. We’ll be paying more attention to all of this because jobs are at stake. Every dollar spent on a contract is money that could be spent on jobs in Ecology.
Ted asked for more information regarding Storm Water contracting. Scott explained that almost 1.5 million dollars in grant money was allocated to give to local governments/entities to develop strategies for low impact development (LID). Pat explained that these grants are funded through the local toxics account – the grants can only go to local entities. She explained that this statutory requirement is putting us the spot where we really can’t do the work because of how the funding is structured in the statute. Kerry pointed out to Ted that as Director we (the employees) work for him. When he’s talking to the legislature about bills that give out grants to others for our work, he needs to be looking out for his people and fighting for us too.
Ted gave us some thoughts… There are shared interests here. Growing capacity is something he thinks about. With the facilitation example, there are issues there that can’t be ignored. Sometimes there’s a concern with neutrality, in reality and in perception. If we’ve gotten into a mindset where we always default to an outside contractor for neutrality we may need to change that mindset. Capacity and appropriate skill sets are also an issue. Regarding capacity, how do we build capacity for work that is intermittent? It’s a challenge. Due to the current budget issues, we’re not in a mode of building capacity – we’re in a mode of reducing capacity.
Two key things to look at - will it be viewed as an objective process if Ecology is running it? There’s a lot of tension in the public about Ecology’s motives. The other issue is the intermittent nature of some of the work. We try to find balance.
Kerry said that we have worked on agreements on contracts that meet intermittent needs, and by agreement it hasn’t set a precedent for contracting out our work indefinitely. The point is we can work things out, even for intermittent needs as long as it is done wisely and with jobs in mind.
These issues deserve scrutiny - we are asking the agency to push back when managers ask to contract out.
Ted responded that if we can come together and have a discussion about building capacity, he has no problem keeping as much work in-house as possible.
7. Legislative lobbying (management issue) – Ted explained a need for on-going conversation about legislative priorities. Ecology employees and union membership can create a conflict with time and lobbying. We also don’t want to provide ammunition to those who look for impropriety or an appearance of inappropriate collusion.
Kerry committed to bringing this message to our union leadership group and stewards so that we all understand where the line is. We may not always agree where the line is drawn and that requires a continued discussion at the UMCC when issues arise.
Charles asked if Ted had any suggestions for how we can work more cooperatively on issues where we do have an intersection of interest. Ted did not have a quick answer but is interested in hearing ideas. ■
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)